INKS | District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2009 clearly unconstitutional
On Thursday, the Senate passed the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2009, which gives the District of Columbia a voting member in the House of Representatives and eliminates the position of D.C. Delegate, who represents the District now.
Currently, that delegate, Eleanor Holmes Norton, can only vote when her vote does not affect the outcome; however, she is allowed to introduce bills, and this bill was introduced by Norton. The bill also would give an additional seat to Utah so that the partisan makeup of the House stayed the same.
The bill passed the Senate in by a vote of 61-37, falling mostly along party lines; however, five Republicans voted for it, and two Democrats voted against it.
The bill that passed the Senate had been amended by Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev. His amendment restored several gun rights to the District by repealing the ban on semiautomatic weapons, the registration requirement, the ban on handgun ammunition, and several other laws.
Personally, I am ashamed of the Senate for passing this bill. Apparently 61 of our Senators need to go back to eighth-grade civics class.
This act is clearly unconstitutional. Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution says, "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States." Washington, D.C., is not a state - it's just that simple.
Furthermore, Norton never should have been allowed to introduce this bill. She is unconstitutionally in the House of Representatives. Section 2 of Article I also says, "No Person shall be a Representative who shall not ... be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen." Norton is not an inhabitant of a state, and thus should not be able to introduce legislation in the House.
I am all for the representation of D.C. in Congress; however, this bill is not the way to do that. If the House passes this bill and President Barack Obama signs it, this bill would probably be the most blatantly unconstitutional law ever written.
At least when former President George W. Bush violated the Constitution, he did so in ways that were debatable as to whether or not he actually violated the Constitution. But this bill takes Article I, Section 1 and says, "That's not an important part of the Constitution."
Does anybody else find it ironic that the same senators who complained about Bush's debatably unconstitutional laws just voted in favor of a law that directly and clearly goes against the very wording of the Constitution?
Proponents of the bill claim that the "District Clause" (Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution) allows for the Congress to give D.C. a Representative. The text of that clause reads, "[The Congress shall have Power] To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District ... as may ... become the Seat of the Government of the United States."
"Exclusive Legislation" only gives Congress the right to govern the District, not magically ignore Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution when it comes to the District.
This bill is blatantly unconstitutional, and those who voted for it and criticized the Bush administration ought to be ashamed of themselves. Fortunately the Supreme Court still respects the Constitution, and I predict the justices will declare this unconstitutional in a heartbeat.
Nathan Inks is chairman of the College Republicans. He can be reached at n.d.inks@gmail.com.
