I think that the founding fathers were right to not allow D.C. to have a representative in Congress, but I’m willing to be persuaded otherwise.
What I’m not willing to be persuaded about is whether there should be a bill passed to allow them that.
It would require a Constitutional Amendment.
CNS News, which can normally be counted on for reliability, drops the ball on this one.
The bill advances a controversial item on the agenda of congressional Democrats, but which many Republicans say is unconstitutional.
Am I the only one who remembers grade school civics class? It doesn’t take being a Republican to recognize the constitutional problems faced by this bill. Any sixth grader ought to be able to help our Democratic friends.
From Article I of the Constitution:
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Number
but each State shall have at Least one Representative
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof;
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
Clearly, Article I establishes that states and states alone have Representatives and that only states can elect them. It also, just as clearly points out that the seat of government is formed by ceding of land by states and is not a state itself, but a District.
You want to give residents of D.C. representation? Fine. But the only legal way to do it is through a Constitutional Amendment. Any law passed that attempts to do such a thing is a farce.