Posted by
Always To The Right on Tuesday, February 24, 2009 1:16:24 PM
The House of Representatives shall be composed of
Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States …
No Person shall be a Representative who shall not … when elected, be an
Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.
- Article I of the United States Constitution [1]
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and
the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and
judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States,
shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution.
- Article VI of the United States Constitution [1]
For all of its many ambiguities, on the matter of whether the
residents of the District of Columbia can vote in the House of
Representatives, the United States Constitution is crystal clear: no.
In 2000 the United States District Court for the District of Columbia
affirmed this truth, writing [2]:
“The Constitution does not contemplate that the District may serve as a
state for purposes of the apportionment of congressional
representatives.” The Supreme Court later affirmed that decision.
Despite the clarity of the law, Senate leaders have scheduled a vote
today on S. 160, which would create two new seats in the House of
Representatives and give one of them to the District of Columbia. The
new fig leaf the left is using to push this blatantly unconstitutional
measure is the argument that Art.1 sec. 8’s grant to Congress to
exercise “exclusive Legislation” over the District, gives them the
power to grant the District a seat in the House. Heritage fellow Hans
von Spakovsky exposes [2] how specious this claim is:
The Constitution’s provision giving Congress the power
to run the affairs of the District of Columbia — the seat of the
nation’s capitol — doesn’t wipe out other parts of the document.
Congress could not, for example, restrict the First Amendment rights of
District residents.
Furthermore, the very same section of the Constitution also applies
to “Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards” and other federal
properties. But it would be ridiculous to assert, on the basis of that
text, that Congress has the power to award House seats to an army base,
federal office building, or Navy pier.
Conservatives are not alone in pointing out what a blatant violation
of the Constitution S. 160 would be. Liberal constitutional scholar
Jonathan Turley writes [3]:
It would be ridiculous to suggest that the delegates to
the Constitutional Convention or ratification conventions would have
worked out such specific and exacting rules for the composition of
Congress, only to give the majority of Congress the right to create a
new form of voting members from federal enclaves like the District. It
would have constituted the realization of the worst fears for many
delegates, particularly Anti-Federalists, to have an open-ended ability
of the majority to manipulate the rolls of Congress and to use areas
under the exclusive control of the federal government as the source for
new voting members.
Some Senators appear to believe they can in good conscience vote for
explicitly unconstitutional legislation if they include a provision in
the bill that allows a Member of Congress to challenge the law in
court. But such a provision would only clear statutory standing. Any
plaintiff would also have to muster constitutional standing and as
Heritage scholars Andrew Grossman and Nathaniel Ward detail, Congress has the power to play political games with voting in the House to prevent such a suit from ever happening [4].
Members of Congress take an oath to defend the Constitution. This
makes them duty bound to oppose any legislation that is
unconstitutional. It would be black eye on the entire Congress if they
chose political expediency over their solemn promise to the American
people.
Article printed from The Foundry: http://blog.heritage.org
URL to article: http://blog.heritage.org/2009/02/24/morning-bell-the-oath-and-the-district-of-columbia/
URLs in this post:
[1] United States Constitution : http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
[2] writing: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTg3YWYxZjc4Y2RiMWI3MWE5YzE2ODMzYWY4NmY4MmM=
[3] writes: http://jonathanturley.org/2008/02/18/too-clever-by-half-the-constitutional-argument-against-the-current-voting-bill-for-the-district-of-columbia/
[4] Congress has the power to play political games with voting in the House to prevent such a suit from ever happening: http://www.heritage.org/Research/LegalIssues/lm37.cfm