This is quite simple, the Constitution of the United States (aka the Supreme Law of the Land) states:
"The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature."
The District of Columbia is not a State, nor is it a part of a State. James Madison expounded the need for a federal district on January 23, 1788, in his "Federalist No. 43", section #2, arguing that the national capital needed to be distinct from the states in order to provide for its own maintenance and safety.
The problem of the "disenfranchisement" of District residents is not new (although, I would argue that no one there has been disenfranchised--those born there have never had representation in Congress and those who move there do so on their own accord), ever since the "Organic Act of 1801" which officially ceded the land to the federal government and disenfranchising the residents of the District, there have been efforts to remedy this. Most efforts revolve around "retrocession".
The City of Alexandria used to be the southern county of the District, but was retroceded to Virginia after the people of the city began to request that Virginia ask for the territory back in the 1840s. In February 1846, the Virginia General Assembly officially agreed to accept retrocession if approved by Congress and in July, the Congress retroceded the land south of the Potomac back to Virginia.
In my opinion, it makes sense to retrocede the majority of the District back to Maryland with the exception of the Federal Triangle, the Mall, and the Navy Yard. These areas have no residences (with the exception of the White House--and the President and his family retain their citizenship in their home State). The problem is that Maryland does not want to do this. Without Maryland's cooperation, this will not happen.
So that leaves three options (at least if one believes that the Constitution matters).
The first, make Washington a State (New Columbia?)...this is not an easy or clear process. There are several portential problems...
Statehood usually comes from territories or colonies petitioning to become a State; however, DC is not a territory, nor is it a colony, nor is it an area which could be annexed. Second, the land was ceded by Maryland for a particular purpose, so there may be legal ramifications in this pertaining to the territory if it is no longer to be used for this purpose. Regardless, there would need to remain a portion of the area as a Federal District as mentioned above.
The second, amend the Constitution.
Unlikely to be ratified though. You need the support of 2/3 of both houses of Congress to propose the amendment (or 2/3 of the States to call a Constitutional Convention). This is unlikely since New Columbia would be extremely supportive of the Democrat Party...you will never get 290 votes in the house nor 67 votes in the Senate for the amendment. Neither would 34 States call to convene a Constitutional Convention for this purpose (can you imagine the likes of Senators Clinton, Kennedy, and Byrd attempting to write a new Constitution--we have no Madison, no Franklin, no Washington, et al in our midst). Even on the off chance that such an amendment could be proposed, there is no way 38 States would ratify it as it weakens their power.
The third and most likely option is the restoration of voting rights by Congressional act. In 2004, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher [R-CA] proposed the "District of Columbia Voting Rights Restoration Act" (H.R. 3709). This act would have treated the residents of the District as residents of Maryland for the purposes of Congressional representation. Maryland's congressional delegation would then be apportioned accordingly to include the population of the District. At first blush, this seems un-Constitutional as well; however, from the foundation of the District in 1790 until the passage of the Organic Act of 1801, citizens living in D.C. continued to vote for members of Congress in Maryland or Virginia; legal scholars therefore propose that the Congress has the power to restore those voting rights while maintaining the integrity of the federal district.
This seems simple enough, doesn't it?
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
DC Voting Rights are UNCONSTITUTIONAL
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
In Response to the Unending Mantra of "The Worst Since"
I have a friend who sent me a note saying:
"...if my numbers are correct we are close to passing the Great Depression.
1930 US population 123,202,620
2008 US population 303,824,650
1930 Unemployed 25% or 30,800,655
2008 Unemployed 7.6% or 23,090,673
Differenece 7,709,982 in todays standard thats not a lot of people.
Thanks George Bush"
I had to respond...and as a tutorial of statistical analysis, I hope you enjoy:
All data below are from the Bureau of Labor Statistics:
First of all, the unemployment rate is not the percentage of all people, but employable non-farm workers...currently there are 13.0 million people unemployed out of a civilian workforce of 153.4 million or 8.5% in January (not seasonally adjusted--real numbers).
In 1982 and 1983, the annual unemployment rate was higher at 9.7% and 9.6%, respectively.
Remember, you have to use the rate of unemployment because there are so many more people employed...I could easily say that there are 132.3 million people employed right now much higher (by almost 4 times) than the approximately 34.3 million that were employed during the worst of the Depression.
January had the lowest employment level in 48 months, since FEBRUARY 2005; however, more people are working in the US now than at any time from 1776 to 2004.
Now, of course, if you are one of the 13 million unemployed, you are hurting right now, but there are jobs out there--according to the BLS, over 3 million jobs are unfilled right now, according to their surveys, and the survey DOES NOT count all available jobs.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Heading Down the Road of American Destruction
The Senate, on a party-line vote (let's face it, Collins, Snowe, and Specter are hardly Republicans), passed the "stimulus" bill (which, ironically, has very little stimulative power) on Tuesday, joining the House Democrats in the wrong-headed idea that government spending is the answer to all of our problems.
If that were true, wouldn't the Bush Administration have overseen the most impressive growth of our economy in the history of the US?
Matt Kibbe at Freedom Works wrote an excellent commentary about how President Obama should study the history of the deep recession early in the 20th Century (no, not that one...the other one...from 1919 to 1923). In his commentary, "Obama Should Channel Harding, Not FDR" posits that the current direction we are taking is the wrong one...worth the read!
The one take away from the piece is that all you know about the Great Depression and FDR as the savior of the US is wrong...
A recent study by UCLA economists Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian show that FDR lengthened the Great Depression by seven years with his anti-market “stimulus” policies. They write that prior to FDR’s interventions, “The economy was poised for a beautiful recovery, but that recovery was stalled by these misguided policies.”
Time for a reassessment, people! I am hopeful that the idiots on Capitol Hill will push too hard in conference and derail this horrendous pork spending bill (most of which will not come on line for more than two years) and cause the three RINOs of the Apocolypse to reconsider. Time to turn the screws to these idiots! Call them early and often over the next several days:
Olympia Snowe
Maine
(202) 224-5344
Susan Collins
Maine
(202) 224-2523
Arlen Specter
Pennsylvania
(202) 224-4254
