Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Monday, March 26, 2007
Jack Kemp :: Townhall.com Columnist
Shortsighted House GOP would deny D.C. residents the vote
by Jack Kemp
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


A common expression has it that the opposite of love is not hate but indifference. Unfortunately, that's exactly the message the GOP is sending to the residents of our nation's capital by its recent actions in trying to defeat the bipartisan DC Voting Rights Act on a procedural motion.

The Republicans in the House, as well as advisers to the president - by threatening a veto - are in danger not only of indifference to district citizens, but in fact they're showing disdain for a city predominantly governed and populated by people of color. This can be interpreted as racially insensitive at best and racially prejudiced at worst. Either way, it's really dumb politics because the party of Lincoln, Douglass, Grant, Eisenhower and Bush 41, among others, is sacrificing its civil rights soul for a mess of political pottage.

I told a high-ranking member of the president's staff last week that his strict constructionist view of the Constitution puts the White House in the position of rolling back the clock to some rather dark days. In other words, using Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution that says "people of the states shall elect members of the House" is to deny the equally valid clause (i.e., Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17), which empowers Congress to "exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over the District."

This "District clause," as Viet Dinh, the eminent Georgetown University law professor, eloquently testified (he helped draft the president's Patriot Act), does give Congress the constitutional authority to guarantee voting rights to district residents in the House of Representatives irrespective of Article 1, Section 2.

The argument that allowing the people in our nation's capital the right to vote is unconstitutional pains me very much. The Supreme Court should make that decision.

Remember that at one time the Constitution defined black people as three-fifths of a human being. Blacks not only couldn't own property, they were considered property and women couldn't vote. Up until 1956, blacks were going to public school in a demeaning apartheid-like segregation, upheld by the very Constitution that these strict constructionists now use as an argument against allowing D.C. residents the vote in the people's House.

If it seems that I'm playing the "race card," remember "the card" that President Lincoln used for emancipation and President Grant used to require these United States to live up to the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments. Indeed, Grant was the first president to send federal troops to help guarantee blacks the right to vote in Mississippi and Louisiana.

Fast-forward to 1964, when Barry Goldwater, GOP candidate for president, voted against the bipartisan Civil Rights Act because of his Libertarian belief in private property. This vote by Goldwater doomed the Republican Party to but 10 percent of the black vote ever since. Some Republicans were using private-property arguments to deny fellow citizens access to lunch counters, toilets, drinking fountains and public accommodations with ugly, race-based ramifications.

Over the years the courts have validated legislation treating the district as a state, as in giving residents access to federal courts, residents' paying federal taxes and sending their family members to far-off lands to help defend freedom and promote democratic rights in Iraq and Afghanistan. What irony!

In November 2004, Viet Dinh said in his testimony to the Committee on Government Reform: "The right to vote is regarded as a fundamental political right, because preservative of all rights. Such a right is of the essence of a democratic society, and any restrictions on that right strike at the heart of representative government. Given these considerations, depriving Congress of the right to grant the district congressional representation pursuant to the District Clause thwarts the very purposes on which the Constitution is based.

Allowing Congress to exercise such a power under the authority granted to it by the District Clause would remove a political disability with no constitutional rationale, give the district, which is akin to a state in virtually all important respects, its proportionate influence in national affairs, and correct the historical accident by which District residents have been denied the right to vote in national elections."

To do anything less than passing this DC Voting Rights Bill is to confine the party of Lincoln, Douglass, Eisenhower, Reagan and George H.W. Bush to a minority status in perpetuity among people of color.

Wake up, House Republicans, before it's too late.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Jack Kemp is Founder and Chairman of Kemp Partners and a contributing columnist to Townhall.com.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Jack Kemp's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
That's nice Jack
And what about Puerto Rico, and Guam etc?

Jack is in the right corner when he says all should have the right to vote. But voting rights will lead to statehood eventually, especially with 600,000 (?) living in the District. Then the Dems, who would get the votes from the predominately black area, will get the idea we need a new State, two Reps and a Senator. All Democrats for the next generation.

So someone posted on Townhall that the folks in DC can vote in neighboring states, if Congress allows. But they have to pick that State and cannot change. Something to think about because the District isn't so large it is hard to cross a State line and vote. At 63 square miles you are never further than 8 miles from the neighboring State.

But I like the status quo. You don't have to live there. Apparently the high crime rate is enjoyed by most or they would have gotten out by now anyway. Apparently no one really misses voting either.

Jack, you be getting a little senile and a little too Liberal in your old age. How about finding a Conservative cause to root for, like a border fence that actually gets built?

Was this really written by Jack Kemp?
Just call me short-sighted.

Republican partisans, not conservatives
Opposition for D.C. voting rights basically comes from Republican partisans, who are hiding behind the Constitution to express opposition to the bill. Granted I'm a conservative and don't have that great of a desire to see 600,000 mostly liberal voters sent a liberal representative to congress and to give a boost to Hillary Clinton's '08 chances, but what's right is right. D.C. citizens are members of this country, and whether you approve of how they vote or not, they should be entitled to the right to some representation in the federal government. To me, it's just a basic principle of conservatism that all of our citizens have freedoms and the right to choose our leaders.

Marc and merry, there's a difference between being a real conservative and a partisan Republican. The technical argument from the Constitution is a Republican argument, not a conservative one.

Well, I always knew Kemp was a RINO
Now proof in his own words. Constitution be damned, give DC residents the vote!

And to think this moron was ANOTHER guy we were told to hold our noses and vote for as VEEP.

You apologists for the Rep party, take note. THIS is what you get when you're willing to "hold your noses".



Someone pass me a gas mask.

Hey, bleacherboy!
"Hiding behind the Constitution"?

What the he11 are you babbling about?

The Constitution is quite clear and specific on the issue. That's "hiding behind"? Have you ever even read it?

535
DC already has 535 representatives, the baulk of the federal government, media concentration and home rule. How much influence do they need?
This is like people who move next to an airport then complain about the noise!
This was the law when they moved there. Quit whining.

Race Card...

I cannot see any reason for Jack, or anyone else to play the race card, it is reckless and stupid to assign some kind of racial bias on this situation.

The Constitution, as quoted by the author, gives the Congress exclusive right to enact laws and regulations concerning the District of Columbia. It gives the POTUS no such authority, race is beside the point.

In truth, the majority of the people living full time in DC may be black, but the City of Liars is peopled by Politicians; Jack Kemp included.

Pappy Michael: Further
The Constitution specifically sets up a Federal District, and specifically precludes the residents of the district from being represented.

It's supposed to be neutral ground.

Otherwise, the Federal capital could be located in any old city in any old state.

That's the whole POINT of the District of Columbia.

But Kemp? Swoosh! Right over his pointy little head. Apparently some of the posters, too.

unbelievably stupid
The purpose of Article I, section 8, clause 17 of the Constitution, which gives Congress the 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 government of the United States...." was to remove any possible argument that Virginia and Maryland, which ceded the land in question, would retain any juridisction over the land thereafter. It certainly does NOT purport to give Congress the power to make DC equal to the states when it comes to federal electoral issues.

And how do we know this? The 23 Amendment, ratified in 1961, gave DC a number of electors for president equal to that of the least populous state (which currently equals three). The drafters of said Amendment knew they could not give DC presidential electors merely by a regular federal statute law.

The Constitution is clear. "The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several STATES...." Article I, section 2, clause 1 (emphasis added). "No person shall be a representative who shall not...when elected, be an inhabitant of that STATE in which he shall be chosen." Article I, section 2, clause 2 (emphasis added). "Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several STATES which may be included within this union...." Article I, section 2, clause 3 (emphasis added). Spin it any way you want, but DC is not a state. The only proper way for them to get voting members of the House and Senate is by constitutional amendment.

This Georgetown law professor must be an idiot, or at least a partisan Democrat hack. If that's the kind of crap they teach law students at Georgetown, then I am very happy I went to law school elsewhere.

thanks USA Lawdog
I'm a liberal, and as much as I'd love to see D.C. get the vote for purely partisan reasons, the Constitution is abundantly clear on the issue. Great post.

Kemp's Shortsighted House GOP
It's a considerable consolation that Jack Kemp is well beyond any real prospect of elective office beyond that of town dogcatcher. It would be beneficial if he could devote his talents and time to concerns of that sort rather than promulgate the nonsense evident in this column.

Jack Kemp would like to turn
DC into one giant housing project, the guy is a dinosaur like the old soviet union.

Kemp is right on...
It is amazing to me how short-sighted we can be. DC is a changing city, thanks to urban renewal/gentrification. What is today may not be in 10 years. Wake up and look down the road a piece... things do change. The reality is that DC is a great city--that's why people don't move, not because they "like" crime. How silly...

By sticking to a point that clearly misses the intent, we're making the party look bad -- once again.

Jack Kemp
Wake up yourself, Jack.

The people who live in the District should vote in the state in which they live (Maryland or Virginia), or as expressly permitted by the US Constitution (XXIII Amendment).

What the Democrats want is for the District (which isn't a state) to become a state through an administrative, not constitutional, procedure.

The US Constitution specifically states the District isn't a state. No amount of emotional political rhetoric will change that.

Constitution means what it says
Perhaps it's time to give DC residents voting representatives. However, the only honest way would be to amend the Constitution, as if many politicians of either major party are really concerned with constitutional adherence. Kemp would ask the House give up another right, yet both Houses have shirked their duties so that we see presidents committing the country to conflicts without declarations of war and gutting the Constitution in the name of security. Which of the Bill of Rights is still intact, the Third -- so far?

If Congress gives DC voting representatives thru a law, it must do the same for Puerto Rico; Guam; American Samoa; the Virgin, Northern Mariana, Midway, Wake, Howland, Navassa, and Jarvis Islands; Johnston and Palmyra Atolls; and Baker and Kingman Reefs under the concept of equal protection of the law. When supposed conservative Republicans see adherence to a provision of the Constitution as a ploy, we know we’re in deep trouble.

Jack, Jack, Jack
Jack, you're to commended for your single-mindedness on this issue. However, single-mindedness is often also small mindedness. You obviously didn't bother to read any of the comments about your last drivel on this subject.

The Constitution established the District of Columbia as a Federal District for the purpose of serving as our national capital. In this way, no single State could claim sovereignty over the new federal government. That same Constitution also established our country as a union of sovereign states. States, and the people thereof are represented in the Congress. Washington, DC, not being a state, cannot be Constitutionally represented in Congress. Therefore, this DC Voting Bill is Un-Constitutional and it doesn't matter if the House GOP votes for it or not. It doesn't matter if George Bush signs it or not. So, the Constitutional thing to do is to not pass it.

If you truly believe as you say you do, Jack, there are two solutions. One solution is doable, the other isn't. I doubt that you could generate the support of the other states to pass a Constitutional Amendment to give statehood rights to Washington, DC.

What is doable is giving most of Washington, DC back to Maryland with the Federal Government retaining only those portions of the district that are federal property. This is what happened in 1847 when the Federal Government gave Alexandria and Arlington back to Virginia. That way the people of Washington, Maryland would be able to vote where they historically belong.

Jack Kemp RINO
We have already answered this stupid question one time Mr. RINO Kemp. If you don't like the Constitution we now have, either change it through the legitimate processes or leave the country.

Return the district to the states
A much simpler and less constitutionally suspect method would be to return all the non-federally owned territory in the district (the residential and commercial areas) to the control of the state. I believe this was what was done on the Virgina side of the 10-mile square of the district. That way, the residents of the district would be represented by representatives in Annapolis and would avoid the partisan split.

Jack's Passe
Well, there he goes again, passing left once more. If they really wanted to vote, Jack, they'd move to a state and not remain in a 'district'. Congress can always attempt an amendment to the Constitution, though I doubt any state but Idaho would vote in favor. Well, maybe Vermont.
Can you imagine driving around with a license plate that reads: "Taxation without Representation"? Stop whining and move! But fix the potholes before you leave.

Trade offs
In post-World War Two America, black support for Republican presidential candidates Dwight Eisenhower and Richard Nixon had dropped to about 30-35 %. FDR and his Democratic Party, which offered economic sustainance to impoverished blacks during the Depression, was the catalyst. The percentages that Republicans received from blacks collapsed in 1964 and thereafter as the Republicans metamorphized as a conservative party friendly to the interests of southern white conservatives while the Democrats continued their drift towards a soft socialism. Whether conservatives like it or not, most blacks feel that they are assisted by big government programs. However, the trade off of what was left of the Republican black vote was more than made up by the millions of southern whites who have switched from being conservative Democrats to conservative Republicans. Without southern whites, the Republican Party would be an ineffectual minority party.

Hey Jack
Every congressman and senator swears to "support and defend the constitution of the United States". For you to say that they should leave determination of what's constitutional or not to the courts flies in the face of common sense. Not to mention truth, justice and the American way.

Jack Kemp ....
... once "debated" the world's then most dangerous dullard, the moronic Al-Fredo Gore-leone -- and lost!

Little surprise then that this whining-voiced abjectly euro-peon-ized un-and-anti-American east-coast-huddled masses-representative RINO, despite, every time he steps outside his house, being arse-deep in criminal aliens, wants to toss the tattered remnants of our nation's constitution into history's trash can.

crazy
Hey looney tunes...DC IS a city. You are right, and not a STATE. God help us from these anti-American and anti-constitution people. And this traitor ran with Dubai Bob Dole!

recce1
You said, "When supposed conservative Republicans see adherence to a provision of the Constitution as a ploy, we know we’re in deep trouble."

We're in deep trouble.

All
I am heartened at the responses to this article. It seems that when someone is so bold to outwardly proclaim that the Constitution should be disregarded, that the people will stand up to it.

I only wish that they would do the same when the Constitution is tossed aside with the excuse that such actions are needed to keep us safe. The end result is the same.

This is a Violation of the Constitution
Mr. Kemp is wrong. This is a violation of the Constitution. Jack's use of the race card here is an attempt to play on the emotions of those who always fold under those circumstances and develop no valid argument. This argument is valid. When the Constitution was written DC was not populated by a majority of black Americans. After the Constitution was ratified DC was not populated by a majority of black Americans. How is this racist? For over 200 years the people who live there have known what their rights are as DC citizens.

This is another attempt for an end run around the Constitution, like the Kelo decision. We must put a stop to this or the Constitution will have no meaning.

Jack, go home.

SimJim
Yours was, bar none, the most brain-dead post in this thread.

I suppose that when they wrote the Constitution, the Founders knew that the majority of residents in DC would someday be free Black people with voting priviledges, and in great foresight of that future event said, "Hey, guys, let's make sure those Black folks in the future DC never have the right to vote. Make sure to take that down, Thomas!"

Do they let you out of your house without a leash?

The District
Since the COnstitution provides for a 10 square mile government district, and DC is 66 square miles in size, it seems to me that there is perfectly viable alternative. Re-assign the excess 56 square miles back to Maryland. Maryland's Senator (we only have one. Sarbanes was an empty suit and his hand-picked successor is equally vapid. That leaves only Mikulski) would represent the people of the District in the Senate and Maryland would elect two additional Representatives to represent Washington (independent) City, MD. Annapolis could give the former District of Columbia any degree of automony it wants to. Problem solved. No extra-Constitutional partial representation (no Senators, only voting on bills that make no difference, etc) required.

But, that solution is simple and makes too much sense, so it would never fly among the Democrats in Annapolis or DC.

To tq
You forget the real reason that they want it as a seperate State is to get 2 more democrap senators. The democrap party cares little for representation. Didn't they ttry to disinfranchise military voters in Florida?

The End Game
This is pure bare knuckles long term politics.

Why wouldn't a big hearted Dem want a hugely majority Dem population go come back into his state of Maryland. No political advantage. The additional representative seat would have to wait until next census.

Once a representative is granted to DC the next step is to wail they have not representation in the senate. We must then allow two Dem senators. Don't kid yourself it's coming.


How do you eat an Elephant, one bite at a time.

The evils of bad history
This article shows how a common sense man of action can go terribly wrong when he accepts pop history. I have space for only a few corrections.

Of course, blacks could own property under the Constitution. Representatives were given a greater moral responsibility to make the laws conform to the Constitution than were members of the Supreme Court. The provision that gives "legislative power" over the District to Congress gives "like Authority over all Places purchased." If the provision meant Congress could treat the District like a state it would mean they could also treat Yellowstone Park like a state.

How sad. Getting our sacred commitments to each other, commitments expressed in the Constitution, right no longer seems to matter even to men of good will.

Jack Kemp Is A *Great American
Whichever party is the 2008 Presidential-prevailing party, Democratic or Republican, that party should select Jack Kemp as either Secretary of State or Attorney General or appoint him to the Supreme Court.

Jack Kemp should be in high-appointive or elective office, period!!!

The torch of understanding, racial healing, fairness, has been passed from John Kennedy to Jack Kemp, and we as a nation can be a lot better off because of it.

*(SH)

DC voting rights
So now DC is not a "chocolate city," but a "city of color" and should have the House alone decide it's voting status for a Congressional Representative, based on the majority racial composition of the city? Set aside the Constitution for the benefit of Blacks in D.C.? What about non-black residents? Would they be allowed to vote? Jack Kemp no longer likes the Constitution, obviously, an inconvenient document for him. One can pursue a Constitutional amendment to allow House representation for the District. This seems too bothersome for Mr. Kemp. The fact that it was tried before and rejected by the states seems to be of no import for Mr. Kemp. Just let the Supreme Court decide. That risks another Plessy vs Ferguson, does it not? Why would Mr. Kemp prefer a Supreme Court decision vs. agreement of the States on this matter? Seems like he wants to disenfranchise the rest of the country to accomodate D.C. Does he want Senators for the District? He doesn't say. Wouldn't it follow that if the District has an elected and voting Congressman, it should also have a couple of Senators? What is to prevent Congress then from allowing two Senators from the District? Congress has the sole say on governing the District does it not. Then its a state, right? Without having to apply for Statenood, and still under the direct governance of Congress, an opportunity for political mischief if there ever was one. Congress directly controlling the election of two Senators. Wow!! As it stands, Congress gets to define the voting regulations for the District. The District has no institutiions like a state legislature that sets the voting parameters, by elected state representatives, independent of Congress, on the election of Congressmen to represent the residents of the several States. With Congress itself deciding the voting rules in D.C., this eliminates the independent ability of the District to govern itself apart from Congress, and makes a mockery of the whole Federalist system of the Constitution. Mr. Kemp doesn't realize this? No one is requiring that Blacks live in the District, any more than that Whites or any individuals in any other ethnic group live in D.C. In terms of the "race card" it is Republicans who are trying to allow educational choice in D.C., not Democrats, who want to confine public school students in D.C. to failing schools with no prospects for a decent education. Mr. Kemp's assertion that the Republican Party is cashiering its heritage by blocking the election of a House member from D.C. is completely preposterous is a completely specious and incendiary argument, lending only heat and no light to the debate, and completely missing the point, e.g., that given the House's constitutional role of governing the District, it is incestuous and contrary to our federalist system of government to allow this without approval from the States, through a Constitutional amendment process. The States would actually be disenfranchised by an insider system of electing representatives in D.C. under a voting process directly controlled by Congress, which would of course contrive to elect representatives according to the majority party in control of Congress, which would claim every right to illicitly control the voting, since there is no power, no "controlling legal authority" to stop Congress from doing so. Just a majority vote would be all that would be required to change the voting regulations in the District. Mr. Kemp has lost his mind. The last thing we need is unbridled and uncontrolled political power in the House vis a vis voting in any specific location. If Mr. Kemp likes gerymandering, wait until Congress gets to define the election of a representative to itself from the District. That will dilute the voting rights of every citizen of every state in the Union. The Union is under enough strain as it is. This might be a breaking point that would undo the whole Constitutional system. Mr. Kemp ought to meditate on that possibility for a while. Politicians are working overtime, as are judges, activists, etc., to overturn the Constitution. Witness the unconstitutional attempt at usurpation of power by the House on the Iraq supplemental last week, in which Congress wants to be the Executive and all the generals, to have its cake and eat it too. My predicition is that with people like Jack Kemp influencing the system, we are going to lose our Constituional form of government.

Fight On Jack!
Keep Up The Fight Jack. And fellow posters, THINK BEFORE YOU POST!! USE FACTS INSTEAD OF MISGUIDED AND RACIST STEREOTYPES!!

Military Service: DC’s daughters and sons fight and die for America defending freedom and democracy but have no vote when Congress votes to send them to war.

Federal Taxes: People living in DC pay the second highest per capita federal income taxes in the country but have no vote on how the federal government spends their money. If Washington, D.C. were a state, it would rank last in area behind Rhode Island, 50th in population ahead of Wyoming, first in population density ahead of New Jersey, and 35th in Gross State Product

Voting Rights: Concerned American citizens living in our nation’s capital have no vote on important issues affecting nearly every aspect of their daily lives including: health care, Social Security, environmental protection, crime control, public safety and foreign policy. In fact, DC Residents were not able to vote for President until The Twenty-third Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified on March 29, 1961, allowing residents of Washington, D.C. to vote for president and have their votes count in the Electoral College as long as Washington, D.C. does not have more electoral votes than the least populous state. Also, DC Residents were not allowed to have their own local democratically elected representation until 1973 when Congress enacted the District of Columbia Self-Rule and Governmental Reorganization Act, providing for an elected mayor and city council for the District

Education: Parents, teachers and community leaders have no vote when it comes to shaping national educational policies and academic standards.

Economy and Business: DC’s business owners and workers are denied a vote in determining how Congress regulates business policy and the economy.

Law: Local laws passed by locally elected officials are routinely overruled by members of Congress pursuing their own personal agendas without regard for the welfare of DC residents.

Hey SimJim
Do you suppose that the Dems would argue in favor of the DC Voting Rights Act if the district were populated by predominantly "white good ole boy repubs"? Try holding your breath on that one and we won't have to put up with your ridiculous comments on TH any more!

And, by the way Mr. Kemp, race has nothing to do with it! It is a constitutional question that can only be resolved with an ammendment to said constitution. So shut up and quit stirring up ignorant people, as it only serves to hurt the party you claim to support.

DC voting rights
Come to think of it, what would prevent Congress from increasing the number of representatives in the District? Why stop with one? The Majority could increase that to 5, 10, or more, as needed to keep a Majority in any given election. No one could stop them. Congress would have the sole right to govern the district, and could throw proportional representation out the window for the district, and use it as its own personal sandbox for indulging in political mischief. Mr. Kemp needs a neuro-psychiatric evaluation to assess for dementia or psychosis.

Federalism
That Kemp could write this shows how far we have moved from federalism.

The states get senators and congressmen as they are sovereign states. The same reason they send electors to select the president.

DC exists as federal district, independent from the states so that no state holds the seat of federal government. So, as it is not a state, DC has not right to send senators or representatives, nor to appoint electors.

Did Kemp (and many posters) sleep through high school civics? We are a federal republic made up of independent sovereign states who wield all of the authority not given up to the federal government. DC is not a state and thus has no authority to have a role in the federal government.

Omission
Forgot to mention that DC does have electors for the presidency by consitutional amendment.

That I disagree with thsi idea is irrelevant, it is the law as long as it is in the consitution. I just think it defeats the whole "federal district" concept.

My thought mirrors a few posters above. If you want to vote for congressional representatives, live in the suburbs. If you want to live in DC, then accept that you don't have that ability.

But, as I said, the constitution was changed, so DC gets to vote in presidential elections, no matter how illogical it seems to me.

TQ
So, a fellow resident of the People's Republic of Maryland, under the enlightened leadership of Martin "Gosh I'm Pretty, And In A Band Too!" O'Malley? Glad to know I am not the lone Republican in the state.

Ellison
All of your arguments apply to Puerto Rico, Guam, etc. Do you think each of those should be a state as well?

A Intelligent Conservative? Impossible?
Kenneth Starr notes that the Constitution is silent on the matter of whether D.C. residents may vote. In the Founders' era, there was no expectation that people would live in the capital, which was then little more than an idea surrounded by Maryland and Virginia. But Starr says despite that silence, Congress has the authority to adapt to the fact that a full-fledged city grew up here; the Constitution expressly says that "The Congress shall have power ... To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever" over the District of Columbia.

The longstanding argument against D.C. representation is based on the idea that the Constitution reserves that right for "states," and the District is not a state. But Starr notes that Congress routinely regulates the flow of commerce between the District and the states, and that power is also expressly reserved in the Constitution for Congress to act on commerce "among the several states." That means Congress can also decide that the best way to govern the District is for Washingtonians to have the same voting rights as other taxpaying Americans.

Finally, Starr writes: “A republican, that is representative, form of government, is a foundational cornerstone in the Constitution's structure; the denial of representation was one of the provocations that generated the Declaration of Independence and the War that implemented it. Article I creates the republican form of the national government, and Article IV guarantees that form to its people, regardless of whether they reside in a District or a State

Andrews
Once again, you are not thinking!

The main difference is that Washington has been an integral part of the U.S. for 200 years and still lacks representation in Congress. Furthermore, unlike modern U.S. territories, Washington D.C. is subject to all federal laws, including tax laws, and pays a higher than average tax per capita, although unrepresented in the national legislature.

To all
I will gladly agree to DC becoming a State if Scott, GA can become a separate State also.

http://www.google.com/maps?q=Scott,+GA,+USA&sa=X&oi=map&ct=image

I want Statehood!
If DC were to be granted statehood, I would like Maryland's Eastern Shore, Virginia's Eastern Shore and Sussex County, Delaware (excluding Rehoboth and Dewey Beaches) to be combined as the State of Crabiana. Our state flag could sport a crab as its central feature. Our politics would be conservative and usually Republican. Our state of Crabania would be a more natural state than DC in any case with nearly as many residents. We would have more productive citizens than DC, which specializes in bureaucrats, lawyers, politicians, gangbangers and welfare cases.

Voting not so important
I can't understand the fuss about voting. Every national election only about half the people vote anyway, obviously because they don't feel it's that important, it doesn't affect them. That means half (or less) the people in D.C. would vote. So we have to change the law for this...? And since the people in D.C. have already proven that they are idiots by voting for crooks and con men just because they are black, why would anyone be in a rush to let them vote in national elections?


Derek Leaberry
Derek, your "state" couldn't survive without us D.C. area people. We support your economy. We spendour hard earned money on beachfront property. As a proud owner of a home in the Sea Colony Resort (Bethany Beach, DE), you are very welcome for my support. Wish you could have the same respect for DC.

Dr. North, I pray that you leave whatever supremicist organization you belong to. You too can choose to leave the CONSERVATIVE LIFESTYLE of ignoance and bigotry. In the words of Jesse Jackon, "Keep Hope Alive".

Derek Leaberry
As a future resident of Crabiana I second your plan! Maybe governor Ehrlich could get slots in our new state without the dems in the legislature thwarting him. (Of course O'Malley will get slots passed in the first minute of the new session if he wants, but somehow Ehrlich was being "difficult" when he asked for them.)

Ellison
If you are arguing from tradition, that DC has been a part of the US for 200+ years, I would argue it has not been a state for 200+ years as well, so we should uphold that tradition as well.

And just being contained within the continental US is not a very strong argument. Is the UN going to be the 52nd state? The NY upstate reservations could each become a state as well.

See? We can create all the states we want once we pen the gates on that one.

Just do as I've suggested
Amend the Constitution if necessary, but move the seat of government to the 4 corners of Nebraska, Iowa, Missouri, and Kansas.

There is nothing there to do, so they would become more productive and the scandals would plummet. They would be in the interior and safer from attack, thoroughly surrounded so they could be made to obey the Law, and protests and other liberal idiocy would be diminished by the lack of liberal radicals nearby, and the unwillingness of most parlor liberals to travel among us savages in the flyover country, anyway.

DC could be preserved as the museum it should be. Disneyland East.

Andrews
Once again, READ. Unlike modern U.S. territories, Washington D.C. is subject to all federal laws, including tax laws, and pays a higher than average tax per capita, although unrepresented in the national legislature.

To the echo the words of James Otis, Jr,

"Taxation without Representation is Tyranny"

Tales from the crypt
First: Kemp was never a conservative. When he was in Congress ('71 to '89), he got himself educated in supply side economics and started spouting it like he wrote the book. It is significant that he was never offered a job by Reagan but Bush I had him run HUD.

He's one of those so called economic conservatives/social liberals but I wouldn't even trust him on the economic side. He's more accurately described as a Rockefeller republican. In other words, it shouldn't be surprising when and how frequently he latches onto and advances liberal positions.

Ask yourself: What is his concern about DC? Hint - it has nothing to do with the rights and welfare of DC residents. The whole piece was written just as an opportunity to portray himself as an empathic, 'compassionate conservative' - a has been trying to revive himself and create personal relevence while advancing socially liberal pablum.

Kemp's past 70 - he still envisions himself on blue ribbon panels, running federal bureaucracies and wispering sweet nothings into the ears of the up and coming, when he really should be giving that football damaged brain a well deserved rest.

Moderation Is The Key
Historically Rockefeller Republicans were moderate or liberal on domestic and social policies. They typically favored New Deal programs, welfare, and civil rights—usually promising to run them more efficiently than the Democrats. They were strong supporters of big business. In fiscal policy they favored balanced budgets and relatively high tax levels to keep the budget balanced. They sought long-term economic growth through entrepreneurships, not tax cuts. In state politics, they were strong supporters of state colleges and universities, low tuition, and large research budgets. They favored infrastructure improvements, such as highway projects.

In Contrast....
Neoconservatives= Imperaialism At Its Finest

"Religious Right"= No Concept of Jesus Christ or his message.

Conervatives better realize that moderation and tolerance is the key to political survival.






I'm curious...
Why is Kemp on a website that supposedly features conservative columnists? I'm sure there's a reason but I can't imagine what it is.

E. Shore Pre-'54
Dear Mr. Ellison,
As a transplant to the Shore, I have learned that there was life, much of it vibrant although very rural, on the Eastern shore before the Bay Bridge went up. In fact, citizens of the Shore much more native than I remember pre-1954 as a joyous, unhurried time. At risk of sounding Al Goreish, the Eastern Shore's abundance of aquatic food has been damaged severely by city folks polluting our Chesapeake. As for Ocean City and Bethany Beach, most people on the Shore wouldn't give a hoot if a nicely placed hurricane swept them into the Atlantic.

Representation without Taxation
I find it interesting that the guy who is so lathered up about taxation without representation in our nation's capitol made his political mark as someone advocating for representation without taxation (or at least at reduced levels of taxation). Kemp's enterprise zones were all about creating special zones in blighted areas that would have business and personal income taxes treated with special favor over areas that happen to lie outside of these zones. In other words he wanted unequal taxation for the same representation. Now he tells us that it is unfair to have equal taxation for unequal representation.

It's about time that Mr. Kemp retired to the rest home for RINO's and give a younger more conservative voice a chance on the Townhall forum.

Ellison
Why don't you read my earlier post. The states have the right to appoint representatives as the government is a confederation of independent sovereign states. DC is not, nor ever was, an independent sovereign state, so it does not have representatives.

Why is this concept so hard for libs? The area of DC was kept a non-state to prevent a single state from having undue influence over the legislature and presidency.

of course, in our age of the omnipotent federal government, I am not surprised that few understand the ideas of federalism, and instead champion "fairness", but we really should make an effort to actually follow the constitution.

That, or the left should be honest and just say "ditch the constitution"> (Of course, they mouth pieties about it when they accuse Bush of ignoring it... Funny how that works.)

In any case, if you want to argue it isn't fair to prevent DC from having representatives, I will give the reply my high school latin teacher always gave me: Life's not fair, or I would be king.

Go Live in Russia
It's amazing to me how people who think we have the right to make war on people in the name of giving them democracy don't want people at home who might have different political views.Talk about
OF course ya'll realize these potential democratic voters do pay taxes,and have no voice in how the money is spent.Congress not only controls the budget,but overules local referendums.You can't be agianst big government,onerous taxation and allowing the citizens of the district voting representation at the same time ,unless you think self deception is different than any other form of dishonesty.

Bingo, Andrews
Finally! It's about time someone who has actually read the Federalist Papers and the Constitution chimes in here.

The forefathers foresaw that the original residents of the District of Columbia would be bureaucrats, and therefore would have an inordinate effect on federal policy were they given a vote in the federal system - Congress.
The Federal system was never meant to be a democracy of individuals voting for federal positions; quite rightly, Congress was meant to be a body of representatives from the independent states to decide matters concerning them all, vis a vis foreign matters and intrastate differences, not local matters.

Democracy
Re: Sam

Democracy is not part of conservative tradition but is a very flawed political system we are forced to accept at the current time. Of democracy, Alexis de Tocqueville once wrote, "The American Republic will endure until poiticians realize they can bribe the people with their own money." And philosopher Alexander Tytler wrote, "A democracy will continue to exist until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury.."

Democracy tends towards legalized theft. It can act as an anti-liberty agent. Remember, government takes 65 % of a Swede's earnings, 55 % of a Frenchman's earnings, 50 % of a German's earnings, 40 % of a Briton's earnings and one-third of an American's earnings.

Lastly, listen or watch CSPAN's 7-8 AM call-in program. It will quickly disabuse you of the whim that most Americans are intelligent enough to reason out national problems. Most Americans are profoundly ignorant of any subjects but what the lottery amount is and who is the most popular celebrities of the hour.

As for forcing democracy onto Iraq, I do not support it at all.

En cheek
Please, what has all this got to do with Anna Nicole....

Voting in D.C.
Kemp crap!

D. C. is not and is not supposed to be a State or have an independant political voting status. Remember? That was thought through in advance by statesmen, before politicians.
And the reasons those in D.C. and their agitators
seek the change is so vulgarly transparent! Shall we change the name as well? Maybe The Democrat State of Crime and Welfare?
Kemp, please get a life, a different life, out of the sight of the public.

Ronald A. West

Andrews
Good post and accurate definition of the District. The US Constitution states that the District isn't a state.

Unfortunately, there are many posters who chose to ignore the Constitution and apply their own definition without any legal reasoning. They then state that their sophistry trumps the US Constitution.

These posters are merely stooges for the Socialist-Democrats.

Andrews
Ellison just wants to throw liberal bombs because he has nothing better to say.

Andrews v Ellison
Well said Andrews. It seems this title inconvenient truth might also be applied to our Constitution. Your arguments are straight to the point and well explained. I give you an A in Civics. Hopefully Ellison will learn something from your comments. It isn't a matter of what one might emotionally believe to be "fair". It is a matter of what the Constitution actually says. You have hit the nail right on the head.

Mark your X here
Study finds D.C. illiteracy rate higher than national average
by The Associated Press

WASHINGTON - About one-third of the people living in the national's capital are functionally illiterate, compared with about one-fifth nationally, according to a report on the District of Columbia.

To gofer
I would not put a lot of faith in that study. The results were skewed by including people who could not speak English. Under the classic definition of a funuctional illiterate it does not include people who can read and write in their own primary language.

Of course, if they came out with a study that said 20% are immigrants (of whatever variety) who do not speak English and 13% can not read or arite in any language it would not be news would it?

This is disgusting.
Jack Kemp is a prime target for my program offering forgiveness for guilt ridden white people. It makes me sick to read that garbage about black people being three fifths of a person. If that wasn't bad enough Kemp trotted out that crap about the GOP again being viewed as turning back the clock on civil rights. ( I am not quoting him verbatem, but that is what he is saying here.

It has been a while since I read anything by Kemp. I hope it is much longer before he embarrasses himself by writing this kind of drivel again.

Crippled mentality
Hey, Ellison. You remind me of my days hanging around Harvard Sq. If youi have no argument or can't think of anything intelligent to say--then begin name-calling.

Where does the bigotry come in? Concerning the situation in D.C. I stated a well-known fact! Why is that bigotry?

Well, Sim
That certainly explains your abyssal ignorance.

And your last post is a great example of your amazing lack of class.

Good job. 0 for 2.

It's all about party loyalty
Any Republican who dares to agree that citizens who live within the borders of DC need to be represented in the House and Senate deserve a swift kick in the pants and a thorough re-indoctrination into conservative values.

Giving a black-dominated majority representation in Congress would do nothing to further the interests of the GOP, and it should be avoided at all costs. Now, maybe if black people would stop being so racist in how they chose to vote the GOP may actually consider giving them a voice in government like citizens of the 50 states. Too bad for them they live in DC. We all choose where to live, and we can all move, so if they want a vote they need to pack up the shack and pick a state, any state, because that way they can be represented in our legislative branch like every other tax-paying citizen.

honeypie
What you wrote is disgusting! I don't agree with D.C. being given voting rights either, but it has nothing to do with the color of the peoples' skin, but instead has everything to do with the Constitution.

I also happen to have more loyalty to our Constitution and our country, than any stupid political party. Finally, for you to imply that your stance has anything whatsoever to do with "conservative values" is absolutely untrue. Neocon, maybe.... conservative, NO.

D.C. Vote
?I had a higher opinion of Jack Kempt but he seems to be in step with the inept republicans who opposed every attempt to get consensus in order that the Democrats could not fracture the
Republican party. But Bush trying to accommodate a bunch of opportunistic want-a-bees cost
decency the congress in the last election. Surly Jack Kemp knows the value of upholding the
constitution. The privilege of voting for a D.C. resident was instituted so that those who made their living from the trough of taxpayer servitude could not have any influence in electing those who gave them their handout. The principle should be in force. Those whose sole means of support should not be allowed to vote for those who dole out the handout. I personally will not vote for those who worked to undermine every effort attempt to gain consensus for republican causes such as Arlen Spencer, nor John McCain, or any other that attempts to lead the party out of its conservative stance. Nor will I vote for anyone who supports murdering unborn babies, nor anyone who attempts to give credence to perverts.

D.C. Vote
Be careful, many of you are letting those bigoted horns out of the closet. Why do bigots hurl insults instead of logically discussing an issue?
Could it be that there is no logic for bigotry?
Sharon

Typical
Kemp is out to lunch and is another reason Republicans lost the last election. Conservatives will stay home if he continues to "speak" for the Republicans. It is obvious to me, by his post, that many of our Republican politicians do not understand basic conservative values.

Typical argument here that we see over and over again on TH. Facts and logic used to pledge fealty to the constitution trumped by the liberals incessant whining about what should, ought, and must be. See UGA Lawdog's post above. This is settled law...what has changed? This law is just as unconstitutional as the law currently in committee dictating how to make war.

Publius
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.