Reader comments
Death of 4th seat is good

John Dougall | 12:29 a.m. Sept. 20, 2007

A constitutional amendment isn't the only way to give DC the vote. The remaining part of DC (or the part occupied by residents) could be retroceded back to Maryland, just as a portion of DC was returned to Virginia in the 1847. Congress might even allow the residents of DC to vote as Marylanders, as was allowed for several years when DC was created. Both of these solutions would provide DC with senators as well -- Maryland senators.

Of course, passing the current bill would be a constitutional disaster, regardless of any perceived benefit for Utah.

lost in DC | 4:50 a.m. Sept. 20, 2007

Thank you John,for succinctly stating what I have thought all along. My greatest dissappointment is in Senator Hatch's support for the unconstitutional proposed bill. Maybe he's been a politician too long to remember that we are anchored in the constitution rather than short-term political expediency.

John Dougall | 7:08 a.m. Sept. 20, 2007

The culture in DC, on both sides of the aisle, is that the end justify the means. A completely foreign concept to those of us that believe in the rule of law.

Comments continue below

Anonymous | 7:49 a.m. Sept. 20, 2007

John Dougall is incorrect in his assessment of this issue. The Constitution grants Congress the authority to grant representation to the District under the District clause and necessary and proper clause of the Constitution The Constitution grants Congress, not the States or their elected officials absolute and plenary power over the District. The purpose of the District clause of the Constitution was to guarantee that Congress would not be beholden to any state(s) in respect to the seat of government because of the 1783 incident in Philadelphia that forced the Congress to move from their and to sit in New Jersey. Congress also exercised the power to grant representation by statute in the Act of 1790 which created the District. The exclusive power of Congress over the District has not been successlly challenged in the past nor has the Courts ruled against the authority of Congress to treat the District as a state and has instead ruled in favor of them doing so on repeated occasions.

This is why the Courts have ruled that Congress has the authority to treat the District as a state for constitutional purposes including the Article III diversity clause, taxation clauses.

John Dougall | 8:28 a.m. Sept. 20, 2007

Anonymous' reliance on the District clause, if accurate, would allow the Congress to flaunt the other states with wanton disregard (Why stop at 1 vote for DC?). The Constitution does allows Congress "[to] exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over [DC]", but that is also within the other bounds of the Constitution, specifically "[the] House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states." Likewise "[the] Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state." DC is not a state regardless of what some in Congress try to rationalize.

Hogwash | 8:34 a.m. Sept. 20, 2007

Article 1, Sections 2&3, specify that representatives shall be chosen by and from that state. The District is not a state, it is Federal territory. Individuals of that territory have the same constitutional protections as the rest of us but they do not enjoy states rights. No amount of convoluted reading will change that.

"The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when it was adopted, it means now." ï¿½ SOUTH CAROLINA v. US, 199 U.S. 437, 448 (1905)

If the residents Of D.C. want states right they alway have the option of voting with their feet.

lamonte | 8:53 a.m. Sept. 20, 2007

The only "useful pawn" in this argument is the Constitution itself and that single phrase - "elected by the peole pf the several states" - used by all those who want to deny representation to the citizens of Washington DC. In virtually every issue that has come before the courts over the past two centuries the District of Columbia has been lumped together with "the several states" in terms of their obligations and requirements. Those issues didn't require a Constitutional amendment and no one, especially not the Deseret News editorial page, called for one. But now that they simply want representation in Congress to have a voice in what they are required to do, the opponents are coming out of the woodwork, under the guise of patriotism.

Anonymous | 9:18 a.m. Sept. 20, 2007

Congress has the right to ignore the "other states" when it comes to the District as the states have no jurisdiction over the District and Congress exercises exclusive authority over it. Indeed, why stop at 1 vote for DC when Congress has treated the District as a state since 1797. Indeed, the District clause does fall within the bounds of the Constitution but it is not limited as you have chosen to make it. Your statement that "DC is not a state regardless of what some in Congress try to rationalize" has not been the established fact since this country was founded. The Supreme Court made this clear in Alexander v. Daley, when it stated, "only congressional legislation or constitutional amendment can remedy plaintiffs' exclusion from the franchise." The Court clearly recognized the long established fact that Congress has exclusive and plenary power over the District and may treat it as a state for constitutional and legislative purposes (i.e., the residents of the District of Columbia may sue the residents of other states under the Article III Diversity clause which grants the residents of one state the right to sue the residents of another state).

Anonymous | 9:33 a.m. Sept. 20, 2007

I disagree with Hogwash's narrow intrepretation of Art. I, Secs. 2 & 3. Indeed, the Constitution does grant states representation in the House and Senate under Sec. 2 and 3 but it does not limit the right of Congress to grant the same right to the District that it has the "exclusive authority" over when it is exercising its "necessary and proper" power anymore than the Constitution granting residents of the "states" the right to residents of others states deny Congress the power to allow residents of the District to sue residents of other states. The District is not considered a federal territory by the Constitution instead it is distinct from the "territory clause" of the Constitution which deals with Congress's power over territories of the United States. In fact, Congress has more power over the District than it does over our territories.

Anonymous | 9:40 a.m. Sept. 20, 2007

Lamone's understanding of the Constitution, our history and legal precedents is correct. The District of Columbia has been lumped together with the "several states" in every aspect including the power of Congress to tax the residents of the District and it makes no sense to deny them the rights granted by the Constitution while imposing the obligations that come with being citizens. It never has required a constitutional amendement because it was well understood that Congress has an "absolute and plenary power" over the District and may "treat it as a state" for constitutional purposes. You are correct, Lamonte, that now that the District of Columbia wants repesentation that those who oppose it are trying to use patriotism as a guise to their true motives which is to tax the residents of the District while denying them representation or to impose the authority of the states over the District by requiring the constitution to be amended when there is no need to do so since Congress retains exclusive authority to do what is necessary to provide for the District, its governance and to guarantee that the residents of its District has representation in Congress.

Cory Seegmiller | 10:30 a.m. Sept. 20, 2007

All the noise from "Anonymous" is just rhetoric for the Democrats. "Anonymous," tell us who you are if you expect us to respect your static. If not, then go back to your "living document" legal theory textbooks, and quit trying to cleave the Constitution in half to benefit your party. It's sickening.

"Anonymous" definitely has a political agenda to accomplish here. The problem that the Democrats have is that Utah will get an additional congressional seat after the next census, regardless of whether D.C. gets an un-Constitutional seat as well. All of this rhetoric and twisting of the Constitution, in favor of D.C. representation, is merely a political game to try to keep the Republicans from gaining a seat to the detriment of the Dems. Personally, I am a Constitution Party member, so I already abhor the two-party bologna that is taking place here. It just makes it all the worse that the Dems are trying to maintain power through a patently un-Constitutional power grab. It's even more mind-boggling that some un-principled Republicans are towing the line for them. This is political log-rolling at its absolute worst.

Hatch has become a walking Constitutional liability. He needs to go.

Anonymous | 10:51 a.m. Sept. 20, 2007

Cory Seegmiller is incorrect in his narrow view of the Constitution and I believe that this is why he lost his campaign for the State House last year. While I may disagree with John on this one I do recognize in him an ability to see the Constitution in a comprehensive manner. He does not simply pick and choose which parts of the Constitution he will agree with and which he does not. I mean no offense to Mr. Seegmiller but he's clearly demonstrated a lack of knowledge of our Constitution, history and legal precedents and his recent attacks on Democrats in his post also demonstrates his partisan nature. No where in his post does he address the substance of the issue being discussed instead he prefers to attack others and to accuse them of rhetoric for disagreeing with him. This is inappropriate and I applaud John for not being a part of accusing others of rhetoric simply because they disagree with him. I may disagree with his arguments and he may disagree with mine but at least we attempt to be civil unlike Mr. Seegmiller. So I would strongly urge Mr. Seegmiller to stick to the issues.

Stewart | 11:02 a.m. Sept. 20, 2007

John Dougall's solution (vote as part of Maryland or Virginia) seems to be fair and constitutional. After a legislative district what would be next, two senators? Giving DC a legislative district would give it more representation than any state except Wyoming, which has one because the Constitution mandates it for a STATE. It takes about 700,000 residents for a legislative district, while DC has less than 600,000. This issue is more about politics than fairness.

Anonymous | 12:06 p.m. Sept. 20, 2007

That alternative was used by Congress between 1790 and 1810 but it isn't applicable now. The problem is that D.C. residents are not citizens of Maryland or Virginia and they do not possess the same rights under their Constitutions and laws nor can Congress by law grant to the residents of the District the right to representation in Maryland or Virginia and that would require a constitutional amendment since after Maryland and Virginia ceded the District to Congress it ceased to be under their jurisdiction.

It would also give greater weight to Maryland and Virginia based on the population of the District of Columbia even though the residents of the District are not under the authority of those states. The Constitution provides for the District and for its participation in the "body politic." So John's solution isn't a good one considering the constitutional issues it creates. It in effect would grant 1) Congress legislative power over Maryland and Virginia that it does not have over any other state, or 2) infringe on the plenary power of Congress over the District by granting a shared interest to Virginia and Maryland. Requiring an amendment poses the same problem as # 2.

DBG | 12:23 p.m. Sept. 20, 2007

And what of the other federal territories (Guam, American Samoa, Peurto Rico)? You cano[t just favor one federal district over another. They all would have to equally apply. Since the above mentioned are federal, they follow federal laws not as States. Although each do have one, non-voting representation in the House, just as DC already has.

John is correct though. There are confinements to what can be legislated over the District and not violate the rest of the consitution. The founders were very well aware of this and the District was designated as a place for federal government operations. Just as one chooses to live in a federal territory or district, you give up the rights that States have. If you want representation, move out of the District into a neighboring city. It's only common sense. If this had passed, I'm sure the founding fathers would roll over in their graves.

Charles H | 12:52 p.m. Sept. 20, 2007

Anonymous relies on Congress' authority over the district to justify granting it a House seat while ignoring that whatever power Congress exercises over DC, it has the same power over military bases.

So does anonymous believe congress can grant HAFB its own congressman?

For that matter, if congress really has such unlimited authority over DC, why stop at a single congressman? Why not give it a Senator or two as well? Do district residents not deserve FULL representation?

And if congress has such total control over the district, why was the 23rd amendment needed to treat DC like a State for purposes of the electoral college? Why not just do that via simple legislation?

Hogwash | 1:23 p.m. Sept. 20, 2007

Anonymous; Congress has no rights, it has powers. Rights are inherently reserved for The People. Any powers delegated to Congress does not include the power to alter Art.1, Sec. 2&3 simply because they believe it to be "necessary and proper". It is neither, and any decision from the Supreme Court that decides otherwise would be just more example of how far the judicial system has gone off track from interpreting to legislating.

Jon W. | 1:31 p.m. Sept. 20, 2007

If a constitutional amendment is not necessary to give D.C. a congressional representative, why was one used to give D.C. representation in the Electoral College?

And don't forget the 10th amendment, which says that if the power is not specifically enumerated by the Constitution, Congress doesn't have it.

Iron | 1:38 p.m. Sept. 20, 2007

Thank you Anonymous for the information. I appreciate reading from someone that has a view and is able to articulate his or her opinion. That's such a breath of fresh air unlike Mr. Seegmiller's comments of attacking rhetoric - that gets so old so quickly.

-Iron

Anonymous | 4:08 p.m. Sept. 20, 2007

Charles H. is incorrect in claiming that Congress has the same power over the District as they do over military bases. The District clause and the territory clause of Article I are separate and the Courts have consistently ruled that the power Congress has over the District is absolute and plenary while the power that Congress has over a territory is not plenary. For example, the Constitution grants Congress the power to levy taxes on "states" and yet residents of the District are taxed under the power of Congress because the Courts have ruled that for constitutional purposes the Congress can treat the District as a state. I have never claimed that Congress has the power to grant HAFB its own Congressman because Congress does not have the Constitutional authority to do so and I already addressed the issue of the 23rd amendment. This is a power that Congress does not have as it is an Article II clause and not an Article III clause and therefore required an amendment whereas representation in the House is an Article I clause and does not fall outside the power of Congress under the necessary and proper clause..

Anonymous | 4:19 p.m. Sept. 20, 2007

You are incorrect Hogwash in stating that Congress has no rights and only has powers. When it comes to the District it is a right reserved to the federal government and against that of the states and the people. The basis of the District clause is the power of Congress not to be dependent on the states or the residents of the District for control over the seat of government. Nor does granting the District representation alter Art. 1, Sec. 2 and 3 anymore than taxing D.C. resident even though the Constitution only allows them to tax states go beyond their authority. You have basically taken the position that hundreds of years of legal precedent is wrong and you are correct. You have not attempted to back up your assertion with any facts other than your own opinion. Also, it is because the Courts refused to legislate that they made clear that Congress has the power over legislating for the District. Not you or the residents of any state possess this right when it comes to the District. Notwithstanding your narrow interpretation of the Constitution D.C. residents can be taxed, can sue in federal courts, etc.

Anonymous | 4:26 p.m. Sept. 20, 2007

Thanks Iron. It is truly refreshing to hear from people who are do not choose to attack others. This is why I have enjoyed this discussion with those here with the exception of Mr. Seegmiller.

Air Phloo | 7:25 p.m. Sept. 20, 2007

Speaking of the constitution, it is entirely acceptable for Congress to grant the District representation by statute and then let the Supreme Court determine its constitutionality. That is the exclusive power of the Judicial Branch - not the Deseret Morning News or its readers.

You can't demand a strict interpretation of the constitution for some things and not others.

No taxation without representation!

John Dougall | 11:00 p.m. Sept. 20, 2007

It is irresponsible to knowingly and intentionally passing unconstitutional legislation just to see if Congress can get away with it.

If the choice is between taxation and representation, if I lived in DC I'd be very tempted to just ask for my money back.

Cory Seegmiller | 10:15 a.m. Sept. 21, 2007

Anonymous, you're amazing! You accused those who do not agree with YOUR interpretation of the Constitution of hiding behind their "patriotism," and of wanting to tax D.C. residents without representation, and then turn around and say that I unjustly "accused" you of using rhetoric?! You astound me, sir/madam! Your straw-man, taxing-without-representation "patriot" is entirely a rhetorical fabrication! Thus, you used rhetoric.

Everyone knows that John Dougall stands for the Consitution as he interprets it. He is not hiding behind anything. You, my dear sir/madam, are the one who is hiding, though. Is this to vouch-safe your potentially questionable political credentials? I wonder. . .

Anonymous' weakness is in trying to assert that our pathetic, little, popular interpretation of the Constitution is inadequate, and that only a dirty "patriot" would agree with it. I guess that sums up Anonymous' true contention against us. Any who oppose him/her are ignorant, peasants who are hiding behind our "patriotism." Does that smack of elitism to anyone else?

D.C. is not a state; no representation.

(My campaign loss was due to the fact that I did no campaigning. I still got almost 7% of the vote, but, I'm most likely ignorant, like you said.)

Anonymous | 4:08 p.m. Sept. 21, 2007

I thought about not responding to the post you made Mr. Seegmiller but than I thought better of it. The reason I post anonymously is because those of you who prefer to attack people instead of dealing with the issues (i.e., I am an elitist). Those who hide behind patriotism such as suggesting that others "knowingly and intentionally [seek to pass] unconstitutional legislation just to see if Congress can get away with it" are hiding behind their patriotism. To even suggest that you are the vanguard of the Constitution and that those who disagree with you are trying to "cleave the Constitution in half" is wrong and is hiding behind "patriotism."

I never said anyone was ignorant or called anyone a peasant and it appears based on this that you believe that anyone who disagrees with you is an elitist. While I like John he just insulted those who sincerely disagree with him by suggesting that they are "knowingly and intentionally trying to pass unconstitutional legislation to see if they can get away with it." Even with that he is still nicer than you are. I never called anyone a "dirty patriot" nor would I call someone a name.

Cory Seegmiller | 3:43 p.m. Dec. 17, 2007

Anonymous, your response is terribly hypocritical--again!How can you claim to want to maintain anomymity, in order to deal with the issues only, and then attack me on issues that aren't even related to the topic?

You called a whole lot of us names, and then try to cover your tracks by hiding under a self-woven, lilly white layer of self-righteousness. Because I pointed out the possible real-world, political motivations behind your arguments, you decided that everything was on the table to use as a weapon against me. I'm sorry, but that isn't very nice.

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.