When the left-wing media wants something, the Constitution apparently becomes irrelevant. Take the latest attempt by Congress to give congressional representation to the District of Columbia, which fell three votes short of moving to a full Senate vote Tuesday.
Check the establishment media, and you'll have no trouble finding stories decrying the plight of the taxed, but unrepresented, citizens of the District and touting the importance of giving these poor (mostly Democratic) souls representation. Finding stories raising the question of whether or not it's constitutional to do so is another matter.
Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution says that members of the House shall be chosen by the people of the states (not districts), but you'd be hard pressed to find left-wing media reports questioning the constitutionality of giving the District representation without first passing a constitutional amendment.
Worse yet, it seems that some members of Congress are so unaccustomed to being questioned by the media about the constitutionality of their push to give the District representation that they haven't even bothered to look into it before casting their votes.
Take Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), who voted for the representation plan. When asked whether she supported voting rights for the District, Sen. Snowe said "yes."
But, when asked by Cybercast News Service about the Constitution's Article 1, Section 2, Sen. Snowe said, "Well, I don't know, I don't know what the arguments have been, and I haven't heard from both sides. I think this is a fair and equitable resolution." (Hear audio of Snowe).
Here's a senator saying that she's going to vote for the plan - even though she doesn't know if it's constitutional and hasn't bothered to research both sides of the issue or hear the arguments pro or con. How, then, did she come to the conclusion that the measure is a "fair and equitable resolution" worth voting for?
When Cybercast News Service continued to press her for an answer about Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution, and asked whether providing House representation for D.C. would require a constitutional amendment, Snowe said, "I don't believe it does." Again, what's she basing this on if she hasn't done her homework?
The mainstream media never seems to miss a chance to cite the Constitution when it suits their left-wing agenda, so where are they now when the shoe's on the other foot?
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Tell Me About It
September 19, 2007 - 16:03 ET by phaedrus4617I (unfortunately) live in DC, and the local blogs and news sources were (and are) overwhelming in their bias.
If you live here and you want the vote, move. It's not that complicated. But then they say they shouldn't be federally taxed if they can't have a voice in congress. To be honest, I'm not sure what the argument against that is - other than they enjoy the freedoms provided by the U.S.
It was my understanding
September 19, 2007 - 16:17 ET by motherbeltIt was my understanding that it was the intention of the founding fathers to keep the national capital separate and distinct from the states, and that's why it is neither in Virginia not Maryland, but carved out of a piece of each and given its own distinct identity. It is not a state, period. The constitution doesn't say the states AND the District of Columbia. I can't remember when the capital was moved there, but if it was before the Constitution was ratified, it would have said that if the founding fathers wanted it to. If it was after that, they would have amended it right away.
An amendment to the Constitution is NOT created by arguing both sides and coming up with a "fair and equitable solution" (in the minds of Congress) and then acting like it's law.
Our representatives are pathetic; they don't even know what's in the Constitution. They think they can amend the Constitution, or even ignore its original intent, simply by a majority vote.
If the issue of
September 19, 2007 - 17:15 ET by danboIf the issue of representation is important. They could give it back to Maryland. As was done with the Virginia portion in 1847.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
People who live in DC have
September 19, 2007 - 17:34 ET by jdhawkPeople who live in DC have the vote - at the local level.
What do they do with it?
Vote in convicted crack heads for mayor and their local council representatives.
Create the highest cost lowest output school system in our country.
Manage their fiscal affairs so poorly that they are constantly going to the Congress for a hand out.
US Constitution - Section 8
September 19, 2007 - 17:46 ET by c5thenPowers of Congress:
Taken together with Section 2, it is clear that the founders intended the seat of the Federal government to be in a disctrict and distinctly NOT a State. Since only States get representation in the House and Senate, either a Constitutional Amendment is required to grant the District of Columbia representation, or, removal of the seat Federal Government from said district and re-integration with Maryland from which it was carved out originally.
Any member of the House or Senate, who knowingly votes for an unconstitutional bill has broken their oath of office and should be impeached. Any member of either house who doesn't check into the constitutionality of a bill before voting is derilict in their duties and should be recalled by their constituents or impeached.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Fred08.com
DC representation
September 19, 2007 - 17:57 ET by Cool ArrowTotally foolish to reinterpret the original intent of the framers considering there were only 13 original colonies. If they thought the Federal Government deserved 1/14 of the legislative authority on top of the powers already issued, I think they would have expressed it.
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
It's nice to see a concern about the Constitution here,
September 19, 2007 - 18:15 ET by BlindSightsince it is really all that stands between us and large-government despotism and manipulation by elites.
We have already drifted very far from what the authors of the Federalist Papers assured us would be no threat to our liberties or pocketbook, so we should all be concerned about getting back on track, by limiting federal government (corporate pork and socialist spending), restoring authority to states, putting real teeth into checks and balances, and increasing transparency.
Those who share this agenda should realize that neither party is particularly a friend, as the parties are chiefly concerned only about WHO controls the Great Pork Machine. That explains the relative ineffectiveness of Congress after the last elections - why fight seriously with Republicans over foreign wars or fiscal responsibility, when that poses a risk to upset the apple cart? Dems are biding their their time, and good Republicans (and other friends of liberty) should be very concerned about the new expanded Presidency that they are going to hand over to Hillary. With Dems in Congress, they will be sure to give a good run at putting the profligacy of the Republican power brokers to shame.
Perhaps our best hope is that strict constructionists in the Supreme Court will continue to find that the Constitution means something, and Republicans will start to realize that our biggest enemy is not terrorism, but big government itself.
"I do not know what is true. ... But in the midst of doubt ... I do not doubt that the faith is true and adorable which leads a soldier to throw away his life in obedience to a blindly accepted duty." - Oliver Wendel Holmes, Jr.
Constitution
September 19, 2007 - 19:45 ET by BufordThe only part of the Constitution the media recognizes is the one refering to freedom of the press. All the others are just a waste of parchment.
The nearest thing to eternal life we will ever see on this earth is a government program...........Ronald Reagan