Tuesday, March 03, 2009

Taxation with representation

My column for the West Bend Daily News is online.  It’s called, “Taxation with representation.”  Here’s a portion:

As you can see, the Constitution only allows the states to elect members to the House of Representatives. Irrespective of whether or not one thinks that citizens of D.C. should have their own member of the House, they are not a state and the Constitution forbids it. The only correct way for the citizens of D.C. to gain representation in the House is to amend the Constitution.

   Legislation to grant the citizens of D.C. representation in the House is unmistakably unconstitutional. No legislation can ever trump the Constitution.

   There are many issues that come before the legislature that are less clear than this one – ones where it is legitimate for a legislator, who is not a Constitutional scholar, to cast his conscience and let the Supreme Court decide the constitutionality of the matter. This is not one of those issues. Article II is excruciatingly clear to the point that anyone with a functioning frontal lobe can see that it is unconstitutional for the government to allow the citizens of D.C. to have a representative in Congress without first amending the Constitution.

   Here in Wisconsin, our senators were unanimous in violating their oaths to uphold the Constitution. Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Bucks) and Sen. Russ Feingold (D-self) both voted to cast aside their oaths and unabashedly violated Article II of the Constitution.

   This is particularly consistent with Sen. Feingold. He has a history of sponsoring and supporting legislation that violates the Constitution. The historic gutting of the 1st Amendment that is McCain-Feingold comes to mind. For someone who claims to be a maverick in support of our rights, Feingold has developed a distinguished track record of supporting legislation that undermines them.

(5) Comments
Posted by Owen at 0702 hrs
Politics + Politics - General + Politics - Wisconsin

  1. Feingold has developed a distinguished track record of supporting legislation that undermines them

    More accurately, Feinie has a distinguished track record of supporting legislation that helps HIM.

    Posted by dad29 on March 03, 2009 at 1058 hrs


  2. Why do you think statehood for D.C. would require a Constitutional amendment?
    It did not require an amendment to make Hawaii or Alaska a state.
    Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D.C._Statehood
    “Full statehood for D.C. could arguably be achieved by an act of Congress by exercising the powers granted by Article Four, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution”

    Posted by Mike Thomas on March 03, 2009 at 1429 hrs


  3. Yes, you could make D.C. the 51st state and that would give them a vote in Congress in line with the Constitution.  But the bill passed by the Senate didn’t do that.  It gave them a vote without making them a state.  That is unconstitutional.

    Posted by Owen on March 03, 2009 at 1444 hrs


  4. Owen, I ask this question again. Since when has a Politician, of either party these days with few exceptions, cared a whit about the Constitution unless they can benefit from it?

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 03, 2009 at 1622 hrs


  5. I hate to disagree, but an amendment is not the only way for DC to obtain representation. They could agree to become part of Maryland. Of course they are reluctant to do this and thus lose all the special privileges they now enjoy. They, like most liberal Democrats, want to have all benifits with no responsibility. Just a thought.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 05, 2009 at 1824 hrs


Commenting is not available in this channel entry.