McCain fails to nix D.C. voting rights – Obama will sign

Cross posted to The Political Class.

Here we go again:

Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican, tried unsuccessfully Wednesday afternoon to kill legislation to give the District full voting rights in Congress. Mr. McCain called for a constitutional point of order to question the legality of giving the District voting rights.

The vote failed 36-62.

Under the legislation proposed in Congress this year, the Democratic-leaning District would get a House member with full voting rights, and Republican-leaning Utah would get a fourth House seat.

This should be a no-brainer – giving Washington D.C. a full house representative would be patently unconstitutional. For the majority of Democrats in Congress who cannot be bothered to read all of those words that are contained in the Constitution of the United States, here is the relevant text (emphasis mine):

Section 2 – The House

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

Only states may send representatives (with full voting rights) to Congress – this applies to the Senate as well. Washington D.C. is not a state; did that fact escape the notice of our federal representatives?

In 1961 the twenty-third amendment was ratified which extended the Presidential vote Washington D.C. Apparently it was understood at that time that to accomplish this required a constitutional amendment, but no more:

Supporters think the bill finally has good chance of being passed, after a decades-long effort, because of Democratic gains in Congress in the November elections and because President Obama has said he would sign the bill.

Obviously President Obama and the Democrat Congress have no problem throwing the U.S. Constitution under the bus. Isn’t Obama supposed to be some sort of Constitutional Law expert?

The reasoning behind this move is to add a permanent Democrat seat to the House of Representatives. Do not be fooled by the extra seat given to the conservative Utah. Obama and Rahm Emanuel will do away with that now that they have taken over the U.S. Census from the Commerce Department.

This really shouldn’t be a conservative vs. liberal argument; it is simply a constitutional matter. Any person or group that feels Washington D.C. should get full Congressional voting rights should either work to amend the U.S. Constitution or push for statehood. If either strategy is successful, then there is no argument – it is simply a settled matter enshrined in the Constitution.

If the amendment process is pursued then why not add in two Senators for the District, as well? This would also remove the need to try to placate conservatives with an offsetting seat, and if statehood is pursued the new state would also have two (presumably Democrat) Senators.

EXIT QUESTION: Can anyone can suggest to what location the Federal Government will relocate if statehood for DC becomes a reality?

Washington Times – McCain fails to nix D.C. voting rights

Cross posted to The Political Class.