Here's the body of an email I sent to Senator Cantwell and Senator Murray:
In January, you took an oath to uphold the Constitution.
Last Thursday, you voted for S. 160, which provides a House seat to the District of Columbia. That bill conflicts, directly, with Article I, Section 2, of the Constitution, which says that the House members must be chosen by the states. The District of Columbia is not a state.
If you are unwilling to honor your oath to defend the Constitution, then you should resign.
(For the record, I would be delighted if we could find a way to give residents of the District a vote in Congress, either through a constitutional amendment, or, even better, transferring the District, except for federal property, to Maryland.)
I have posted this letter at Sound Politics and will post any reply there, too.
You can contact Senator Cantwell here and Senator Murray here.
(I said a little more about this bill
here.)
Posted by Jim Miller at March 02, 2009
01:20 PM | Email This
Then again, there is a vested interest in Republicans keeping representation away from DC, given that it's pro-Democratic.
Posted by: demo kid on March 2, 2009 01:41 PMIf Barack Obama signs this legislation, for example, and we have a president and majorities in both houses that will not honor the simplest of requirements as set forth in the Constitution, do we have a government and no Constitution, or a Constitution and no government? We certainly will not have both.
Posted by: Reality on March 2, 2009 01:49 PMDoesn't the make-up of Congress represent the 'States'?
Posted by: T Jefferson on March 2, 2009 01:51 PMThe Constitution is just a formality of Dead White Men. No reason for the Democrats to adhere to it unless of course, a Republican happens to be in office.
Hey, maybe we could finally get rid of McDermott that way!
Posted by: Palouse on March 2, 2009 01:57 PMBecause they are is the reason the chunk of land was broken off from the states and no Representative was allowed.
Posted by: swatter on March 2, 2009 02:07 PMUnless Faux-bama lied in his two books stating that his father was a Kenyan national, and a Britsh colonial subject, then - Game Over.
But, who exactly is obeying the Constitution these days...
Posted by: Jefferson Paine on March 2, 2009 02:20 PMBack when tennis shoes took office in 1993 her mail was overwhelmed with letters telling her to vote NO on Clintons budget... instead she voted YES and then had the audacity to tell the voters via front page of the Seattle Times that voters simply didn't understand (translation: 'the voters who elected me are too stupid to know what they want/need.'
I have never forgotten that Murray slap in the face and I've hated her ever since... not that she cares.
"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Does that apply to DC? Yes, say the courts. Indeed "State" in many contexts has been ruled to apply to DC as well which is why the constitutional question regarding DC will be decided in the favor of the bill presented before congress, and not your view.
Posted by: John Jensen on March 2, 2009 05:02 PMHow convenient of you to omit just which courts and what was tried.
And it's time that the knee-jerk tactic of using unelected judges' opinions to trump legislative actions, and the Constitution itself, was given a smart slap upside the cabeza. The Congress has all the powers it needs to amend the Constitution, by legal process - not by judicial fiat. Tell 'em to get busy, and quit with the feelgood Consititution-busting.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on March 2, 2009 05:44 PMYour proposal boarders is absurdly difficult. Statehood for DC requires a constitutional amendment that would be impossible to achieve. That is why the Democrats in our state delegation are about to violate their oaths of office.
Potentially they can do so four times: gun control, net neutrality and the fairness doctrine, in addition to a House voting member for DC.
Do I question their patriotism? You bet I do.
As Rahm Emanuel said before the inauguration - "It would be shame to let a crisis go to waste". The left is drunk with power and they are pushing the envelope as far as they can until they are told to stop. We elect the people we deserve, similar to saying - "We have confronted the enemy and the enemy is us".
Posted by: KS on March 2, 2009 06:37 PMAs Rahm Emanuel said before the inauguration - "It would be shame to let a crisis go to waste". The left is drunk with power and they are pushing the envelope as far as they can until they are told to stop. We elect the people we deserve, similar to saying - "We have confronted the enemy and the enemy is us".
Posted by: KS on March 2, 2009 06:37 PMAs for DC, I would agree that it seems the Constitution does not allow DC representation. However the Constitution also contains a rather important principle that people who are governed deserve a say in that government. I don't think the founders ever envisioned that DC would have the population it has today.
Regardless this is going to the Supreme Court who has not ruled on this issue in a long time. It will be an interesting case. If I had to guess, I would think they'll side on saying no representation with a strong expression of a desire that the Constitution be amended.
Posted by: Giffy on March 2, 2009 07:35 PMHere is the relevant text of Article I, section 2 of the U.S. Constitution. You can perhaps see that it doesn't say what Jim Miller put in his blog entry, and maybe you can also see that your suggestion doesn't get around the obstacle.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
"Section. 2.
"The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.
"No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen."
Members of the House are chosen by the people (that is, the voters) of each State -- not "by the states."
To be a Representative in the House, one must be an "inhabitant" (that is, a resident) of the State from which one is elected.
The District of Columbia is not a State.
Posted by: Micajah on March 2, 2009 08:20 PMThat's an interesting idea about recognizing DC residents as simply residents of the State of Maryland.
Here's the text of Article I, section 8, and I don't see anything that would keep the residents of DC from voting as "electors" in the election of Representatives from the State of Maryland.
"To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And
"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
The exclusive authority to exercise legislative power over the Seat of Government simply protects the Seat of Government from meddling by a State.
It may not mean that the inhabitants of the District cannot be electors in the State where the District is located. Can't they be residents of the District and of the State of Maryland, just like residents on a military base under exclusive federal jurisdiction can be residents of the state in which the base is located?
Problem solved -- if the right to vote for a Representative is the problem that needs to be solved.
Posted by: Micajah on March 2, 2009 08:34 PMOn page 3 of the 4-page pdf file:
The same constitutional authority was exercised by the very first Congress, in 1790, when Congress accepted the cession by Maryland and Virginia of the ten-mile-square area constituting the District and provided by statute that its residents would continue to enjoy the same legal rights - - including rights to vote in federal and state elections - - which they had possessed under Maryland and Virginia laws prior to acceptance by Congress of the cession (Act of July 16, 1790, chapter 28, section 1, 1 Stat. 130). Under this federal legislation, residents of the District were able to vote, from 1790 through 1800, for members of the United States House of Representatives (and for members of the Maryland and Virginia Legislatures, which then elected United States Senators).
Voting representation in Congress for District residents ceased in 1801, when the District of Columbia became the Seat of Government, and Congress enacted the Organic Act of 1801, which provided for governance of the nation's capital but which contained no provision for District residents to vote in elections for the Congress that had the "exclusive" power to enact the laws which would govern them. Since the 1801 Organic Act also had the effect of terminating District residents' right to vote in any elections held in Maryland and Virginia, they were left disenfranchised from voting for Members of Congress.
In a memorandum submitted to the Government Reform Committee in 2004, Professor Dinh and Mr. Charnes rightly described this loss of national voting rights as a "historical accident" in which "Congress by omission withdrew the grant of voting rights to District residents." (See Dinh and Charnes Memorandum, pp. 8, 19).
Since the right to vote for Representatives (and even Senators) was lost through "accident," why not just enact a federal statute to correct the mistake? Make them residents of Maryland for purposes of voting for representatives in Congress.
I am sure Hatch is proud of himself that he gave away a long-term loss for a short-term gain. He sometimes looks smart, but sure acts dumb.
Posted by: Ron Hebron on March 3, 2009 07:49 AMDon't ask me how - I don't know. But somehow that means that laws no longer apply, even if they haven't been changed.
Posted by: Andrew Brown on March 3, 2009 08:16 AMThey have no fear of not responding since they have name recognition and that in politics is huge.
Cantwell is known as the beauty of the senate, and probably has 10-20 gents every so often. you dont get that title for no reason at all.
They could care less about you or me or any other voters from this state....they are paid $169,300 for working only 78 days out of the year, get
$ 14,900. every three months from the lobbyists,so why should they care.....thAT LEAVES ALOT OF TIME TO PLAY DURING A YEAR.....
Kudos to jim miller for calling them on it, but how many OF YOU PEOPLE WILL REMEMBER THEM ON THEIR ELECTION DAY... in 2010 for Cantwell,
and 2012 for Murray.
They will get re-elected again because of name recognition...screwed so more....
Bitter, you bet....they voted for that so called stimulus bill which will do absolutely nothing for the economy, but it will fatten some politicians pockets with millions,
and should we care , of course ,it our frickin money, spent by our representatives , who could care less as they will be millionaires, if they arent already.
THEY ALSO VOTED FOR SOCIAL SECURITY FOR THE ILLEGALS, AND TO GIVE THEM FREE TUITION, WHICH COST ALL OF US ANOTHER $ 466 BILLION PER YEAR...
I sure hope all of you Washigton Staters havent forgotten who is the government ....
surprise, it is we, the people, and we "hired" these two witches...shall we all "fire" them
and start anew with more attentative representatives, I certainly hope so....!!!
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their RIGHT, it is their DUTY, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
None of the above words were written by me, they are all quotes from someone far smarter. My question.... when do we start to exercise our DUTY?
Posted by: Variable on March 4, 2009 11:42 AMTrue democracy is just mob rule - two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
Ignoring the Rule of Law established in the Constitution just because *YOU* don't happen to agree with it is foolhardy. Next time that law being overridden may be one effecting YOU.
Idiots. Useful Idiots.
Posted by: Borgman on March 4, 2009 12:33 PMI thank the citizens portrayed in your �news placement� for the courage to stand up and ask the tough questions for all of us. While I at first may not have agreed I respect, and defend their right and obligation to do such.
Your news story content is rather disappointing and clearly not reflecting good journalism to say the least! I beg the MSM to serve the citizens and our country by digging into this critical issue. We desperately need subsequent rigorous reporting the facts as they lay out. From the brief scan of the international press we have a lot of very diverse legal activity in process concerning this issue including many Officers of our US Military up to SCOTUS! Further the SCOTUS has side stepped any position so far sighting standing. Well I venture the latest round of individuals has a lot of standing as injured parties.
Apparently this has flushed out Mr. Obama and his henchmen to go on the attack. However he has been reported to have made a grave error in tactics and strategy in doing so! Now given the approach of this �news placement� I ask Mr. Obama are you a Usurper or are you our POTUS? Yes or No?
Rule 5 for revolutionaries and radicals dedicates that a person that questions and or challenges (performing critical thinking) be marginalized and demonized. Further that the fundamental issue be distorted and reflected back inverted plus spin. Well this �news placement� is a classic case of such concerning those loyal American Citizens and citizens that subscribe to our Constitutional Republic with a representative democracy under the rule of law. Moreover subscribe to the constitutional requirements for POTUS. Have The MSM and Mr. Obama gone out of their way to game the game and behave in a passive aggressive manner since the primarily and general election refusing to provide the fundamental information?. Yes, has the juice been applied and the fix might be in with the ruling class? If yes that is not enough to halt this speculation or worst.. I continue to hope that he - Obama can get this issue out of the way following the rule of law and get on with the important duties of POTUS. However if he is not qualified and hence is in fact a Usurper then I suggest that he / Obama make a decision to depart the office of POTUS and save his country (I hope it is really his country), party and congress at large the embarrassment of trials and hearings. That is he might decide for health reasons or what ever face saving story and just quietly leave. The wheels of justice grin rather slowly but they do grind exceeding fine (Leo D & Orly are both back). May God Bless America and give us strength to save our Republic with critical thinking under the rule of law and not the rule of men or bullets.
