D.C. falls short

No taxation without representation.

RNC Bruce,

Why don't you want Americans to have representation in Congress? Does this mean you hate the Constitution?

Freedom is on the march! Just not in America...

We shall overcome. We shall overcome. We shall overcome, some day.

Doubtful-sanity Doug, D.C. isn't a state. Everybody knows that. The US Constitution (which I assume you've heard of) specifically rejects the idea of non-state representation. See Article I, Section 2 and Article I, Section 8. I might also add that the US government collected lots of taxes for the last 220 years from people who are ineligible to vote (for example, people under 18) so your "taxation without representation" analogy falls flat.

The Founding Fathers have already rejected your position. If you want to amend the Constitution to make DC a state, go ahead and try.

Why do you Liberals hate the Constitution so?

Why do you Liberals hate the Constitution so?

Posted by: Bruce | September 18, 2007 6:54 PM

Mr. Roboto,
After 6+ years of W. and Cheney peeing on the Constitution you are actually going to try and blame it on the Dems? HAHAHAHAA!

If we were to take partisanship out of this discussion
(which I understand is difficult), then I'm truly confused as to why any representative in congress or the president could be against this. How can reps in this government claim to promote American ideals of democracy and allow there to be a group of people in the USA that do not have representation? That's the definition of hypocrisy.

Bruce-I would argue that minors are represented by their parents, who often vote with their kids' interests in mind. And while I'm not going to comb through the Constitution to try and refute your citing - you may be right that when the framers wrote the language, DC was not meant to have representation. However, I would point out that the Declaration of Independence specifically names "imposing Taxes on us without our Consent" as a reason to secede from Britain. And if it takes an amendment to make the language of the Constitution clear, then why would you be against that? Why would anyone not want a person to have a vote in their government?

RNC Bruce,

Those under 18 are represented in the House of Representatives as they are counted in the census and the resulting apportioned House seats.

Whereas all of the people of D.C. (under 18 or otherwise) are not apportioned any House seats.

Your logic (loose use of term here) falls flat.

Why do you hate the truth so much?

Whether the bill is constitutional is not for Congress to decide. They merely had to have the gumption to engage in true debate and allow a vote. On the issue of constitutionality, the bill contained a provision for expedited review by the Supreme Court.

16th Amendment to the Constitution:

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several STATES, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

So, being a resident of the District, I guess I shouldn't have to pay income tax seeing as I'm not a resident of "the several STATES." Sweet!

There are dozens of other examples of the term "several states" applying to residents of the District.

Of course, it is also highly ironic that in his zeal to extend democracy throughout the world (as if), the President would actually veto a bill bringing democracy to the nation's capitol. Thank G-d these guys are just so principled! I mean, to hell with the 1st, 4th and 6th Amendments, that's just outdated poppycock. Habeus corpus? Oh please that's so 1305. And of course the 2nd Amendment's opening clause, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," can be selectively ignored by these great Constitutionalists to pretend that the Second Amendment refers to an individuals right to bear arms, not the States' well-regulated militias.

Oh, and while we're at it, wouldn't the States language in the 2nd Amendment mean that it does not apply to the District? There's a case in court right now trying to overturn our handgun ban, but seeing as we're not one of the "several states" that the 2nd Amendment refers to, seems that case should be thrown out (but most certainly will not be, at least on those grounds).

------------------------

No Congressional Vote for D.C. - Only for "The Several States"
Written by Michael J. West
Published March 23, 2007

Dear President Bush,

Yesterday, your administration officially announced that you would veto any legislation Congress sent to you that might extend a voting presence in the House of Representatives to the District of Columbia. "The bill violates the Constitution's provisions governing the composition and election of the United States Congress," said an official policy statement from the OMB.

That statement didn't clarify what specific Constitutional provisions it referred to; however, White House spokesman Alex Conant last Friday told the Washington Post that your objections were that ""The Constitution specifies that only 'the people of the several states' elect representatives to the House, and D.C. is not a state." I presume that this is the provision to which you refer when you threaten to veto the bill.

Well, I, for one, welcome this stance. In my mind, it settles once and for all your administration's belief that since D.C. is not a state, it should not be treated like one, and is not to be included in the constitutional provisions that enumerate the government's powers over "the several states."

For example, Article One, Section 2 of the Constitution--the same part of the document that specifically limits full membership in the House of Representatives to the people of "the several states"--states that "Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states." This, of course, was a problematic clause that was overruled by passage in 1913 of the Sixteenth Amendment, which created the income tax as we know it.

Of course, the Sixteenth Amendment states that "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

Thus one must presume that even under the Sixteenth Amendment, Congress has no power to levy or collect a federal income tax upon the residents of the District of Columbia. After all, the constitution specifies that Congress can only tax income in the several states, and D.C. is not a state.

I will today be writing to D.C.'s congressional delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton and Virginia Representative Tom Davis (who cointroduced the bill to give D.C. a House vote), as well as Government Reform Committee Chair Henry Waxman, District of Columbia subcommittee chair Danny Davis, House Judicial Committee Chairman John Conyers, Indiana Representative Mike Pence (the party-line Republican who, as you know, gave surprise support to the bill when it passed the Judiciary Committee), and Speaker Pelosi. In that writing I will encourage them to sponsor legislation that will remove DC citizens' obligation to pay federal income tax, since requiring them to do so violates the Constitution's provisions governing the powers of the United States Congress.

I look forward to your signing that bill. You are obviously committed to preserving the rights and responsibilities that are exclusive to the several states.

Sincerely Yours,

Michael J. West
Washington, D.C

Mayor Fenty spoke of "voting rights for all residents of this country"?! What group of "founders" is he referring to?
It is my understanding that mere "residents" don't have voting rights—"citizens" do. Furthermore, it wasn't until long after the founders were dead and gone that the average Joe Citizen had a vote. Citizens that were property owners had the right, the responsibility, and the privilege to vote.
No one is forced to live in the nation's capital. When you choose to live there, you do so understanding that you have a unique relationship with the Congress as the location where our government is headquartered. The city should have been just another Maryland city, but was intentionally set apart from inclusion in any State. If having representation in Congress is so important to you, then you should move across the border to Maryland or Virginia. As a bonus, your cost of living will probably be lower.
Having said that, I must tell you that I am opposed to the 16th Amendment. I believe it is obscene for hard-working wage-earners to work more than a third of the year to appease the tax appetite of our insatiable government. Stated in a different way, the income tax was not supported by our nation's founders and we, the people, were violated by the addition of that 16th Amendment.
Surely, you all are wise enough to know that just because someone sitting in Congress claims to represent the place where you live does not mean that you actually have representation. The "persons" that get satisfactory representation are the ones with BIG money. The rest of us just cling to an illusion.