Just in time for the health care vote! Constitution? What Constitution? Bastards.
[
link to www.cnsnews.com]
Washington (CNSNews.com) – The U.S. Senate voted Tuesday to allow floor debate on a bill that would grant the District of Columbia a full-fledged congressman in the U.S. House of Representatives.
The bill advances a controversial item on the agenda of congressional Democrats, but which many Republicans say is unconstitutional. The Constitution says: “The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States.” It says nothing about members of the House being elected by anything other than a state.
On a mostly party-line 62-34 vote, 54 Senate Democrats and eight Republicans voted to allow the D.C. Voting Rights Act to proceed to the Senate floor for debate, which should take place later this week.
Senate Democratic leaders praised the bill’s progress, saying it was about time the more than 600,000 residents of the nation’s capital got a vote in Congress.
“This morning we had a vote which takes a big first step toward addressing a wrong that has been going on for centuries, one that is offensive to all people,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said at a press conference Tuesday.
Reid said that District residents have been denied “basic civil rights” by not having representation in Congress for the entirety of the country’s history.
“They haven’t had a basic civil right, the right to vote,” Reid declared.
But Senate Republicans said that not only is the bill unconstitutional, if the District of Columbia wants representation in Congress, it should go through the statehood process – like every other state.
“It’s unconstitutional,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) told reporters Tuesday. “There’s a way to get the District of Columbia members of Congress, and it’s to go through the constitutional amendment process.”
McConnell predicted that no matter what congressional Democrats have in mind, the issue will ultimately be decided in federal court.
“I think we all know, on both sides of this question, that it will end up in court and ultimately the Supreme Court will determine whether or not you can do this.”
Even Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), one of the Republicans who voted to allow the bill to proceed for debate, said she believes the measure was unconstitutional. She explained her vote by saying she thought the debate was important and the bill shouldn’t be bottled up -- even though she will ultimately be voting against it.
“I think we should have this debate,” Murkowski said, “I happen to agree with Leader McConnell that the provisions we will vote on are unconstitutional. I think it’s important that we have the debate here in the Senate and look at the options we have here in front of us. I’m voting against the bill.”
The Republicans’ constitutional challenges are rooted in Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution, which stipulates that the House of Representatives be made up of members elected from the states.
“The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States.”
Article I is the part of the Constitution which establishes Congress – as well as D.C. – but does not specifically provide for congressional representation for the nation’s capital city.
Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.), meanwhile, disagreed with Republicans, saying that Article I, Section 8 – known as ‘the District Clause’ – empowers Congress to grant the district a full House member.
“It’s in the District Clause that says that Congress has the right to deal with matters regarding the District of Columbia,” Lieberman explained when questioned by CNSNews.com.
That is open to interpretation.
Specifically, the District Clause gives Congress the power “To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding 10 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, dockyards, and other needful buildings.”
The Supreme Court has ruled that the District can be treated as a state for certain purposes. In National Mutual Insurance Co. v. Tidewater Transfer Co., justices held that Congress could treat D.C. as a state for purposes of federal court jurisdiction.
However, in Michel v. Anderson, a lawsuit filed by former House Majority Leader Bob Michel (R-Ill.), the U.S Circuit Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit said that Article I prohibited Congress from bestowing the privileges of a member of Congress on anyone who is not elected by the people of a state.
Writing for the majority, Judge Laurence Silberman wrote: “The crucial constitutional language … is, instead, Article I, section 2: “The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members....” That language precludes the House from bestowing the characteristics of membership on someone other than those “chosen every second Year by the People of the several States.”
The Supreme Court declined to hear the Anderson case, signaling that it found nothing wrong with the judges’ decision.
United States
