Just when I thought that Republicans may be finally getting their act together, with at least some forming a strong conservative opposition to Obama, I find out that at least some Republicans evidently cannot read or understand the Constitution.
I guess this has been going on for a while, but I just found out about it tonight. Evidently, Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah has co-sponsored a bill in the Senate, which grew from a plan devised by a Republican, Thomas M. Davis III from Virginia, which would grant the District of Columbia a VOTING seat in the House of Representatives in 'exchange' for an additional representative from the state of Utah. I suppose Article 1, Section 2 is not clear enough for Senator Hatch.
If Republicans cannot be counted on to defend the Constitution over something so basic, what hope do we have against Obama and his ongoing socialist revolution?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
howdy - I just came across your blog...good job.
I'm not sure the issue is as clear-cut as it seems. I assume your objection is that Art. I Sec. 2 refers to "states" having members in the House. But the interesting thing is that it requires each state to have at least one representative, but does not really say that non-states cannot have a representative. I'm not sure the founders considered non-state territories within the US when they wrote it.
I'm not saying it is a good plan (I don't want the people who have turned DC into the most crime-ridden city in the country to have any say in what happens to this country), but I think it does pose an interesting Constitutional question.
Anyway, good blog - I will certainly be following it. Check out my blog too if you get a chance.
Well, you make a good point, but I would argue that it is quite clear, going back all the way to the Federalist Papers, what the founders intentions for the seat of government was. The district clause in Article 1 Section 8 makes it very clear that district is not to be part of any state, and under the sole authority of congress. This was done so that no state could have too much influence with the federal government.
An article that explains what I feel is the correct position on all of this can be found at the Heritage Foundation here:
http://www.heritage.org/research/legalissues/lm37.cfm
Attempts to give the district voting rights over the years have always failed, primarily because of the realization that any such attempt would be unconstitutional. MY fear is, that in today's atmosphere of passing legislation REGARDLESS of constitutionality, the Mccain-Feingold act for example, and the Supreme Courts seeming willingness to let such obvious things stand, that we could be opening a real Pandora's box, ESPECIALLY with this administration in power, if we do not stand up to such attempts to undermine the Constitution. This is what I EXPECT Republicans to do, regardless of how 'trivial' the issue may seem, or how 'creative' a solution they can come up with.
great article, thanks!
I guess my thinking on why it is not so clear-cut is that granting DC a voting seat is not the same as granting it the powers of a state. It will still be governed strictly by Federal law, but in a way, it does make sense that it would have a voice in the body that governs it.
Completely agree with you on the Constitution though. It has been stretched to such ridiculous extremes that the founders must be rolling in their graves...
Post a Comment