By Charles A. Hall
18 October 2009
In the 17 October 2009 issue of The Deseret News (a Utah based newspaper) talked about the once thought dead bill of giving the heavy Democrat friendly District of Columbia a full voting seat in the House of Representatives while giving a fourth Congressional seat to the State of Utah (DN, B1-B2)
In Utah who supports this bill:
-Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
-Congressman Jim Matheson (R-UT2)
In Utah who opposes this bill:
-Senator Bob Bennett (R-UT)
-Congressman Rob Bishop (R-UT1)
-Congressman Jason Chaffetz (R-UT3)
Who has it right? I’m going with Senator Bennett and Congressmen Bishop and Chaffetz. Why? Because to have a full voting seat in the House of Representatives that seat needs to belong to a state as stated fully in the United States Constitution.
Article I, Section 2, Paragraph 1 of the U.S. Constitution:
“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.”
The several States DOES NOT equal the District of Columbia. In the United States of America there are FIFTY (50) STATES and NOT fifty-one (51) states.
The Twenty-Third Amendment of the Constitution states:
“1. The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct: A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.”
This is dealing with the Presidential Election and authorizing the District of Columbia to have three electors in the election. Nothing in this amendment, nor in any other part of the Constitution, states that the District of Columbia gets a voting seat on the House.
“Hatch, however, said the Constitution also allows federal taxation and jury trials only for residents of states, but courts have ruled such language also applies to D.C.” (DN, B2).
Here is a few things wrong with this:
1) The courts do not make law or amendments to the Constitution. They are to simply make sure that the laws passed by Congress and enforced by the President of the United States follow the Constitution (which we see they really don’t do that now days).
2) Senator Hatch needs to read the Constitution a little closer. Under Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 17 it states: “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,”. Congress has the power to lay whatever taxes they want on the District of Columbia and say that federal taxes apply to it. That is granted by the Constitution!
3) Under the Sixth Amendment (Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses) of the Constitution it states: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law,” It mentions both “State” and “district” in this amendment. The “district” no doubt refers to the District of Columbia.
So maybe that is why the courts ruled the way they did on federal taxes and speedy trial, Senator Hatch? Maybe they were following the Constitution after all…?
“Chaffetz especially contends the bill is unconstitutional because the Constitution allows House representation only for states, and D.C. is not a state” (DN, B2). I agree with Congressman Chaffetz.
Where is this bill attached to? A defense bill. It is called a “rider”, something that has nothing to do with the bill as a full but added on at the end so it would pass with the full bill. These things can be good and bad. A rider to a credit card bill helped pass legislation to allow concealed carry permit holders to carry firearms in national parks (which I loved!). But with this same method this method could be used to pass a National Health Care System and this bill to give the District of Columbia full voting rights in the House of Representatives. What is the difference? Concealed carry in national parks is constitutional under the Second Amendment, National Health Care System and D.C. voting rights aren’t.
What can you do to stop this bill that would, once again, ignore the Constitution?
1) Write your representatives in Congress (both House and Senate) and tell them “NO TO D.C. VOTING RIGHTS! FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION! NO TO D.C. VOTING RIGHTS!”
2) Pass the message along to your family, friends, neighbors, and others and have them write their representatives as well.
3) Post this information anywhere you can to get the message out!
Let me also set the record straight on this: I’m fine with voting rights for the District of Columbia IF it were a state! I’m not against them voting in the House of Representatives, but they need to be a state! If they ever did become a state (which I doubt they ever will be because the Founding Fathers didn’t want one state claiming the Seat of Government that is why they created D.C.) then they can have their full voting rights. Until then, the Constitution doesn’t allow it. Maybe look at passing an amendment or something like the 23rd Amendment? *shrugs*
Pass the message along and stop this bill!
###
