Journal pudge's Journal: Democrats Still Hate the Rule of Law 11
The push to give the District of Columbia a vote in Congress is one more example in a long line, of antipathy for the rule of law.
The Constitution is clear that all members of the House of Representatives come from states. Three qualifications are listed for its members: that they are 25 years old, citizens of the U.S. for 7 years, and inhabitants of the state they represent in Congress. And it gives a method for apportionment of Representatives, and that it is per state.
It is absolutely and unequivocally unconstitutional for anyone who is not representing a state to be a member of the House. And yet, the Senate voted to give D.C. a seat in the House. Incredibly, most news outlets say things like "opponents say" it is unconstitutional, or at most, that it is "probably" unconstitutional. No: there is simply no possible way for it to be constitutional.
If you think D.C. should get a seat in the House, fine, but there's only one legal way to do it: amend the Constitution. That's what we did to give D.C. electoral college representation.
I am not against this. D.C. was never intended to be heavily populated, but it is, and so reconsidering the original purpose of it, especially in light of the representation of its inhabitants in the federal government, is reasonable. But it is absolutely illegal for D.C. to have a vote in the electoral college or House of Representatives without amending the Constitution.
Many people believe that the law should be followed. We believe that if the Constitution says to do something, you should do it. We believe that the law matters. If you don't like the law, change it, but don't ignore it. Ignoring the law is rule of men; following it is rule of law.
The problem with rule of men is that it is arbitrary, and therefore not a reliable protector of rights. Your rights as expressed in the Constitution are only as valuable as the inclination of your government officials to agree with them. That is not how a constitutional republic works. It is not how your rights are protected.
Democrats -- at least, their leadership -- almost universally follow the rule of man, and reject the rule of law. This is why you have Democrats decrying the Lilly Ledbetter decision, and their liberal justices opposing that decision -- despite the fact that it was correct according to the law -- because they believed the law should not be what it is.
That is why you have a liberal justice who writes a book explaining why he doesn't follow the Constitution.
This is why you have President Obama and his people opposing an individual right to keep and bear arms (despite his claims to the contrary: his actual positions, such as favoring the DC gun ban, speak more loudly than his dishonest rhetoric).
This is why you have Mayor Nickels trying to ban guns on city property, despite state law saying that's illegal.
This is why you have the Democrats throwing the 10th Amendment in the trash as they rapidly expand the power of the federal government with complete disregard for its constitutional limits.
And note too that this is heavily tied to the Western European and North American style of socialism, which believes that if we just get the smartest people together to come up with the best ideas, and give them the power to implement those ideas, that this is the best way to govern society.
But it's antithetical to liberty. Our system does not believe in blindly following the "best" ideas, because we know what's "best" is in the eye of the beholder. We believe in two things: protecting the rights of individuals, and after that, leaving the rest up to the will of the majority.
The Democrats don't believe that. If they did, they would not ignore the Constitution or federal law whenever they didn't like what it said.
(As this D.C. voting plan not only harms the rule of law which protects our rights, but also facially and illegally reduces the relative representation of all states (except Utah), I've added it to my list of liberties lost under Obama.)
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Backing Down (Score:2)
It looks [humanevents.com] like the Democrats are backing down, at least for now.
I never really understood which constituency they were trying to placate. Other than D.C. residents (who don't really have a say right now), who is going to vote for you because you supported this measure? Who's campaign contributions are tied to it?
Re: (Score:2)
Personally I'd rather go for evicting everyone from the federal district, tearing down the buildings that aren't federal government operations, and turning the rest into a nice big park.
No residents = no more crying about representation. It's not like the congresscritters live there (though I'd love to see a little subdivision with all the houses made from concrete, exactly alike and identically ugly, where they were required to stay ;)
DC representation (Score:2)
As I understand it there are two ways short of a constitutional amendment that could grant DC full representation and likely pass constitutional muster.
One would be retrocession to Maryland of all or a majority of DC, similar to how Arlington was given back to Virginia. It might make some sense to keep a certain portion of the Federal property like the Mall, Capitol complex, White House, and adjoining federal office buildings as part of a rump DC. A majority of DC would become just another city in Maryland.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I agree. There's a compromise position that I am not convinced is constitutional, which would treat DC residents as inhabitants of Maryland for the purposes of the electoral system.
Also, FWIW, Washington DC appears to me to be unconstitutionally large anyway. It's supposed to be only 10 sq miles, and it's over 60. So we could kill two birds with one stone by shrinking it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Also, FWIW, Washington DC appears to me to be unconstitutionally large anyway. It's supposed to be only 10 sq miles, and it's over 60. So we could kill two birds with one stone by shrinking it.
I'm not sure if I'm reading it right, but the Constitution describes a federal district "not exceeding ten Miles square". Which, I think, means 100 square miles--ten miles on a side.
Either way, D.C. is too large and populous as it is. I think most of the advantages of a stateless capital went away with the strengthening of the federal government--at the expense of the states--after the Civil War.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure if I'm reading it right, but the Constitution describes a federal district "not exceeding ten Miles square".
You know, I think you're right. I knew there was something I was missing because I looked into this a few months ago and was satisfied, but then I came back to it (a friend mentioned it to me) and I couldn't recall how I was satisfied. I hoped someone would set me straight; thanks!
I figured... (Score:2, Interesting)
...there had to be an -ocracy for this:
It's Geniocracy [wikipedia.org]. "Government of the People, for the People, by the Geniuses." Basically Left-wing hyper-elitism, that the world should be run by the few, selected for their intellig
Cartoon illustration (Score:2)
Robert Ariail [yahoo.com]
Add this... (Score:1)
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,505126,00.html [foxnews.com]
Another example of not supporting the rule of law. The California Supreme Court in theory should follow the California constitution. Through a ballot initiative the constitution has been amended and the pro-gay marriage crowd (Leftists typically) are rallying to have the court over turn part of the constitution.
The whole thing boggles the mind.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a good example in fact, but a bad example in argument, because this issue is so emotional for so many people, that they just stick themselves in a fetal position and chant "civil right, civil right" even though they can't actually demonstrate it very well, if at all.
Further, some of those who support this and actually have some knowledge will pin their hopes on "equal protection under the law" as per the 14th Amendment, which is a valid argument if you see limiting marriage to the opposite sex as so
Re: (Score:2)
Well there is a point of law here. Was the ballot initiative in fact a valid amendment to the California Constitution? There are different procedures for revision vs. amendment. Which does Prop 8 qualify as?
Clarifying this point is not only useful in the case of Prop 8 but all attempts to amend the California Constitution.