Bush trying to kill D.C. voting representation
White House Opposes D.C. Vote: Constitutional Concerns Put Bill in Jeopardy
The White House declared its opposition yesterday to a bill that would give the District its first full seat in the House of Representatives, saying it is unconstitutional, and a key Senate supporter said such concerns could kill the measure….”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.”….He declined to say whether President Bush would veto the bill, but the White House appeared to be sending a message to Congress just as momentum for the measure was building. It cleared two House committees this week, and the Democratic leadership has vowed to pass it on the House floor next week. The bill seeks to increase the House permanently to 437 seats, from 435. In a bipartisan compromise, one seat would go to the overwhelmingly Democratic District, which has a nonvoting delegate in the House. The other would go to the next state in line to pick up a seat based on the 2000 Census: Utah, which leans Republican.
Not to be obviously cynical or anything, but one has to wonder if this would even be an issue with the White House if DC had a history of leaning Republican. Of course, DC is about as rabidly and reliably Democratic as any blue state, so it would hardly seem to be in the GOP’s long-term interests for the District of Columbia to be enfranchised…thus the “Constitutional concerns”, eh?
The Bush Administration and Republicans in Congress can piss and moan about “Constitutional concerns” if it makes them feel better, but the reality is that they simply don’t want more Democratic voters thwarting their agenda. It’s about political power, and if Republicans can couch the continued disenfranchisement of the District of Columbia in the flowery words of “Constitutional concerns”, then so be it.
You students of American history might remember the phrase “taxation without representation.” Prior to the American Revolution, Americans were heavily taxed by the British, who took the revenue back to Jolly Old England. That they had no input or rights regarding the decision to impose taxes nor on how the revenues generated by those taxes were spent became a galvanizing factor for those who finally rebelled against the oppressive rule of King George.
Interesting, isn’t it, that some 300 or so years later, another “King George” may well be preventing the residents of the District of Columbia from having a voice in their own government? DC residents pay taxes, yet they having no voting representation in Congress- the very deliberative body that sits in their midst.
Most of us grew up being taught that “one voice, one vote” was the basis of the American government. I wonder what the residents of the District of Columbia would have to say about that? Methinks perhaps the opinions might not be printable in a family publication.
ONE VOTE, ONE VOICE…just as long as it’s reliably Republican, eh?
