March 17, 2007
Voting Rights Bill Faces Constitutional Concerns
But of course! Something else has come between the District and its voting rights.
Today the Post is reporting that President George W. Bush and various senators have expressed concerns over the constitutionality of legislation that would grant the District a voting seat in the House of Representatives. According to the White House the legislation, which passed two House committees this week and may face a vote before the House as early as next week, would be unconstitutional by virtue of its granting District residents a right reserved for residents of states. An opinion by the Congressional Research Service voiced the same concern in January, though various legal experts — including conservative heavyweights like Viet Dinh and Kenneth Starr — have vouched for the legislation.
We're obviously disappointed by the White House's statement, but not totally surprised. President Bush has never been much of a fan of District voting rights, so this is perfectly within character for him (his sudden enthusiasm for the Constitution is less so).
The bill may not even reach the White House, though, as it still faces the U.S. Senate, where the 60 votes necessary to overcome the threat of a filibuster will be tough to come by. Both Utah senators have expressed opinions about the legislation that are similar to the administration's, even though the measure would grant their state an additional seat in Congress.
At the very least, we'd like to see a debate occur. Ultimately, the status of the District is something the courts will have to decide, and if they deem the legislation unconstitutional it'll mean we're back to square one. But we should at least be able to try our case, shouldn't we? Congress is supposed to debate and pass laws; the courts are supposed to determine their constitutionality. We hope they have a chance to do that.
|
"But we should at least be able to try our case, shouldn't we?"
Sure... I've got just the court for you. You aren't allowed to know who the justices sitting on it are, and they meet in secrete, but they're not as busy as people think they are...
So, we're not one of the "several states" for voting purposes, but we are for all other purposes?
C'mon guys, you can NOT continue to have it both ways. Face it, we're here, we're citizens, we're not going away. So either make us a state, or stop taxing and regulating us. Those are your choices if you wish to use the "not a state" arguement.
"(his sudden enthusiasm for the Constitution is less so)"
AHahahahha hilarious. Of course he turns into Captain Constitution when it's something he doesn't like. That IS the republican way.
You guys do realize that at this point the entire exercise, including the vote, is simply being done as a favor from Pelosi to Norton.
The bill is dead. Dead. Dead. It will not even get a vote in the Senate. Repeat, the bill is dead, and everyone knows it. Pelosi can give Norton a meaningless vote and that is it.
Thre will be no court case, no White House veto, nothing.
Well, not nothing. I guess the issue will forever live on in the blogosphere.
The President is just afraid DC will vote Marion Barry into Congress. The crack smoke will blend in nicely with the old money cigars.
"But we should at least be able to try our case, shouldn't we? Congress is supposed to debate and pass laws; the courts are supposed to determine their constitutionality. We hope they have a chance to do that."
No, no, no, no, no!
This is the very same bad understanding of governmental responsibility that leads to abuses of presidential authority.
Article II requires presidents to take an oath of office to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution." Article I likewise requires Members to take an oath to "support and defend" and "bear true faith and allegiance" to the Constitution. Part of that responsibility is an obligation to independently evaluate the constitutionality of all the legislation they vote on or sign into law -- and all the other acts that they undertake. If the law is unconstitutional, it's their job to kill it - or to put the constitutional amendment wheels in motion to make it constitutional.
When Congress and the White House shirk these constitutional responsibilities, sign legislation with their "fingers crossed," and count on the courts to bail them out, we end up with debacles like BCRA, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act and the manacles it places on free political speech in this country.
If residents of DC want a vote in Congress, they have three choices: 1) amend the Constitution; 2) move; 3) retrocession to Maryland.
I suspect we have a better chance to bear arms than vote. That said, an armed populace and taxation without representation has a lot of irony. Sadly I suspect that is far as it will go.
I agree with Mr. Constitution on the fact that the White House and Congress have the responsibility to protect the Constituion on their own accord. In fact, the veto was originally imagined as a way for the President to guard against unconstitutional bills, and not as a way for the executive to protect his or her policy prefrences, as it is understood today.
I, of course, disagree with his conclusion that Congress cannot give DC residents the vote absent statehood.
If the Framers taught us one thing, is thay abhorred such a literal interpretation of the Constitution, and expected each generation of Americans to come to their own constitutional decisions informed, but not bound, by the text of the Constitution. In many constitutional debates the opinions of the Framers certainly retains relevency because the issue was so salient at their time; see any of the Bill of Rights, for example.
But the idea we should be bound by their language ("The House . . . shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states") on this issue is patently absurd.
Not only:
a) did the Framers not consider that the Nation's Capital would one day become home to hundred of thousands of tax-paying, law-abiding citizens, but
b) the Framers are dead now.
It would be a disaster to disenfranchise a whole segment of our electorate because of some happenstance language that appeared in a document 230 years ago.
And I'm also amazed by the President's newfound concern for the particulars of the Constitution. Wish I could get him or his spokesperson to comment on the Fourth Amendment.
-C
All the snark about "newfound appreciation" for the Consitution is nice, but different people have different interpretations of the various parts of the Constitution and how it applies in practice. Just because an interpretation of one amendment varies from your own, does not imply that the entire document's authority has been overwritten or ignored. Get over yourself.
I agree with Mr. Constitution and disagree with DCist. The courts are not the only ones who decide constitutional matters. Congress and the President have an equal say in those concerns. Just refer to Thomas Jefferson on that. There are many things that the Courts have not or will not even decide.
As for this overdone Bush bashing, I agree with CDTrave. Just because you disagree with the President on one clause of the Constitution doesn't mean that he is now finding a "newfound appreciation" of the document. Really stupid reasoning. Although I disagree with Bush on many things, I do not suppose to have the power to know what he thinks about the Constitution.
Finally, I believe this bill is unconstitutional. Many others do agree with me. Those who think I am wrong or some right-wing nut should consider that I have a Ph.D. in Political Science and teach constitutional law.
A few responses:
1) Yes, Congress and the president play a role in upholding the Constitution, but they are not the branch charged with determining the constitutionality of laws. Congress passes tons of laws of doubtful constitutional merit, and the courts exist to sort those out. There have been a number of conflicting decisions on whether or not D.C. can be treated as a state, and legal experts of all stripes have lined up behind the current legislation. There is clearly legal debate on its merits, and it might be worth it to let it pass so the courts can finally establish what the District really is and what it can be treated like. Ultimately, Congress is made up of politicians who may or may not be lawyers; the courts are made up of jurists who try (though don't always succeed) to avoid politics when making decisions. I know who I'd like to decide this one.
2) The jab at Bush is based on his tendency to ignore key provisions of the Constitution when it benefits his policies or his war on terror. He has never much cared about privacy, the right not to be tortured or other such constitutional protections in his crusade against terrorists. Moreover, his excessive use of signing statements and obsessions with expanding executive authority proves that he isn't as fond of the Constitution as he sometimes claims.
You're still showing your bias, Martin. You say "ignore", but that is just a slanted way of saying that he believes he is acting within the Constitution and you do not. There are justifications and rationales behind all of these 'abuses', and its simply up to you whether you buy them or not. As for expanding executive authority, this too is a matter of relativity. Who is to say that the executive authority of the Presidency has not declined over time to the point where they are now taking warranted corrective actions? I'm not claiming that to be the case, but my point is that these actions are all relative from your accepted norm, and the mere fact that he is making assertions that were not made previously does not mean that he is ignoring the Constitution or otherwise abusing his powers as President. It certainly does make good political fodder, though.
Rather than talking in circles about a proposal of questionable Constitutional merit that would only give DC voters 1/3 representation in Congress anyway, why isn't there more clamor for a constitutional amendment that would settle the issue and provide full voting rights once and for all? Maybe because that very amendment passed Congress in 1978, but died 7 years later after only 16 of the necessary 38 states ratified it? (The text is on DCvote.org)
Maybe if DC Voting rights supporters like Martin spent less time Bush-bashing and more time reaching out to the rest of the nation with constructive arguments, there would be more sympathy around the country for the cause. But I suppose its easier to just blame the evil Republican Man for all your problems. Just keep in mind this doesn't play as well in the heartland as it does in DC, and you're going to need the support of your fellow Americans in both blue AND red states if a real solution is ever to be reached.
If DC is not a state and the lawmakers opt to go strictly by the constitution, the 16th amendment does not apply and therefore DC residence should be exempt from federal tax and refunded for prior years paid.
How about a trade-off: in exchange for not getting a vote in Congress, we get guns and we don't pay federal taxes. I am willing to go for this if it means not having to listen to Eleanor Holmes Norton anymore.
Wow! Lots of Bush love. I had no idea there were still so many fans of that evil fscking pig. Guess you learn something every day. Go 30%ers!
CDTrave - You're right. I am showing my bias. I do firmly believe that Bush has been on the wrong side of the Constitution plenty of times, and that's why his sudden appeal to its provisions this time round rings hollow.
Redstater - The reason there isn't any clamor for a constitutional amendment is because the people working this issue on the Hill opted for the "one bit at a time" approach. I've questioned the wisdom of that approach, but now that it's moving through Congress, it's worth letting it run its course. As for your other point, D.C. voting rights people only bash Bush insofar as he expresses his opposition to District voting rights. Similarly, District residents can can blame Republicans for the situation we find ourselves in -- whether in control of Congress or the White House, opposition to District voting rights is concentrated among conservatives. Why? Is it because their concerned about the Constitution? Or is it because this is a heavily Democratic town?
CDTrave, as has been noted elsewhere, reality has a well known liberal bias. No one not appointed by Bush can honestly defend his trashing of the Constitution. It may serve your own political ends to pretend otherwise, but at least be honest about your motivations.
And Redstater, please. This "you know, if you'd just say please to us a little bit more, we'd care!" claim is BS. If "redstaters" gave as much a shit about democracy as they pretended to while defending the Iraq war, they'd be moved to do something about the DC vote. And what have we seen? Nothing.
Martin, I think that DC residents can blame the Constitution and the Founding Fathers, not today's Republicans, for their lack of voting rights. Blame can (and should) also be extended to states didn't ratify the 1978 Constitutional amendment because they didn't care enough about the rights of the people of DC to do so. My point, then, is that the voting rights campaign must make inroads among the rest of the country, and saying that (as MB so nicely put it) redstaters dont give a shit about democracy is not going to work.
Finally, I seriously doubt that George Bush has ever explicitly said that DCers should not have voting rights. If he ever did say that, he was completely wrong. But saying that the current legislation should not be passed because he believes it doesn't pass consitutional muster is a different story.
Hey DCist, can you take down the photo of Da Chimp? It makes me ill to look at his smirking face...