Should the DC Get A Congressman?
While I'll never darken the door of the Supreme Court, it's pure oxygen to try to puzzle through a constitutional issue.
On the face of it, the answer might be: why not? The people in DC pay federal taxes and are subject to federal laws. However, "no taxation without representation" isn't in the constitution.
The constitution puts up a few barriers, most particularly the district clause in Article 1, Section 8. "[The Congress shall have 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. "
The District is not a state, as stipulated under Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3. "Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. " This was subsequently subseded by paragraph 2, article 14. "Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed."
However, that objection can be overcome by annexing the district into a surrounding state, such as Maryland or Virginia, or by making the district a state in its own right, with one representative and two sentators. The later alternative is unlikely, as it would shift the balance of power towards the democrats, despite the awarding of an additional electoral vote to Utah.
Other solutions would be to give back to Maryland all of the District except the small area where the main government buildings are located, or count the residents of the District as Maryland residents in determining the number of representatives in the House.
On the face of it, the answer might be: why not? The people in DC pay federal taxes and are subject to federal laws. However, "no taxation without representation" isn't in the constitution.
The constitution puts up a few barriers, most particularly the district clause in Article 1, Section 8. "[The Congress shall have 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. "
The District is not a state, as stipulated under Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3. "Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. " This was subsequently subseded by paragraph 2, article 14. "Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed."
However, that objection can be overcome by annexing the district into a surrounding state, such as Maryland or Virginia, or by making the district a state in its own right, with one representative and two sentators. The later alternative is unlikely, as it would shift the balance of power towards the democrats, despite the awarding of an additional electoral vote to Utah.
Other solutions would be to give back to Maryland all of the District except the small area where the main government buildings are located, or count the residents of the District as Maryland residents in determining the number of representatives in the House.
Labels: Constitution
posted by My Mall and News at
8:11 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home