Here's some news. Ramesh Ponnuru agrees with the magazine he writes for.
The editorial in question pretends to be a Constitutional argument against the new bill--passed by the House--mandating Congressional representation for Washington D.C. But in reality, it's an explanation of the Constitutional hurdles the law faces, paired with a series of non-justifications for a morally dubious policy of preventing hundreds-of-thousands of (liberal) people from having a meaningful say in the affairs of their own government. The intended effect is to make it seem as if there's a defensible reason for the status quo, without actually saying what that reason is.
When the Founding Fathers drafted the Constitution, they were concerned about the possibility of a single state’s holding too much influence over the seat of national government. So they created a special federal district, outside the jurisdiction of the states and under the exclusive authority of Congress. Today, the balance of power between the states and the federal government has reversed, with the states more worried about federal encroachments than vice versa. But the words of the Founders remain, and they cannot be disregarded.
The problems with the current legislation are manifold. If D.C. is not a state but is nevertheless entitled to a seat in the House of Representatives, then what about other federal commonwealths and territories? Are the good people of Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands also worthy of full congressional representation? If a non-state such as D.C. deserves a seat in the House, then by what principle will it be denied a pair of senators, another privilege reserved by the Constitution for “each state”?
Inasmuch as the Federal government has legislative influence over the lives of the people living in those places, I'd like to hear answers to those questions from Ramesh. And, personally, I'd like those answers to be more compelling than the tired dodge that the Founding Fathers knew more about the America of today than Americans of today do.
Comments