In granting voting rights to the District of Columbia, Congress uses the affirmation of certain Constitutional rights to justify the assault of others. by Chuck Angier
(libertarian)
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Talk about shredding the Constitution, on February 26th, the Senate passed by a vote of 61-37, S. 160, the D.C. Voting Rights Act of 2009. This insult to the Constitution not only grants DC voting representation, but also grants Utah and additional seat and raises the membership of the House from 435 to 437.
I find the arbitrary granting of an additional seat to any state offensive, never mind the arbitrary granting of a seat to a non-state. Why don't we just give Miami a seat in the House? Certainly they are under-represented. How about France? How 'bout we let Maryland have DC?
To gain bipartisan support, this bill addresses 2 other unrelated issues:
The Fairness Doctrine
If passed, S. 160 will add Sec. 303B (a) to U.S.C 303 with instructions to the FCC as follows:
"(a) Certain Affirmative Actions Required- The Commission shall take actions to encourage and promote diversity in communication media ownership and to ensure that broadcast station licenses are used in the public interest.."
Hmm. Who decides what "public interest" might be? Going further, Sec. 303B (b) states:
"(b) Construction- Nothing in section 303A shall be construed to limit the authority of the Commission regarding matters unrelated to a requirement that broadcasters present or ascertain opposing viewpoints on issues of public importance."
The views expressed
in this article are those of Chuck Angier only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Chuck Angier is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2009-03-03 06:38:01
"I find the arbitrary granting of an additional seat to any state offensive, never mind the arbitrary granting of a seat to a non-state."
This comment overlooks a crucial point. The House has 435 members, the same number as it had nearly 100 years ago. During that time, the population has more than tripled. This means that all of us have in excess of 66% LESS representation in Congress, while DC residents have none at all (yet Congress controls DC's budget...go figure!). If you're opposed to adding seats in Congress, you favor enslaving all of us to have less and less control over what Congress does. Thus, we are all moving closer and closer to the predicament faced by DC residents..."taxation without representation." How ironic that this phrase is on DC automobile license plates.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2009-03-03 08:09:21
If we don't protect everyone's rights, then none of us have rights. Instead of being offended at DC wanting representation, I suggest you refocus your anger on the fact that we all lack adequate representation.
By the way, Congress can't make DC part of Maryland or any other state. Such changes require a Constitutional amendment, since the Article I Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the power, "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..." while Article 1 Section 2 declares, "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers...."Â
So in fact, really, giving DC a seat in Congress requires a Constitutional amendment. Focus on that instead of being angry at the residents of DC for wanting representation or at Congress for trying to give them that representation.
And if you're complaining about the "pork barrel" stuff in the bill, make it clear that THAT's the focus of your ire, not the unrepresented.
According to the constitution DC is not a state and therefore does not get representatives. If you want to change that you need a constitutional amendment. I suppose you could get around that by reducing the size of DC to only the area  occupied by government buildings. Then make the rest of it a part of another state or a new state. As I see it that would not require a constitutional amendment, although adding it to another state would require the consent of that state's legislature.
But the sad fact is that government no longer gives a damn about the constitution so they'll do whatever they feel like.
I just left Maryland after living there for more than a decade. Trust me when I tell you that Maryland doesn't want DC.
The fact that if a "democrat" seat is created that a "republican" one must be as well shows who is really in control of this country. Where's my liberatarian seat?
Want to comment on
this article? Leave your comment
here. Your email address is required to track your
comment. However, we will neither publish your email
address nor distribute it to other organizations or
persons. The only reason we might use it would be if
we needed to contact you regarding your comment. All
comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
