Taxation Without Representation

The White House indicated on Friday its opposition to the D.C. Voting Rights Act (DCVRA), an action that will certainly endanger the bill as it heads to the full Congress. The DCVRA, which would finally provide the residents of Washington D.C. with full representation in the House of Representatives, passed out of the Judiciary Committee late last week and appeared to be building momentum as Democratic leaders vowed to bring it to a vote this week.

The White House opposition, as reported in the Washington Post, is based on Constitutional Concerns; "The Constitution specifies that only 'the people of the several states' elect representatives to the House," said White House spokesman Alex Conant. "And D.C. is not a state." Mr. Conant is referring to Article I Section II which states "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States." No where in the Constitution is full representation for the District in the House prohibited; in fact in Article I Section VIII Congress is granted 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 the Government of the United States." Legal scholars, including Republican luminaries Ken Starr and Viet Dinh, have found that:

We conclude that Congress has ample constitutional authority to enact the District of
Columbia Fairness in Representation Act. The District Clause, U.S. Const. Art. I, § 8, cl. 17, empowers Congress to “exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District” and thus grants Congress plenary and exclusive authority to legislate all matters concerning the District. This broad legislative authority extends to the granting of Congressional voting rights for District residents—as illustrated by the text, history and structure of the Constitution as well as judicial decisions and pronouncements in analogous or related contexts. Article I, section 2, prescribing that the House be composed of members chosen “by the People of the several States,” does not speak to Congressional authority under the District Clause to afford the District certain rights and status appurtenant to states. Indeed, the courts have consistently validated legislation treating the District as a state, even for constitutional purposes. (The Authority of Congress to Enact Legislation to Provide the District of Columbia with Voting Representation in the House of Representatives)

To take one line from the Constitution and from it deny full representation to American citizens while ignoring other provisions within the Constitution that provide for and allow the enfranchisement of those citizens is wrong. It is akin to declaring that the Bible says homosexuality is an abomination (Leviticus 18:22), while not also selling your daughter into slavery (Exodus 21:7), and advocating the death penalty for all those who work on the sabbath (Exodus 35:2), to name just two examples. When one cites from a historical document, whether in the realm of the law, or as a source of moral code, one must remember the document in its entirety. One cannot have only the parts that he or she likes best while disregarding those that are inconvenient to their argument.

The fact that the Constitution makes no provision for the voting rights of the residents of the District is not surprising considering that the District did not come into formal existence under the control of the federal government until 1800, ten years after the framing of the Constitution. During that ten year window according to the terms of cessation outlined by the States of Maryland and Virginia and as granted by the Congress residents of the District voted for and were thus represented by Congressmen from their former States. In essence, providing for the enfranchisement of the residents of the District was seen as unnecessary by the framers of the Constitution; having just fought for and end to taxation without representation it is illogical to take this oversight as an intent to disenfranchise the residents of the District.

If President Bush and the White House trust Mr. Dinh when it comes to the Constitutionality of the Patriot Act should they not also trust his judgment as to the Constitutionality of fully enfranchising the residents of the District? The only obvious differences lie in the feelings of the Bush Administration towards the two bills. Laws that give wide ranging power to the Administration with little regard to the civil liberties ensconced in the Bill of Rights must surely be Constitutional. Whereas laws that would end an egregious oversight and the relegation of the residents of the nation's capitol city to the status of second class citizens clearly violate the Constitution in that they would likely lead to an additional Democratic seat in Congress.
The DCVRA, in a bipartisan compromise, attempts to assuage Republicans by also creating a new seat in typically Republican Utah, which will be receiving an additional seat based on the 2000 census report.

Today on the fourth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq President Bush held up the democratic elections that have taken place in that war torn country as a sign of progress and as an accomplishment worth the sacrifice of more than 3000 American lives. Mr. Bush is willing to send Americans half way around the world to die so that citizens of a foreign land might have the right to vote, sadly he is unwilling to sign a bill into law that would give the American citizens who are his neighbors that same right.