This may be the first time in American history where so many long-standing elements of our government were targeted for change. Such important things as increasing the number of Supreme Court justices; imposing term limits on justices; getting rid of the Senate filibuster procedure; imposing more gun control constraints; and statehood for the District of Columbia and the territory of Puerto Rico are on the plate.
Critics of these changes cite political advantage as the motivation. Four more justices appointed by the current Democrat president and approved by a Democrat-controlled Senate certainly fits that idea. Two U.S. Senators each and some number of Representatives for DC and Puerto Rico also fit in.
And doing away with the filibuster, so the Senate would make all decisions at 51 percent like the House of Representatives, would make appointment approvals easier for both parties, and would remove protection against the tyranny of the majority. Democrats, incidentally, made good use of the filibuster during the Trump presidency.
The bill to make D.C. a state was passed by the House Committee on Oversight and Reform last Wednesday, and will get a vote by the full House this week.
One reason cited for this historic transformation of the nation’s capitol is to provide the taxpayers of the District of Columbia with voting representation in the Congress and full control over local affairs.
However, it is important to know just why the nation’s capitol was not a state to begin with, and that goes back to the establishment of the U.S. Constitution, which was ratified in June of 1788.
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution gives Congress the 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 Government of the United States."
Founding Father James Madison, the nation’s fourth president, was concerned that if the capital doubled as a state, it would have greater power than the other states, creating an unequal situation, and he correctly believed that the federal government should be neutral in matters of the sovereign states.
An additional and more recent opinion about the nation’s capitol remaining an independent entity that is not associated with any state comes from Robert F. Kennedy when he was Attorney General in the 1960s. “It was indispensably necessary to the independence and the very existence of the new Federal Government to have a seat of government which was not subject to the jurisdiction or control of any State,” Kennedy wrote.
And regarding the perceived systemic inequality that has denied the full voting rights, citizenship and representation in Congress for residents of Washington DC, which some cite as justification for statehood, no one forces people to live in the District instead of a nearby state, where they would have voting rights and be only a short distance from the District.
Further, DC statehood will definitely benefit Democrats. According to bestplaces.net, which got the following voter data from federal agencies, related that in the last five presidential elections, DC voters were heavily Democrat. And in 2016, DC voters voted Democrat 90.86 percent, against the 4.09 percent who voted Republican.
Virginia’s 9th District Republican Congressman Morgan Griffith addressed this situation in a recent correspondence to constituents. “Any measure giving the District statehood would need to go through the process of amending the Constitution. H.R. 51, the statehood bill the House will consider, does not do so. Instead, it shrinks the seat of the U.S. government to an area around the Mall, the White House, the Capitol, the Supreme Court, and other federal buildings, and admits the rest of the District as a state.”
“This approach suffers from an additional flaw beyond its constitutionality,” he continues. “The 23rd Amendment grants electoral votes to the ‘seat of Government of the United States,’ not the District of Columbia specifically, meaning that the handful of residents in this area, presumably including the president and his family, would have as much weight in the Electoral College as some states.”
“Giving the residents of the District of Columbia a voice in the Federal Government is a worthy goal,” he wrote, “but it must be done constitutionally.”
Offering a fair and sensible measure to satisfy this issue, Griffith has introduced H.R. 2614, the Compact Federal District Act. The bill recognizes the right of D.C. residents to be represented in Congress, and be able to vote for a U.S. House Representative and two Senators by transferring most of the District and its residents to Maryland in a process known as retrocession, which means returning the land to Maryland that it ceded to the federal government to form the District of Columbia.
The proposed actions listed at the beginning of this commentary share a political desire, with the possible exception of term limits for Supreme Court justices. That desire is giving a clear and great advantage to one political party: The Democrats.
Apparently, they like this method of gaining power. If you cannot achieve your goals under the existing system, change it to meet your needs.
No comments:
Post a Comment