Sen. Lieberman on the Constitution
According to Senator Lieberman, speaking on the floor of the Senate this morning, Congress has the Constitutional authority to grant voting rights in Congress to representatives from the District of Columbia.
The source of that authority?
Article 1, Section 8, 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, 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, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.
It’s not clear to me how the power to exercise exclusive legislation over the District gives Congress the authority to override Article 1 Section 2 (“The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States” or Article 3 Section 1 (“The Senators of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State).
I agree with the policy decision that people living in the District should have representation in Congress, and I think the fact that there are hundreds of thousands of people living within the United States who have no such representation is a violation of the nation’s fundamental political values. But the remedy lies in changing the Constitution, as was done with the 23d Amendment, rather than twisting the Congress’ power to legislate for the District in ways which were clearly not intended by.
By that reasoning, there was no need to pass the 23rd Amendment.
The same Constitution says this in Article I Section 2:
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.
Lieberman cherry picks his references. The document must be read as a whole. The Federal Congress did not create itself. Its composition was set by the Constitution.
Comment by Amphipolis — 1/6/2009 @ 10:58 am
If they want to give DC a rep, they can pass another amendment. Like they did last time for seats on the electoral college.
But I suppose if they think they can unilaterally deny congressmen they may as well unilaterally add them.
Comment by Amphipolis — 1/6/2009 @ 11:00 am
Could they exercise their exclusive legislation to grant DC, let’s say, 500 Representatives and 100 Senators? One more harm that Doofus ’43 did to us. He made a suckass liberal hog at the public trough like Lieberman look good to us.
Comment by nk — 1/6/2009 @ 11:13 am
All because Sadam Hussein tried to kill his daddy which I have to confess is not all that bad a reason.
Comment by nk — 1/6/2009 @ 11:15 am
The concern I have is that, if this measure passes, I don’t see who would have standing to sue to stop it.
Comment by aphrael — 1/6/2009 @ 11:18 am
Harry Reid will stop it dead in its tracks. He has made it clear that he does not want to look at any dark faces when he addresses the floor. No Danny Davis, no Jesse Jackson, Jr., no Emil Jones, no Roland Burris. He does not mind upskirts, even from a double amputee, if the girls in question pass the light-meter test.
Comment by nk — 1/6/2009 @ 11:34 am
Get with the times, aphrael. Adhering to the Constitution is so 19th century (maybe 18th). These days, you ignore it if nobody will notice or care, or find loopholes otherwise. Screw all the people that gave so much to establish it.
Comment by Justin — 1/6/2009 @ 12:02 pm
Return DC to the state of Maryland.
Comment by aunursa — 1/6/2009 @ 12:22 pm
I’m with you aunursa. I don’t believe the Federal City was intended to have permanent residents. Let Maryland have them, or, if you absolutely have to play politics with it, give them to Virginia in order to screw Republicans there. Either way, no statehood for DC.
Comment by JVW — 1/6/2009 @ 3:10 pm
State or no, DC should have representation in at lease the House of Representatives. I would suggest a Constitutional Amendment giving them the same number of representatives in the House that they would receive were they a state. As for the Senate, DC would either have to be absorbed by one or more other states or be deemed part of another state for election purposes (as part of that same amendment) in order to obtain representation.
Comment by Sean P — 1/6/2009 @ 5:11 pm
If the people living in DC want representation, they are more than capable of moving out of DC to a part of the country that has representation. How hard is that to figure out?
Comment by Sean — 1/7/2009 @ 4:29 am
Sean: while that’s true, it does not make the existence of a large number of people who are without representation any less undemocratic. US Citizens should not have to move to get representation; there should be some way for them to be represented wherever they are.
Violating the Constitution is not, however, the way to do it.
Comment by aphrael — 1/7/2009 @ 7:12 am
aphrael comment 8 should be the Republican counter proposal – limit DC to just the mall and adjacent federal buildings and give the rest to Maryland. Arlington was once part of DC but was returned to Virginia. The problem is that Maryland doesn’t want it.
By the way – back in 1961 when the 23rd Amendment was ratified, DC had a much higher population and thus the representation issue was far greater, but they still didn’t give congressional representation to DC. Depending on what census figures you use and how the next redistribution goes, DC with one representative would have better representation (measured in population per reps) than all but two or three states, and if demographic trends continue it would soon out pace even them. It would become like the old British rotten boroughs.
Comment by Amphipolis — 1/7/2009 @ 8:14 am
They could quite easily include the population of DC with that of Maryland’s for purposes of Congressional Apportionment, and direct Maryland to include the District when drawing subsequent Congressional District boundaries; further directing that the District voters would be entitled to vote for Senators in Maryland elections.
Comment by AD — 1/8/2009 @ 9:10 pm
Let them vote as parts of Maryland and Virginia, following the STATE lines prior to creation of the DISTRICT…..
Or, let them vote (and count them for the Census) by declaring the STATE of which they most reasonably are still a resident, according to 1) residence prior to moving to the DISTRICT (Nancy Pelosi is still a resident of California, isn’t she?) or 2) if no STATE of prior residence applies, as part MD or VA depending on the geography.
Let’s make sure our fellow citizens have representation, but the DISTRICT was not created to become the launch pad for two small-state senators.
Comment by Bill Lever — 1/11/2009 @ 4:17 pm
The District was created so that the seat of Federal Government would not be beholden, or held hostage, by any State. There were many clashes between the new Federal Government, and the Government’s of New York, and Pennsylvania, in the early days.
Let them vote in the Maryland elections.
Comment by AD — 1/11/2009 @ 5:40 pm
I have a different solution for DC. That is to remove all residents from it. Make it a no residential district. Take out the hotels, too.
Comment by PCD — 1/12/2009 @ 6:55 am