Get today's headlines via email
Good morning edition
Deseret News Family Deals
In Opinion
Across Site
- Readers' forum: A changing Constitution
- Michael Gerson: Egypt's craziness is...
- George F. Will: Is it bribery or just...
- Mackenzie Eaglen: Obama's proposed...
- My view: The climate is right to tear...
- Readers' forum: Incorporate Millcreek
- Charles Krauthammer: The Gospel...
- Readers' forum: Teachers came first
- In our opinion: Editorial: Protecting...
- John B. Quigley: American forces do...
In Opinion
Across Site
- Evangelicals and Mormons: Can we talk?
- In our opinion: Tinkering with...
- Readers' forum: Rights of conscience
- Readers' forum: Voting for principals
- Readers' forum: Bush's failed policies
- John Florez: The changing face of...
- The winners and the losers
- Readers' forum: Teachers not overpaid
- Jay Evensen: Think twice before...
- Readers' forum: Home equity loans
In Opinion
Across Site
- Obama's assault on the poor
62 - Evangelicals and Mormons: Can we talk?
53 - Letters: Bush's failed policies
49 - Letters: Teachers not overpaid
30 - Letters: Home equity loans
28 - Economic chaos ahead
25 - GOP no longer leads on defense
24 - Letters: Rights of conscience
22 - Letter: Taxing our children
21 - Letter: Require drug tests
19







Of course, passing the current bill would be a constitutional disaster, regardless of any perceived benefit for Utah.
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.
"The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when it was adopted, it means now." � 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.
"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.
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.
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.
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?
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