As House Moves D.C. Vote Bill, Panel Measures Constitutionality

[babylonsister]

http://www.nytimes.com/cq/2007/03/15/cq_2417.html

As House Moves D.C. Vote Bill, Panel Measures Constitutionality


By Greg Giroux, CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY
Published: March 15, 2007

The House next week is expected to pass legislation that would for the first time in the nation’s history provide a voting House member to the District of Columbia. Should this occur, it will be a big victory for one of its lead co-sponsors: Democrat Eleanor Holmes Norton, the District’s longtime non-voting delegate.

But the bill, which the House Judiciary Committee approved Thursday after a hearing the previous day, faces an uncertain future in the Senate. Some members are certain to raise serious questions about whether it’s even constitutional to grant a full congressional representative to the federal capital, which is not a state — a subject that was the focus of a panel discussion Thursday afternoon at the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy in Washington.

Article I, Section II says that the House “shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states.” Opponents have said that because the District is not a state, the current bill is unconstitutional.

But advocates point to a different part of the Constitution — the Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, known as the Seat of Government Clause or District Clause — that empowers Congress to “exercise exclusive legislation” over the federal capital. Supporters say this authority is broad enough to treat District residents as if they were citizens of states, at least for the purposes of congressional representation.

Advocates say there is plentiful case law that has treated residents of the District as residents of “states” for other purposes, such as in commerce. These supporters also posit it is inconceivable that the framers of the Constitution would bar representation for the District of Columbia, given that it was created from land ceded by two states — Virginia and Maryland — prior to its becoming the nation’s capital in 1800.

“There is a very good argument that Congress has the authority to confer voting representation on District residents,” said Walter Smith, a former partner with the firm Hogan and Hartson who has represented the District in voting rights cases.

more...

[Greeby]

1. Anyplace that gives us Eleanor Holmes Norton ought to have voting rights

No wonder the Repukes hate it

[babylonsister]

2. Yep, there's too many good Dems in DC; they're skeeered! nt

[Greeby]

3. Not suprising

She's the kind of Congresswoman who'd verbally whup their asses and send themcrying back to their mommas ::D