Senate passes unconstitutional bill granting House voting rights to D.C.
posted at 8:23 pm on February 26, 2009 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Law professor Ann Althouse says it all. The vote went 61-37, with two Democrats voting no and six Republicans voting yes: Orrin Hatch, Dick Lugar, George Voinovich, and … Collins, Snowe, and Specter.
Ed wrote about the constitutional objections a few days ago. I have a hunch the Supremes are going to drive a stake through its heart when it finally gets there — Kennedy is more reliable on questions of government structure than on questions of rights — but in the meantime I’m more interested in people’s ideas for addressing the District’s legitimate grievance. Taxation without representation is un-American to the core; they deserve either the vote or a tax amnesty, or maybe something else. One creative option would have Congress recognize them as the 51st state, although that would require two seats in the Senate, too. Another creative idea from NRO:
An option to grant Washingtonians a voice in the House, without requiring the high demands of a constitutional amendment, already exists: retrocession. Just as Virginia absorbed a chunk of the District in 1846, Maryland could take in large sections of it now. Let Maryland’s political establishment, including Democratic governor Martin O’Malley and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, explain why this is not acceptable.
Let’s do what D.C. would do: Vote on it!
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 3 Next »
Tax amnesty? So that the very same people spending our money can avoid paying taxes? No. Retrocession.
amerpundit on February 26, 2009 at 8:26 PM
Gee, I wonder which party such new congressmen would wind up belonging to?
AUINSC on February 26, 2009 at 8:27 PM
This is the best way, but if I were a citizen of Maryland I would fight to the death not to inherit that mess.
Mark1971 on February 26, 2009 at 8:27 PM
The Constitution is so ‘2008′ anyway.
AUINSC on February 26, 2009 at 8:28 PM
gotta love arlen specter
ousoonerfan15 on February 26, 2009 at 8:28 PM
Call me Progressive…screw ‘em.
catmman on February 26, 2009 at 8:28 PM
What’s next, Guam, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands? D.C. gets the same deal as the rest, or shove them into a district of Maryland.
aigle on February 26, 2009 at 8:28 PM
The U.S. is going down down down in a burning ring of fire…
The U.S. was burning with a House forced desire…
And it Burned Burned Burned… that House of Fire!
upinak on February 26, 2009 at 8:29 PM
Retrocession, they add to Maryland. But of course, the problem with this is that Maryland doesn’t want DC and why would they.
LastRick on February 26, 2009 at 8:30 PM
aigle on February 26, 2009 at 8:28 PM
And yes, this would open the door. Adding more libs to Congress – consolidation of POWER baby!
catmman on February 26, 2009 at 8:30 PM
The poll should have included a none of the above option. Absent that, I chose constitutional amendment because I think it’s the least likely to pass.
Y-not on February 26, 2009 at 8:31 PM
Make them a state, with the corollary that each of the four ‘judicial districts’ of Alaska also become a state
( each would be bigger with more natural resources than many northeastern states )
5 new states………
Janos Hunyadi on February 26, 2009 at 8:31 PM
Hey Arlen, Olympia and Susan….. Let’s let Iran be a state too. Would somebody in Maine and PA get smart, please?
suzyk on February 26, 2009 at 8:31 PM
Constitution? Isn’t that the ancient thingy on display at the National Archives?
Fletch54 on February 26, 2009 at 8:31 PM
I said make them a new State…. then they can pay State tax too! Screw them… let them figure out how to live in a State of their own.
upinak on February 26, 2009 at 8:32 PM
Ed wrote about the constitutional objections a few days ago…
With this bunch we’re worried they care that what they do is Constitutional?
Heh.
catmman on February 26, 2009 at 8:32 PM
Guys, 3rd Option. Make it a terretory like Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. Give them a congressional rep but he has no vote, just the ability to make arguments. Completly constitutional AND it difuses the situation.
Yngmarine on February 26, 2009 at 8:32 PM
Oh, I forgot…. what’s happening with Orin Hatch? They were set to get another seat anyhow without this. Idiot. Primary him.
suzyk on February 26, 2009 at 8:32 PM
“Legitimate grievance?” Let them move. Nobody’s forcing anyone to live in DC.
Kensington on February 26, 2009 at 8:32 PM
What the hell happened with Hatch … didn’t he used to be a conservative?
thirteen28 on February 26, 2009 at 8:33 PM
Since the Democrats seem to be lock step in raising spending and taxes, and DC dwellers vote 80-90% for Democrats, I’d say they are more than represented.
Follow the Constitution.
SouthernRoots on February 26, 2009 at 8:33 PM
He swallowed the green pill… the red was just to much for him.
upinak on February 26, 2009 at 8:33 PM
Repealing that burdensome 22nd Amendment, probably.
ddrintn on February 26, 2009 at 8:34 PM
Where’s the empathy althouse?
ninjapirate on February 26, 2009 at 8:34 PM
Richard Lugar is an ass and I’m going to actively campaign and donate to any GOP person who decides to challenge him.
He has outlasted his usefulness to the State of Indiana.
Oink on February 26, 2009 at 8:35 PM
I think Texas has a caveat that they can be broken up to 6 states, thus TWELVE republican senators. Something about their deal when they joined the union. When I lived there, someone I worked with told me that, I never looked it up myself.
karenhasfreedom on February 26, 2009 at 8:36 PM
Perfect. You get a star!
Oink on February 26, 2009 at 8:36 PM
And yet althouse is still pleased as punch with her choice to vote for Obama…
Kensington on February 26, 2009 at 8:36 PM
I choose option number 5:
Nuke ‘em.
jimmy the notable on February 26, 2009 at 8:37 PM
I don’t want representation in Congress, voting is just a formality that doesn’t change the outcome anyway.
LevStrauss on February 26, 2009 at 8:37 PM
Five states. True.
carbon_footprint on February 26, 2009 at 8:37 PM
Nobody forced them to move there and nobody is preventing them from leaving. They should vote with their feet if they don’t like living in the Capital of the United States of America.
FloatingRock on February 26, 2009 at 8:37 PM
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-hj5/show
upinak on February 26, 2009 at 8:37 PM
What the frak is going on here? I’d like my ticket back to reality – Bizzaro World is freaking me out.
And other than on Hot Air, I hadn’t really heard about this. Is this something the Dems wanted to do just because they could?
Anna on February 26, 2009 at 8:38 PM
Wait.. this one might work.
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President.
upinak on February 26, 2009 at 8:39 PM
They already have that. Washington is already considered a federal territory with a non-voting delegate in the House.
amerpundit on February 26, 2009 at 8:39 PM
Why is this an issue?
If people angry enough about taxation without representation to fight a war over it had no issue over this situation for the capital district, why are we suddenly forced to address it *now*?
18-1 on February 26, 2009 at 8:39 PM
What a novel idea.
Crania Hellbent on February 26, 2009 at 8:39 PM
No taxation without representation is, at its core, un-American. It was one of the principals that lead to our secession from England. So, with this in mind, why didn’t the Founders include Congressional representation for D.C. when they wrote the Constitution?
Weebork on February 26, 2009 at 8:41 PM
How about none of the above, Allah: D.C. is already represented by 435 House members and 100 Senators. Our fifty states have to fend for themselves.
On a more serious note, “Taxation without representation” is a cute but meaningless phrase when applied to our nation’s capital. It’s not like D.C. residents are taxed differently than those of the several states. However, if you really want to solve the problem of federal representation, make D.C. residents citizens of a state of their choosing (cannot change unless you actually change residence), much like military members who do not reside in any state while based overseas. A true federalist would be at a loss as to how people are “American” citizens without being state citizens, as even the Fourteenth Amendment provides for both at the same time.
A more libertarian argument would go like this: what business does the federal government have in taxing our income in the first place?
A freshman senator from Illinois might ask, “Didn’t we already have 57 states?”
cackcon on February 26, 2009 at 8:42 PM
They got to vote for Obama didn’t they? Seriously, do they not already have some tax amnesty with respect to state taxes? I suppose there is the extra surcharge to fund Marion Berry’s crack. That can pitch a bit. Jimbo
jimboslice on February 26, 2009 at 8:44 PM
Give it back to Maryland. Everyone becomes a citizen of Maryland, Washington as a city becomes a city in Maryland. The feds continue to control federal property but have no oversight of city laws.
johnsteele on February 26, 2009 at 8:45 PM
I’m under the impression that DC was not supposed to be a place where people permenantly lived – it’s a Federal district, to be used for the purpose of running the Federal government. I don’t know when or why they started letting people live there and becoming residents. I might be wrong, though. It’s been years since my Gov’t class.
Anna on February 26, 2009 at 8:45 PM
So? We don’t want California either, but we have them.
MadisonConservative on February 26, 2009 at 8:46 PM
Make DC part of Virginia or Maryland. It must fall within the borders of one of them since DC didn’t exist when the Constitution was written.
Hog Wild on February 26, 2009 at 8:47 PM
To put it another way, the Framers were very specific on how and what the gov’t can do/operate in federal areas like D.C. when they wrote the Constitution. It is interesting to think that, perhaps, the Framers chose not to put congressional representation in. It had to have come up, since they had just finished a bloody war that was, in part, based on the taxation/representation issue. So why didn’t they put it in?
Weebork on February 26, 2009 at 8:47 PM
snort!
upinak on February 26, 2009 at 8:48 PM
Foresight isn’t easy to come by. No one knew this would be an issue in the future. Land was a plenty then…. it isn’t as much now and urban sprawl runs hundreds of miles. Eventually you have to build in places that were one thought of as something else.
upinak on February 26, 2009 at 8:50 PM
disclaimer: I am a current DC resident so I have a horse in this race. I value the Constitution and representation, so I want a Constitutional amendment.
I think what a lot of you miss is that, unless you go the no taxation route (which I’d be fine with), no matter what the happens it will yield the dems another congressman.
Even if you just cede us back to Maryland, the Dems will just make us a new, separate district of Maryland and we’ll get a vote that way. DC has a bigger population than the entire state of Wyoming. There are a lot of us here. Come 2010, we’ll get a Congressman, but this time it won’t be a new one, but rather one that once belonged to Montana or Kansas or some other red state.
The Dems are going to get a congressman for this district. The only questions are 1) whether they do it constitutionally, and 2) whether it’s a new one, or one “borrowed” from a red state.
Trent1289 on February 26, 2009 at 8:50 PM
Anna,
I agree. Perhaps, as some have proposed, the residents of D.C. should just be made residents of Virginia and be done with it.
I am taking the side of the argument made by Glenn Beck on his tv show yesterday. The true purpose of this D.C. representation is so, eventually, Democrats can gain two more US Senate seats. The “no taxation without representation” thing is just a smokescreen for the true objective.
Weebork on February 26, 2009 at 8:51 PM
Well maybe we can get rid of all the senators that voted for the bill. I mean they swear an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and this is in DIRECT violation of it. Doesn’t that mean they are breaking the law. Are there any constitutional lawyers out there to tell me otherwise?
Lance Murdock on February 26, 2009 at 8:51 PM
I’m not a history buff, and I know there are some here, but my recollection is that they intentionally didn’t want any one state to have the power and prestige that the Capital would bring.
FloatingRock on February 26, 2009 at 8:51 PM
On the US Constitution by President Obortion:
“Full of failed policies of the past“
BobMbx on February 26, 2009 at 8:53 PM
They can move just a couple of miles away and be out of DC, problem solved. No one is forcing them to live there. When the colonies were being taxed without representation it was all of the colonies and there wasn’t really anywhere readily available to move to. There are plenty of places close to DC to move to.
Buford on February 26, 2009 at 8:54 PM
Screw that noise.
BobMbx on February 26, 2009 at 8:54 PM
I live in Virginia. Please, please give it to Maryland. Pretty please.
Oldnuke on February 26, 2009 at 8:54 PM
As a VA resident, I don’t much want them – and I’m pretty sure my husband, a MD resident, doesn’t want them either! : )
And I agree with you and Beck on this. It’s hogwash, but it’s being slipped by us with an astonishing lack of notice from the majority of Americans. My BP just shot up. Again.
Anna on February 26, 2009 at 8:54 PM
Trent,
I would be fine with D.C. reverting back to VA territory and its residence coopted into VA even with the knowledge that it would Democrats some more seats in the House. That’s fine. I do not want two more permanent Democrat Senate seats opened up.
Plus, taking the D.C. representation argument further, would that also mean that residents of other federal land would require their own representatives too?
Weebork on February 26, 2009 at 8:55 PM
Make the capitol district part of that ‘federal district’ and leave the residental sections as part of maryland. Or ask if them screaming makes them better than puerto rico or the virgin islands. Follow Up Question: Do they have the population to be a state under the Homestead Act. I know that really dosent matter based on their blatent violation of the constitution but its fun them breaking laws and such.
Yngmarine on February 26, 2009 at 8:55 PM
Damn Bob, you beat me out by half a breath :-)
Oldnuke on February 26, 2009 at 8:56 PM
Tax amnesty OF COURSE.
uh, since they are all on welfare, I assume that means that they dont get any benefits as well. Only makes sense
The Wall on February 26, 2009 at 8:56 PM
All these idiots in Congress are doing right now is setting themselves up for control shift back to the Republicans in 2010.
With the possible exception of Specter, Collins, and Snowe.
pilamaye on February 26, 2009 at 8:56 PM
One voice from Maryland: NO FREAKIN’ WAY!
Things are bad enough here already. We want to expel Baltimore from the state, not take in another basket case of a city.
Attila (Pillage Idiot) on February 26, 2009 at 8:56 PM
D.C. was supposed to be where part-time politicians spent the part of the time that they were handling national business.
It was never supposed to be 600,000+ people strong.
If you don’t like being in a district instead of a state…MOVE.
If the argument is that moving is not an option for many of the people, absorb it into a nearby state. Split it between VA and MD with nothing but the White House, the Capitol Building and some Monuments left in D.C.
JadeNYU on February 26, 2009 at 8:56 PM
Why Virginia though? I thought what’s left of DC used to be Maryland, since it’s north of the Potomac.
Not like that part of Maryland is much different from Northern VA.
Anna on February 26, 2009 at 8:56 PM
Just for the record, I live in CA, so I’m not impartial to having a large liberal population suddenly dumped on a state. I really do understand. With that said, the route of reverting D.C. back to VA would be constitutional versus the underhanded way Congress is attempting now.
Weebork on February 26, 2009 at 8:57 PM
Oh, I forgot. Retrocession is racist!
Attila (Pillage Idiot) on February 26, 2009 at 8:59 PM
Isn’t Puerto Rico exempt from federal taxes? and have their own tax system? Exempt them from federal taxes, and set up the DC Department of taxation to tax them.
codekeyguy on February 26, 2009 at 9:00 PM
Ok folks, history lesson.
The area of land known as the District of Columbia was never a part of Virginia. Ev-ah.
BobMbx on February 26, 2009 at 9:00 PM
Sorry. Didn’t realize that it was all on the MD side.
Maryland for the win (or, in this case, the loss)!
JadeNYU on February 26, 2009 at 9:00 PM
Isn’t Puerto Rico exempt from federal taxes? and have their own tax system? Exempt them from federal taxes, and set up the DC Department of taxation to tax them.
codekeyguy on February 26, 2009 at 9:00 PM
I vote none of the above.
Oroso on February 26, 2009 at 9:00 PM
Ok, we could make it Maryland! Hell, we could throw them all in as CA residents. California is already screwed from massive liberalism, how worse could it get? Give them to us! :) We have nice weather.
Weebork on February 26, 2009 at 9:01 PM
old trooper2 on February 26, 2009 at 9:01 PM
I choose Delaware. It’s nearby, and could use a few extra square miles.
BobMbx on February 26, 2009 at 9:02 PM
Thank you. Anyone ever heard of Eleanor Holmes Norton?
College Prof on February 26, 2009 at 9:02 PM
Washington DC was originally on land ceded by Maryland and Virgina. The Virgina portion was later returned to that State. Thus, Washington DC lies on land entirely ceded by Maryland.
My suggestion to give DC residents voting rights is simply to register them as Maryland voters, and allow them to vote in Md. elections. Thus, they get taxation (boy, do they ever!), with representation.
Blaise on February 26, 2009 at 9:03 PM
As I understand the perspective involved — as to the Constitution withholding state configuration to D.C. — is that the “area” in which the Capitol and federal government was situated was to remain free from partisan obligation or otherwise, “ownership” or service such that our federal government would be, thereby, prejudicial and under undue influence from partisans, their own locale unduly influencing the nation at large.
WHICH PERSPECTIVE I SUPPORT.
Maybe the other consideration for the people who now live in D.C. and are being taxed without representation would be to NOT try to run non-Constitutional games using Congress (by those IN Congress, unfortunately) and to grant or appropriate, so to speak, the residents of D.C. to an adjoining area as to representation and continue to tax them but direct their “state” taxes to whoever they then are assigned to (neighboring location that they would be by proxy taxpayers of, and thus represented by).
Them not being taxed in an already nearly wrecked area (D.C.) is not a good idea, in my view, but I recognize them being gyped at present.
I would NOT like to see D.C. become another state, that’d just cement the non-Constitutional aspect of how this issue is handled (it’d be yet more insult to our Constitution by establishing that which the Constitution seeks to avoid).
Congress is full of sneaky bastards, there’s no doubt about that. They today are going about butchering Constitutional principles with a “so sue us” mentality, that represents a clear and present danger to the security of this nation, as also their incompetence in the offices they hold (all who are responsible for this last “vote” — I gather they haven’t read the Constitution and if they have, they don’t care what it says).
Lourdes on February 26, 2009 at 9:03 PM
NO! Look, my homestate is on the crap list for giving us Biden, but it’s a good, quiet state that needs to be left alone. There’s a reason they charge to get onto Delmarva!
Anna on February 26, 2009 at 9:03 PM
Yeah. Lost her bid for re-election as Mayor of Washington, DC to an ex-con crack head. That, Ladys and Gentlemen, says a lot about who lives in D.C.
BobMbx on February 26, 2009 at 9:05 PM
TYPO ^^.
SHOULD READ:
As I understand the perspective involved — as to the Constitution withholding state configuration to D.C. — the “area” in which the Capitol and federal government are situated is to remain free from partisan obligation or otherwise “ownership” or service, such that our federal government would NOT be, thereby, prejudicial and under undue influence from partisans, their own locale unduly influencing the nation at large.
Lourdes on February 26, 2009 at 9:06 PM
Don’t they already have a non voting member? Oh wait, she’s in the picture.
Here it is
Dave_d on February 26, 2009 at 9:08 PM
Can all those who voted for this now be impeached, seeing they have now violated their oath of office?
INC on February 26, 2009 at 9:08 PM
I say let them pay no fed income taxes.
Then the vast majority of the people who live in DC could no longer afford to live there.
There are lots of folks with million dollar tax bills from Uncle Sam that would love to move in. For 9 mill, think of the blocks of DC one could grad up. Tear down what is there, rebuild to suit (compltete with the required walls). Money ahead in a year. Wouldn’t be long until DC has only a couple of hundred residents. None of who live there now.
Image the type of local gov’t they would vote in for themselves….
WiseOlBird on February 26, 2009 at 9:10 PM
I’ll say it.
Treason.
OwlorNothing on February 26, 2009 at 9:10 PM
C’mon! You’re talking about people who can’t be bothered to actually read the text of the largest spending bill ever passed in this country! Do you presume any of them (less one – Byrd) have ever read the Constitution?
BobMbx on February 26, 2009 at 9:11 PM
Allah said, “Taxation without representation is un-American to the core;”
You mean “subsidies without representation”, don’t you? (If you lived here, you’d understand.)
dtestard on February 26, 2009 at 9:13 PM
With stunts like this, they wonder why people fear the current Congress. BECAUSE THEY THINK THEY CAN DO WHAT EVER THEY WANT. Yeah, some of it’s pandering, because they know that SCOTUS will kill it.
Retrocession is the way to go. The founders did not foresee people “living” in DC. It was to be the seat of government. Representatives from the various states would live there while Congress was in session, but they would not “live there”. These people did not need representatives…THEY WERE THERE TO REPRESENT THEIR STATES.
Federal property would remain under the jurisdiction of the Capitol police. All other private property would revert to either Virginia or Maryland.
GarandFan on February 26, 2009 at 9:15 PM
The vast majority of what the federal government does is unconstitutional, which isn’t surprising, as most of them can’t pass a test on the Constitution. We should send them all packing, repeal universal suffrage, and try again.
DrMagnolias on February 26, 2009 at 9:17 PM
Good point. The founding fathers may not have wanted any one state to reap befits from housing the capital and, likewise, they may not have wanted any one state to hold undue influence over the capital. Two sides of the same coin, since they’re similar conceptually.
FloatingRock on February 26, 2009 at 9:17 PM
Let’s see, the city exists because of us taxpayer largesse. and they want more than this? absurd. this country is losing it’s mind and for someone writing for HotAir to not give the option “Change nothing” is frightening. What are they teaching you kids in school to come out so messed up in the head?
pc on February 26, 2009 at 9:19 PM
Gee, unconstitutional voting rights for DC? Kind of a political gamble wouldn’t you say….I mean many of those folks might vote along Republican lines…
(snicker, rolls eyes)
moxie_neanderthal on February 26, 2009 at 9:20 PM
So is denial of 2nd Amendment rights. DC doesn’t have any problem with that.
Also, what Allah needs to remember is that living in DC is a choice, and the law that forces the so-called “taxation without representation” is contained within the same document that forms the District, so it ain’t a surprise.
Either one cannot read, does not care about taxes without representation (which, BTW, applies to just about everyone in the US, if you think about it hard enough), or is just dumb to continue to live there. There is no difference between the residents of DC complaining about their lack of representation and people who buy a house next door to an existing airport and then complain about the noise!
BobMbx on February 26, 2009 at 9:22 PM
Democrats vote for an unconstitutional law. What else is new? We also know they don’t pay the taxes they force on us.
Such is todays Democrat Party.
DannoJyd on February 26, 2009 at 9:23 PM
Most of your poll options were tried and failed or are still pending.
Lisa Murkowski will soon introduce a constitutional amendment to grant DC a House vote, but did not do so as a legislative amendment to S.160.
A legislative amendment to exempt DC from federal income taxes lost.
Another legislative amendment for retrocession to Maryland also lost.
DaveO on February 26, 2009 at 9:23 PM
Sen Hatch continues his race to underwhelm! He’s a good example of why we need to hold a revolt within the Republican party and get these RINOs out of there!
TDBURN on February 26, 2009 at 9:24 PM
My vote: D.C. + 200-ft. high surrounding wall + no doors = a safer, wealthier America.
Oh, well. I don’t want to be cruel. Put in a small slot, high on one side, where food can be tossed in. Occasionally.
MrScribbler on February 26, 2009 at 9:24 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 Next »