RSS 2.0 FeedOrrin Hatch Ignores The Constitution
by Doug MataconisOrrin Hatch is a conversative and I’m a libertarian, so it’s not surprising that I’d disagree with some of his position. Even though I frequently don’t agree with him, though, he’s always struck me as someone who has respect for the Constitution.
WASHINGTON — Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch said Tuesday he’s supporting legislation to create new House seats for his home state of Utah and the District of Columbia, boosting chances that after two centuries residents of the nation’s capital will get a vote in Congress.
Hatch joined Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., in sponsoring the Senate version of a bill, passed by the House last month, that would permanently add two seats to the 435-seat House, giving one to the Democratic district and another, provisionally, to Republican-leaning Utah.
Given the fact that Hatch’s home state would benefit from this bill, I can only chock this up to pure political expediency, which is unfortunately all too common in Washington. It’s even more distressing here given that Hatch seems to recognize the Constitutional problems with the bill:
Hatch said he was mindful of the argument that the Constitution only allows states to have voting members of Congress. The White House issued a statement saying senior advisers would recommend that President Bush veto it if it clears Congress.
But Hatch said Davis and Norton had made persuasive arguments that Congress treats the district as a state in applying laws and the paying of federal taxes. “These arguments lead me to believe it is only fair that we proceed with this legislation and, if it becomes necessary, let the courts decide.”
Just for the record, this is the oath that Senator Hatch took when he was elected to the Senate:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”
Just where in there does it say that Senators should ignore serious Constitutional issues about legislation before them, and even knowingly vote in favor of something they know to be unconstitutional ?
Yea, I don’t see it either.
Originally posted at Below The Beltway, where I’ve been covering the effort to give the District of Columbia a vote in detail.
DC isn’t a state; until they apply for and are granted the status of a state they are not entitled ( I don;t like that word ) they are not entitled to house seats. That’s fairly clear; Hey Orin and Joe, can’t you read?
Comment by T F Stern — May 1, 2007 @ 7:14 pmIt seems to me that a fair compromise would be that D.C. residents would no longer be required to pay ferderal taxes. That would clear up the whole “no taxation without representation” argument.
Comment by Stephen Littau — May 2, 2007 @ 12:38 am