Taxation Without Representation, 21st Century Style
The Fort Worth Star-Telegram, in an editorial, objects to the proposed law that would grant the District of Columbia a voting seat in Congress. Why? Not because DC residents don't deserve it ("it's only fair," the Fort Worth Star-Telegram says). No, it's because the editorial board thinks the law is unconstitutional. And perhaps it is.
The Supreme Court has plenty to choose from in the Constitution regarding this special district. Article One, Section Two specifies that Congress is made up of representatives of the "states" and the District of Columbia is not a state. But Article One, Section Eight gives Congress the power "to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District." As the editorial board acknowledges, the district is treated as a state in any number of matters (taxation being a crucial one, both for real and symbolic reasons). It doesn't stretch the Constitution to conclude that Congress is empowered to treat the district as a state regarding congressional representation as well.
I infer that most opposition to DC voting rights arises not out of concern for the Constitution, but for venal political reasons. DC residents are likely to vote for a Democrat to represent them. Opposition to the bill is likely to come from red states, support from blue states. Fort Worth Star-Telegram's stance is consistent with that observation. Regardless, I wholeheartedly agree with the editorial board that "The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of all things constitutional. The justices need to be brushing up on Article 1, Sections 2 and 8." I predict the justices will be just as split as the country at large.
No comments:
Post a Comment