Reader comments
Death of 4th seat is good
27 comments | Read story
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.
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." � 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.
"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.
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" 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.
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.
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?
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.
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
-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!
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
- Lakers booed at home in loss 12:53 a.m.
- Big games keep UHSAA coffers full 12:51 a.m.
- TCU stuck at fourth in BCS 12:50 a.m.
- Students from abroad come to Utah 12:26 a.m.
- Sports on the air 12:18 a.m.
- Sports briefs 12:17 a.m.
- Editorial: Red flags at Fort Hood 12:14 a.m.
- Rid Capitol Hill of 'roaches' 12:14 a.m.
- Health proposal not 'reform' 12:14 a.m.
- Afterthoughts 12:14 a.m.
- BYU happy to escape with victory
230 - TCU creams U.225
- Editorial: Mormons and gay rights206
- Will state consider gay rights law?149
- Can BYU root for (ick) Utah Utes?131
- RSL heads to MLS title game125
- Utes remain silent about BCS120
- Celtics crush Jazz104
- TCU stays 4th in AP; Y. 19th, U. 23rd97
- 3A: Hurricane advances to title game88
Maybe someone out there can help me understand how raising the state...
Advertisement
Latest comments
No, students are NOT safe from predators. If a parent wants to make sure...
If you really think Mormon's are mainstream, you must not have paid attention...
I don't see the schools presidents voting to get rid of WYM or NM, even...
why people complain about how football is covered by the media too much. when...
A little perspective is not a bad thing. Notice the Cougar's won loss record...
I actually was encouraged by some aspects of the game. Any Utah fan who has...
A story about Mormons as minorities? In this paper? Get over the "victim"...
she was an awesome woman someone i looked up to when i was younger she was...
Wow you just made one of the dumbest comments I've heard yet. Fire Bronco????...
Re: Huh?, You like many other haters are probably oblivious to many obvious...
Advertisements
Of course, passing the current bill would be a constitutional disaster, regardless of any perceived benefit for Utah.