Posted on 02/11/2004 9:57:23 AM PST by Middle Man
While watching the talking heads discussing the political issues of the day, a comment made during an interview with Gail Holmes Norton caught my attention. Ms. Norton is a democrat member of the House of Representatives from the District of Columbia. Since representatives from the District cannot vote on final legislation pending in the House, I was intrigued when she stated that her main goal in 2004 would be passage of the "No Taxation Without Representation Act." Since the bill was cleverly phrased, I decided to do a little research and find out more about her proposed legislation. When I found that a companion bill had been introduced in the Senate by Sen. John Kerry and the usual liberal suspects of the Democratic Party, my intrigue turned to suspicion.
A review of the legislation revealed that my suspicions were well founded. The bill, which was introduced in March of 2003, is a covert attempt, in the name of fairness, to dismantle the Constitution and empower the Democratic Party. In the author's opinion, this is, from a constitutional standpoint, one of the most dangerous pieces of legislation to come out of the bowels of the Democratic Party in many years.
Since residents of the District of Columbia are the only Americans who pay Federal income taxes but do not have direct voting representation in the Senate and House of Representatives, proponents of this legislation claim the only way to rectify this "injustice" is to provide for full voting representation in Congress for the citizens of the District.
This proposed legislation provides that for purposes of congressional representation:
"[T]he District of Columbia, constituting the seat of government of the United States, shall be treated as a State, such that its residents shall be entitled to elect and be represented by 2 Senators in the United States Senate, and as many Representatives in the House of Representatives as a similarly populous State would be entitled to under the law."
Under this bill, Senators and Representative elected from the District would "be entitled to be admitted to seats in Congress and to all the rights and privileges of Senators and Representatives of the States in the Congress of the United States."
If this legislation passes, then the District of Columbia, through a legislative slight of hand, not an amendment of the Constitution, would basically become the 51st State in the Union. Since the population of the District are predominately democrats, the Democratic Party would immediately pick-up 2 seats in the Senate and 3 in the House of Representatives. While this would be a political nightmare for the Republican Party, it would be a constitutional catastrophe because it would mark the end of the federal system of government established by the Constitution.
The democrats sponsoring this legislation claim that not giving the District of Columbia direct voting representation in Congress is unfair and "inconsistent with the founding principles of the Nation." On the contrary. The decision of the Founders to not give the District direct representation in Congress is a core principle of the federal system of government established by the Constitution.
During the debates in the Federal [Constitutional] Convention of 1787, there were two opposing factions concerning the proposed revision of Articles of Confederation. One side favored abolition of the federal system of government established by the Articles and institution of a strong national government. Under this form of government, the States would have been consolidated into one nation under the total control of an all-powerful central government. The other side wanted to retain and revise the existing federal system. Under this form of government, the federal government would continue to act as the States' government and have very limited powers. After nearly two months of heated debate, the Convention rejected the national plan. Thus, the Constitution, when adopted, maintained the federal system of government established by the Articles of Confederation.
The reason the District of Columbia was not given representation in Congress can be found in the words of Abel Upshur. Upshur, who had been Secretary of State and Secretary of the Navy, had an intimate knowledge of the Constitution and the purpose of the federal government. In his classic work of 1868, "The Federal Government, Its True Nature and Character," Upshur construed the States as the principals to the Constitution and federal government as their agent: "The Federal Government is the creature of the States. It is not a party to the Constitution, but the result of it - the creation of that agreement which was made by the States as parties. It is a mere agent, entrusted with limited powers for certain specific objects; which powers and objects are enumerated in the Constitution." He continued by stating that the Constitution is a compact or contract between the several States: "The Constitution is a compact, and the parties to it are each State, with each and every other State. The Federal Government is not a party, but is the mere creature of the agreement between the States as parties."
The District of Columbia is not a State. It was created by a cession of land from the States of Maryland and Virginia. The States established the District as the independent base of operation for their federal government. This was done to maintain a separation between the principals and the agent. Since the Constitution is a compact between the several States, the only parties entitled to direct representation are the parties to that compact. The federal government, as the agent of the States, is not a party to the constitutional compact between the States. Thus, the District of Columbia, as base of operation for the States' government, was not granted direct voting representation in the Congress of the United States [Congress of the states united] because it is not a State.
The nature of the federal system of government established by the Constitution prohibits the federal government from being a principal and the agent of the principals all in one. Ms. Holmes' legislation would obliterate this distinction. If the democrats succeed in their attempt to transform the District of Columbia into a de facto party to the compact between the several States, then the federal system of government established by the Constitution will come to an end because the agent will gain the authority to exercise the powers of the principals and the powers of the agent all in one.
In 1821, Thomas Jefferson warned of the consequences if the efforts to centralize all power in Washington D.C. ever succeeded:
"When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another, and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated."
The attempt to make the District of Columbia a de facto party to the constitutional compact between the States is just another step in this process.
Robert Greenslade focuses his writing on issues surrounding the federal government and the Constitution. He believes politicians at the federal level, through ignorance or design, are systematically dismantling the Constitution in an effort to expand their power and consolidate control over the American people. He has dedicated himself to resurrecting the true intent of the Constitution in the hope that the information will contribute, in some small way, to restoring the system of limited government established by the Constitution.
That should be Eleanor Holmes Norton, AKA Curious George.
Given its current population, about 570,000, the District would only be entitled to one Representative (290+ million people divided by 435 House seats = over 670,000 per seat).
Wow, that's the most severe case of OIP (overreaching in print) I've seen in months. Reread the 10th Amendment and go sit in the corner for 30 minutes.
Holmes-Norton and others have been pushing this for the last 20+ years and it has gotten nowhere even under a democratic congress. The republicans with NEVER support it because it would hand the democrats two senate seats.
A notion many of our many activist federal judges have forgotten. But then, what is a judge except a lawyer who knew a governor?
A mere law cannot overcome the Constitution. If, somehow, this POS passed the Congress and was signed by Bush (fat chance of that, given the obvious political implications - I think that this is one thing that would cause Senate Republicans to grow a pair and fillibuster), it would be challenged at the Supreme Court level and struck down - quickly. Not even this Supreme Court is so blind as to allow such a thing.
You may want to rethink your remark:
Article I, Section , Clause 17
"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,"
"as a result of the 14th Amendment, which settles forever (if Appomattox didn't already) the question of Federal supremacy. Feds supreme, states subordinate."
The 14th amendment "settles" the issue of federal jurisdiction of the Constitution within the boundaries of a state, not the "supremacy" of the federal legislation over state legislation.
For example, federal laws dealing with kidnapping have no jurisdiction until the "crime" satisfies the jurisdiction issue of the "commerce clause."
Also pretty unambiguous. No matter how the courts want to twist it, the BOR applies to the FedGov, and all lesser governing bodies in the US. Just because you cross State lines, or even in to the District of Columbia, does not mean that the legal protections for our Rights evaporate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.