Proponents of the legislation argue that since residents of the District pay federal taxes, this lack of representation amounts to taxation without representation and this is contrary to our founding principles. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., stated "Washington, D.C., is the only capital in a democracy in the entire world that does not have a voting representative in its parliament." Mr. Hoyer is either constitutionally challenged or is intentionally attempting to distort the system of government established by the Constitution.
Representative Hoyer would have us believe that the Constitution consolidated the States and their people into one nation and placed them under the control of Washington, D.C. Contrary to the representations by Mr. Hoyer, the Constitution did not establish a national democracy between the American people. If it had, then residents of the District of Columbia would have been given representation in Congress when the Constitution was written in 1787.
There is a simple reason why the District of Columbia does not have voting representation in either House of Congress. It is not a State. The Constitution is a union or compact between the several States, not a union or agreement between the American people as comprising one nation. The only parties to the compact known as the Constitution for the United States are the individual States. [EN-1] Since the District is not a State, its residents are not entitled to direct representation in either House of Congress. [EN-2]
Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution proves that the only political entities entitled to representation in the House of Representatives are the States:
"The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members choosen every second Year by the People of the several States."
"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union [of States]."
"[E]ach State shall have at least one Representative."
"When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority [the Governor] thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies."
Every clause of the Constitution concerning representation in the House of Representatives, without exception, is restricted to the States. If any political entity other than a State was entitled to representation in the House of Representatives, then the Founders would not have used this restrictive language.
Congress, in their imperial arrogance, has a plan to circumvent the restrictive provisions enumerated in Article 1, Section 2. They claim Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 grants them the power to side step Section 2 and give the District of Columbia voting representation in the House of Representatives. This clause states-Congress shall have the power:
The individuals in Congress pushing this legislation claim the jurisdiction granted to Congress by this clause translates into granting them the power to bestow voting representation on the District of Columbia. Only in the twisted mind of a politician could such a conclusion be reached from a reading of this clause.
If this clause granted Congress the power to give the District of Columbia voting representation as these clowns claim, then not only would the Constitution be in conflict with itself, but Congress could use one clause to negate 4 others. Such a reading of the Constitution would be an absurdity.
Even the Congressional Research Service, the public policy research arm of the United States Congress, has issued a report pointing out the unconstitutionality of this plan.
Members of Congress constantly hide behind the Constitution when it is politically expedient. They conduct press conferences and hold hearings to attack the executive branch for perceived violations of the Constitution. But when they pass unconstitutional legislation like this and it is struck down by the courts, they cry and moan like little girls who lost their Barbie doll and shift the blame to "activist" judges. If the American people do not start holding Congress accountable for these blatant attempts to usurp the Constitution, irrespective of how insignificant they appear or how wonderful they sound, there will come a time when it will be too late to stop them.
The following quotes are from a book entitled, "The Republic of Republics," Bernard Janin Sage, 1878. Mr. Sage was a constitutional attorney. This book is loaded with reference material and is one of the best books I have found on the Constitution. This book, along with Upshor's book referenced below this article should be in the personal library of every American who wants to learn more about the true nature of the Constitution.
"The title is 'Constitution of the United States,' and the preamble says:―'We, the people of the united states, * * do ordain and establish this constitution for the united states of America.' Whose constitution then is it? The title answers, 'the constitution of the * states.' Who is it for? The preamble answers, 'this constitution for the * states.' The states then are the important subjects of these sentences, while the word 'united'―meaning associated―is a mere adjective. These phrases obviously refer to pre-existent states, united by compact. It was only as such bodies that the 'people' could become parties to the constitution, for each individual citizen was a member of a state, and had no right whatever to act politically, except in such body and as such member. [My note: this helps explain why the residents of the District of Columbia are not entitled to representation in the House of Representatives]
"Natural persons, then form states, while these, as political persons, form the federation called 'the United States.'"
"'[T]he united states' are 'the (federal) government;' and that the name 'the united states' means the people as states, and not the people as (one) state or nation."
EN-2. Washington DC used to be called the federal city because it is the location of the States' government.
FEDERAL. a. From Latin foedus, a league. 1. Pertaining to a league or contract; derived from an agreement or covenant between parties, particularly between nations. 2. Consisting in a contract between parties, particularly and chiefly between states or nations; founded on alliance or mutual agreement; as a federal government, such as that of the United States. [From- Noah Webster's dictionary, published in 1844]
The reader will note this clause restricts the federal government's legislative
jurisdiction to 10 miles square or less. The District was created in 1790
when the States of Virginia and Maryland ceded approximately 100 square
miles of the land to their federal government. The 32 square miles originally
ceded by Virginia was returned in 1847. The same standard should apply
to 58 of the 68 square miles of land originally belonging to Maryland.
Congress should return the land because its jurisdiction is limited to
10 miles square. This would solve the problem of representation in Congress
because the people would become citizens of Maryland. The remaining land
in the city of Washington DC would house all the federal buildings, monuments,
etc. There is also a plan to transform these 58 square miles of land into
the 51st State called New Columbia. Since the District of Columbia is
overwhelmingly populated by democrats, statehood would give democrats
additional representatives in the House of Representatives and 2 in the
Greenslade focuses his writing on issues surrounding the federal government
and the Constitution. He believes politicians at the federal level, through
ignorance or design, are systematically dismantling the Constitution in
an effort to expand their power and consolidate control over the American
people. He has dedicated himself to resurrecting the true intent of the
Constitution in the hope that the information will contribute, in some
small way, to restoring the system of limited government established by
If you are interested in finding out more about the Constitution, take a look at this book. I use it in many of my articles and it is the best book I've found on this subject. Bob
Reprint of the 1868 edition. ''Perhaps the ablest analysis of the nature and character of the federal government that has ever been published. It has remained unanswered.'' This review of Judge Story's Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States is perhaps the ablest analysis of the nature and character of the Federal Government that has ever been published. It has remained unanswered. Indeed, we are not aware that any attempt has been made to challenge the soundness of its reasoning. The great vise of Judge Story and the Federalists consisted in desiring the clothe the federal government with almost monarchical power, whereas the States had carefully and resolutely reserved the great mass of political power for themselves. The powers which they delegated to the federal government were few, and were general in their character. Those which they reserved embraced their original and inalienable sovereignty, which no state imagined it was surrendering when it adopted the constitution. Mr. Madison dwelt with great force upon the fact that ''a delegated is not a surrendered power.'' The states surrendered no powers to the federal government -- they only delegated them. 160 pages.