Sanford D. Horn: Voting wrongs, gun rights
Column by Sanford D. Horn
Submit guest columns: freepress2@ntelos.net
The Washington Post, the alleged newspaper of record for the nation’s capitol and its metropolitan area, over the past seven days ending with Saturday, April 24, 2010, ran six articles, editorials or columns each decrying the lack of voting rights yet to bestowed upon the residents of the District of Columbia.
All but one missed the point entirely, and the one author who did get the point and mentioned the eight hundred pound elephant in the room that alluded all the others, while correct in his method of solution, is wrong in his thinking. Make no mistake, the Post is not the only newspaper guilty of being disingenuous, they simply provided so many examples of their nascent ignorance.
The issue in question is, and has been for decades, the potential of granting the citizens of the District of Columbia with a voting member to the House of Representatives with the same powers and authority of the current 435 members. This session of Congress seemed the closest to making those voting rights a reality for the folks in DC, yet too many believed they were hamstrung by a rider to the legislation that would handcuff the DC government regarding gun control in the District itself.
Truth be told, the question of gun rights had been resolved via the Supreme Court’s hearing of District of Columbia v. Heller and by correctly ruling in favor of Heller granting the appropriate Second Amendment rights to the citizens of the District – a long overdue decision.
There was also a compromise proposal coming in part from the pseudo-RINO, former Congressman Tom Davis (VA-11th) that would be, to borrow a phrase, fair and balanced by giving a House seat to DC and a temporary seat to Utah, which would no doubt be a GOP seat. However, as noted, it would only be temporary and the next census, this one, would redistribute the Utah seat to the state statistically due the next seat.
All of the negotiating, hand-wringing over depriving citizens their voting rights, and the notion of taxation without representation as appears on many DC license plates, is avuncular to a parlor game or sleight of hand.
The reality is the one issue not addressed by Post writers Tim Craig and Ann E. Marimow in “Gun law proposal complicates Hill vote,” or by Marimow and Ben Pershing in “District voting rights scuttled,” or in Robert McCartney’s editorial “Plenty of blame to go around on lack of D.C. vote,” or a Post editorial “D.C. voting rights? Not this deal,” or local opinions offered by DC Shadow Senator Michael Brown, the aforementioned Davis and DC City Councilman Mary Cheh (D-Ward 3).
Only in the April 24 column “What will it take to get a vote for the District,” did Colbert I. King deal with the issue head on – the Constitutionality of whether or not District citizens should have voting representation in the House. While I often enjoy Colbert’s columns and sometimes agree with him, this is not one of those times.
Colbert, does, aver correctly, that the power to grant DC congressional representation does fall into the hands of the Congress itself. However, what Congress can giveth, Congress may also taketh away. So, Colbert once again, takes the correct tack by suggesting an official constitutional amendment – this I agree with in practice, but not in theory.
If, and this is a big if, the District of Columbia is to ever attain congressional representation, it should be garnered via a constitutional amendment. This would require a two-thirds vote from both houses of Congress to propose such an amendment and then three quarters of the several states would need to sign off on the amendment making it so.
How easy is that? Since the Bill of Rights, the first 10 Amendments, were ratified on Dec. 15, 1791, the Constitution has been amended a mere 17 times. That’s one amendment every 12.88 years, and really, since one amendment repealed another, that’s 15 constitutional changes in 219 years, or once every 14.6 years, for the stats junkies.
This is a serious enough issue to demand a constitutional amendment. That’s the practice side of the issue. The theory side of the issue is where I part company from Colbert. In no way do I support the granting of congressional representation to the District of Columbia.
The founding fathers did not intend for the seat of the government of the United States of America to be treated like a state. Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution states, “The Congress shall have Power… 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, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings; – …”
It is a district – the seat of the government, not a permanent residence. When the Capitol was erected upon the swamp on which it currently rests, members of the citizen legislature were expected to ride into town on their horses or carriages, serve their term or two, then return to their farms, businesses, law practices, etc. and resume life as private citizens. Their staffs, small as they were, were expected to do likewise.
It was neither expected nor predicted that the District of Columbia would grow to become a burgeoning metropolis of greater than 600,000 in the city and more than two million residents in the surrounding cities and counties in Maryland and Virginia.
However, that being said, no one forced the residents of DC to become such, thus making their demands of representation disingenuous. Again, according to the Constitution, only states are entitled to representation in the House and Senate.
Article I, Section 2 states that “The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States…”
And just for good measure, Article I, Section 3 states that “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State…”
Although the issue of Senate representation has not garnered as much attention or press as that of House representation, the statehood supporters would certainly have an interest in the addition of members in both houses. Shadow Senator Brown called for as much in his April 20 Local Opinion item: “We want our full rights and we want them now…. It’s time to make us equal. It’s time to make us a state.” But Mr. Brown is misguided. His conclusion is demonstrative of a common ailment suffered by most members of the House and Senate – Constitutional forgetfulness.
This is not the partisan Republican talking here, knowing that DC would undoubtedly elect two Democrats to the Senate and one more to the House, but one who believes the seat of the government should not be made a state as it is distinct in its existence and use by the federal government.
I should also point out the absurd recommendation made by McCartney in his April 22 column. He suggests dividing California into two states, giving each new state two senators or just amending the Constitution to grant the current Golden State an additional two senators to compensate for its population.
McCartney’s trip to fantasy land suggests that Southern California would presumably elect Republicans and Northern California would supposedly elect Democrats and that the two new Republicans would be a counterweight to the two Democrats the DC voters would send up the street to the Senate. At least McCartney knows this plan is loopy. “Far-fetched? Absolutely,” he asks and answers.
Back in the world of reality, there is a solution that would make the most sense and give DC residents the representation they should have as residents of an actual state – and under my plan, they would attain just that.
The land creating the District of Columbia was initially carved out of Maryland and Virginia in July 1790. In 1847, the land on the southern side of the Potomac reverted back to Virginia, eliminating the Old Dominion from the equation. The residential sections of the District should be apportioned back to the bordering Fourth and Eighth Congressional Districts of Maryland – both of which are majority Democratic districts.
Both Congressmen Donna Edwards (D-4th) and Chris Van Hollen (D-8th) are in little jeopardy of failing to win reelection this November. Since Van Hollen defeated moderate Republican Connie Morella in 2002, Democratic candidates are all but assured of victory every other November and this would not disturb the proverbial electoral apple cart or the balance of power.
If anything, eventually such gerrymandering of the District of Columbia would create a need for a ninth district in Maryland and in that part of the state it would more than likely be a Democratically-held seat when reapportionment comes up in a future census. That said, I cannot be accused of partisan politics here.
The District of Columbia would be preserved as the seat of the government of the United States of America, the House of Representatives would remain steadfast with its 435 members and the Senate would also retain its present count of 100 senators. Crisis averted and all remains right in this corner of the world.
Sanford D. Horn is a writer and political consultant living in Alexandria.
Related posts:
- Sanford D. Horn | D.C. – First in War, First in Peace, Never in Congress “If the District of Columbia deserves a member of the House of Representatives, they deserve two senators as well,” said Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) earlier...
- Sanford D. Horn | A Burr-is in the Dems’ side When The Washington Post and the Chicago Tribune call for a Democrat’s resignation, one can just picture the snow falling in hell. The gift that...
- Sanford D. Horn: To protect and defend Column by Sanford D. Horn Submit guest columns: freepress2@ntelos.net Article II, Section I of the Constitution of the United States of America requires the...
- Letter requirement for restoration of voting rights dropped Edited by Chris Graham freepress2@ntelos.net Gov. Bob McDonnell is reportedly pulling back from a proposal that would have required nonviolent offenders in Virginia seeking...
- Sanford D. Horn | Thank you, veterans “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for,...
In this purported government “of the people, for the people, by the people, why does “We the people of the United States” mean that states and corporations can be represented, but over half a million real people cannot? There are two words for this: “Despotic Constitutionalism”.
The central premise of our form of participatory government is that “just power derives from the consent of the governed”. Only in the case of DC, that premise has been abandoned, creating a caste of persons who are effectively political eunuchs, pariahs, who, though by both blood and place of birth (jus sanguinis and jus solis) are unrebuttably citizens of the nation, but are apparently not deemed to be “people of the United States”. So, presumably, they must fit some other category, perhaps something like sub-humans or aliens (foreigners or extraterrestrials)?
Residents of DC belong to the nation in the sense of full membership, not in the sense of chattel property. Of those Amendments to the Constitution mentioned, a goodly number were addressed at problems arising from a failure in the initial Constitution to allow voting for other than propertied white males over 21. In a piecemeal fashion, amendments have gradually corrected that original deficiency.
My own suggestions would be twofold:
First, considering that DC residents technically do not reside in the “United States”, we should treat them as we currently do other expatriates who live outside the United States, and allow each DC resident to declare affiliation or affinity with a state, and allow them to vote absentee in that state, like other expatriates.
After all, the Constitution says “the PEOPLE of the several states” not “the RESIDENTS of the several states. Look up the meaning of the word “of”.
Residents of DC –ARE– the people of the several states. They are part and parcel, progeny and posterity of those same founders who pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to preserve our Liberty. They belonged to the original thirteen colonies, which cannot be said of Guam, Samoa, or Puerto Rico. Nor, for that matter, of Hawaii, Alaska, …nor even Wyoming, which has a smaller population than DC.
The people of DC are certainly not the people of the Asian Steppes, nor of the Arctic tundra, nor of the Australian outback, nor of the Argentinian pampas; they, like other American expatriates, are the people of the several [American] states, regardless of where they currently reside.
The second issue regarding DC is the degree of local autonomy. Currently, a simple majority is all that is necessary for Congress to rule with Absolute Power over DC “in all cases whatsoever.” And we all know that power corrupts, and Absolute Power corrupts Absolutely [case in point, here].
If Congress DOES need to maintain the last word over DC, at least the exercise of such Absolute Power ought to require support from broad national consensus, as demonstrated by a requirement for a super-majority of both Houses to impose that Absolute Power. What happened to the central premise on which our country is otherwise based, that “just power derives from the consent of the governed”?
Citizenw actually makes a good half-point in his/her suggestion that the 600,000 +/- DC residents be given ex-patriate status and allowed to vote as a resident of any of the 50 states. Those 600,000 voters would be absorbed without the need to reapportion as this could potentially add 12,000 voters to each of the 50 states – on average.
However, I grant only a half-point because it would not be enough to just declare oneself a resident of a state, but one would need to select a congressional district with which to attach oneself.
Another concern I have with citizenw’s plan is how would that effect the right of those DC ex-pats to register their children in schools in those various congressional districts or pay taxes in those states? Or would the plan simply be a paper transaction for the purposes of voting and voting only? If that is the case, the plan is almost as plausible as my returning the residential land to Maryland and have the DC residents be absorbed into the 4th and 8th congressional districts of Maryland and call it a day.
The important aspect of this not so insignificant exercise is that people are thinking about genuine solutions.
“The important aspect of this not so insignificant exercise is that people are thinking about genuine solutions.”
And that should count for my other half-point.
Sanford: Thanks for a long, detailed history of DC and the voting rights issue. Having been around this area since 1966 (School, work, both private and govt, etc.) I would never let the people of DC vote for anything, period.
They are among the most politically ignorant and incompetent people in America, and I learned this from first-hand experience.
All I have to say is “Crook, er Mayor for Life” Marion Barry to state my case. For a man who should have spend much of his life in jail, he has consistently sleazed his way of one illegal or unscrupulous situation after another starting as far back as the OIC theft case which sent his first wife and his cronies to jail.
Then there are the drug charges.
Then the report that he abused his second wife (now deceased).
Then there are the unfilled potholes, uncollected garbage, the corruption in the Police Department (at minimum, 90 officers went to jail or were fired for misbehavior to major felonies during Barry’s reign as Councilmen and Mayor).
There are now a number of investigations into Barry’s cronyism in business contracting, where corruption is rampant.
Despite some valiant police efforts, the streets of some sections of DC are still war-zones (5 killed and about 9 wounded in one drive-by shooting. Beginning to look like Obama/Daly’s Chicago).
Taxes are high and services are sporadic. The only thing DC is good at is issuing parking tickets and today’s news says that at least 45% are dismissed when fought in court. I’ve been there and this is one of DC’s most corrupt money-making scam.
The level of education of today’s kids in much of DC is substandard to say the least, an almost non-existent for many. The Washington Teachers Union, years ago, wrecked the DC school system with their abolition of the track-system, the allowing of marxist teachers to run the union, the teaching content of courses, and internal corruption in contracting.
DC is a wreck. Why make it a state? They’re trying this crap with Puerto Rico now and it will destroy another area’s economy with welfare programs, entitlement programs, and high unemployment.
When you look at DC, you look at the future of any similar entity. Unless there is a total overturning of the status quo political structure, nothing will succeed in pulling it out of the toilet that it has been in for decades under homerule.
PS: There have been at least three street crimes committed right in front of my govt building, including a carjacking, and three of our people who were doing volunteer work in a poorer DC neighborhood got robbed last week for their good works.
DC> If you’re not armed, you are a target.