Irresponsibility of D.C. Representation lies in Partisanship, Constitutionality

Unfortunately, the United States Constitution can occasionally be ambiguous. Fortunately, The first line of Article 1 Section 2 is not one of these occasions. Unfortunately, legislators don't seem to care.

Timothy Warren of the Washington Times reports that the D.C. House Voting Rights Act "will return with new optimism [last] Tuesday to Capitol Hill". This optimism, for legislation that would give one House vote to the District and a fourth to the state of Utah, is the result of an unfair political bargain and shows an unacceptable ignorance towards, or blatant disregard for the Constitution.

A savvy albeit unsavory deal struck by Democrats has all but guaranteed the legislation's passage of the Senate, as two of just 41 Senate Republicans represent Utah, an undeserving beneficiary of the bill. Additionally, arguments that claim the addition of a seat to historically red Utah counterbalances the addition of a seat to the overwhelming Democratic district are clearly false, as the facts indicate that a Democratic bias remains. In the last six presidential elections, D.C. has, on average, cast 87.5% of the vote for the Democratic candidate, while only 60.8% of Utah's voters have supported the Republican candidate in the same elections. The difference here is one of almost 17%, or about three times the margin of President Obama's November victory.

However, the deepest perversion of this bill is the threat it poses to a Constitution which is increasingly under attack, or worse, ignored (see Hillary Clinton's cabinet appointment). The aforementioned Constitutional clause stipulates that members of the House be chosen "by the people of the several states"- not of the Districts. Therefore, the only acceptable route to the enfranchisement of Washington D.C. is Constitutional amendment. George Will writes that Congress believes they can,

"amend the Constitution by nullifying Article I, Section 2's requirement that House members come from "the several states." This argument, that Congress's legislative power trumps the Constitution, means that Congress could establish religion, abridge freedom of speech and of the press, and abolish the right of peaceful assembly in the District."

Indeed, this offensive misinterpretation of the legal processes established for changing and passing laws creates a dangerous precedent, one that considers overt violations of the Constitution acceptable when supported by Congress.

Some claim further that the seating of Senators from Washington D.C. will follow, but there are several reasons why the District should not be considered a state.

1. Washington State is in the Northwest, not the Chesapeake.
2. To avoid the confusion illustrated by #1, it could be called Columbia State, but that sounds way too much like a community college.
3. (Courtesy of George Will) The stars on the U.S. flag are meticulously and symmetrically aligned. The Addition of D.C. would call for a wholesale reconfiguration.
4. Placing the Capitol in a U.S. state creates an unfair political advantage.
5. Maryland might get pissed (originally Maryland and Virginia both ceded land to create the District. Virginia has since reclaimed theirs, and there is subtle speculation that Maryland may do the same.)