Something is rotten in the state of Utah
I thought this might be interesting to blog, because the Press hasn't seriously caught on to this story, because this item was written by a relative of mine, and because I also happen to live in Utah. (The author does not)
Utah is attempting to wrangle another, fourth seat in the House of Representatives. They've been trying to do so for years now. And, because previous lawsuits failed, the Republicans here are perfectly willing to break the law -- violate the Constitution -- to do it. People should be upset, but I think we'll see this one slip in under the radar. It just isn't nearly as exciting to people as other, more tabloid-worthy scandalous behavior. (like flushing a Quran) It's sad that the glizt and lights of the media have produced a sort of selective blindness and inattentiveness in "the sheeple". Especially for things which are happening in their own back yard.
Utah Defies the Constitution
By Raymond Takashi Swenson
Utah Republicans are preparing to violate the US Constitution.
Utahns are upset that their state did not receive a fourth seat in the House of Representatives after the 2000 Census. They argued unsuccessfully that the thousands of Utah citizens who are outside the United States serving as missionaries for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints should have been counted in Utah’s population figures. The Census Bureau responded that it is too difficult to find and count the million or more US citizens living abroad, so it has adopted a policy of not even trying. Utah Republicans were hoping to add a third Republican representative and, during the process of redistricting, possibly gerrymander the sole Democrat, Representative Jim Matheson, out of a seat in the next election. However, they lost in the Supreme Court.
Now Utah has a prospect of getting its wish after all, but in a very odd way. A bill has been introduced that proposes to give Utah a fourth seat in the US House of Representatives. To allay the concerns of Democrats, the bill would also confer a Representative on the District of Columbia. These two seats would be added to the current 435 until the results of the 2010 Census allow the normal reshuffling of the 435 seats that is required by relative changes in population over the decade. Utah is confident that the high growth rate that make it the youngest state in the Union will ensure it a permanent fourth seat at that time. The District of Columbia would keep its representative, at the sacrifice of some non-Utah state in 2010.
I can sympathize with both Utah and the District. I am a former long-time resident of Salt Lake. I also lived in the Virginia and Maryland suburbs of Washington, DC, worked in the District, and attended law school at George Washington University near the White House. Residents of Washington regularly complain because Congress, in accordance with the US Constitution, makes the laws for the District, even though its residents are unable to elect Senators or Congressmen. Similar complaints led to enactment of the Twenty-Third Amendment to the Constitution, which gives the District three votes in the Electoral College, so its residents can help elect the President.
The only problem with simply conferring a House seat with full voting rights on the District is that it violates the Constitution. Currently, the District elects a Delegate to Congress who, like the delegates from American Samoa, the US Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico, cannot vote on legislation. This is because Article I of the Constitution plainly states that members of the House of Representatives can only be elected from the "States." If a Representative dies or resigns, holding an election for a replacement is the duty of the Governor of the "State," but DC has no Governor. The power to govern the District is assigned by the Constitution to Congress, a District that was created by the transfer of land from the State of Maryland to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal government.
It is not even necessary to pass this unconstitutional bill, because there are three ways that the City of Washington can properly and constitutionally become entitled to elect a real Representative:
(1) Amend the Constitution. This was previously done to give DC presidential electors, which clearly shows that the District is not now a "State" and not eligible to elect a Representative to Congress without another amendment.
(2) Admit DC as a State by legislation. However, the Constitution specifies that the national capital must not be part of any State. DC must either give up its status as the national capital, or another amendment to the Constitution would be needed. Furthermore, the notion of giving two seats in the Senate to the City of Washington would be unacceptable to the Republican Party.
(3) Cede the residential areas of DC back to Maryland. This can be done by legislation, without amending the Constitution, and is the best solution.
In fact, this has already been done. The original District of Columbia was a square 10 miles on a side, with one corner in Alexandria, and one side running northwest from there, enclosing modern Arlington County in Virginia. The portions of the District south of the Potomac River were returned to Virginia in 1847 when Alexandria wanted Virginia to subsidize new roads and canals because Congress wouldn’t pay for them.
Once the city of Washington is returned to Maryland, its residents could vote for Maryland’s senators and help elect a Representative to the House. Adding the city's population might get Maryland another Representative in the 2010 Census.
The Federal capital would shrink to the core Federal offices, monuments and museums, primarily from Capitol Hill and the Supreme Court down the Mall and Pennsylvania Avenue to the White House, the State Department at Foggy Bottom, and the Naval Observatory (where the Vice President lives). Other non-contiguous Federal buildings can be retained in the smaller District.
Without permanent residents, the Twenty-Third Amendment would become null and void, and Congress could state that in the legislation retroceding the City of Washington to Maryland.
Thus it is clear that the current bill, which would simply give Washington, DC a Representative, is not only unconstitutional but also unnecessary. The end of giving Utah more clout in Congress seems to justify, for Utah’s Republicans, plainly unconstitutional means. The sponsors of this bill complain of unconstitutional lawmaking by the Supreme Court, but they are ready to do the same thing when it promises to give them more power.
********************
Raymond Takashi Swenson is an environmental attorney in Idaho Falls. He has also practiced law in Utah, California and Washington. He can be reached at coltakashi@aol.com.
Stupid Republicans. I'm a strong Conservative... but I left the Republican Party at 19 for good reasons.
Utah is attempting to wrangle another, fourth seat in the House of Representatives. They've been trying to do so for years now. And, because previous lawsuits failed, the Republicans here are perfectly willing to break the law -- violate the Constitution -- to do it. People should be upset, but I think we'll see this one slip in under the radar. It just isn't nearly as exciting to people as other, more tabloid-worthy scandalous behavior. (like flushing a Quran) It's sad that the glizt and lights of the media have produced a sort of selective blindness and inattentiveness in "the sheeple". Especially for things which are happening in their own back yard.
Utah Defies the Constitution
By Raymond Takashi Swenson
Utah Republicans are preparing to violate the US Constitution.
Utahns are upset that their state did not receive a fourth seat in the House of Representatives after the 2000 Census. They argued unsuccessfully that the thousands of Utah citizens who are outside the United States serving as missionaries for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints should have been counted in Utah’s population figures. The Census Bureau responded that it is too difficult to find and count the million or more US citizens living abroad, so it has adopted a policy of not even trying. Utah Republicans were hoping to add a third Republican representative and, during the process of redistricting, possibly gerrymander the sole Democrat, Representative Jim Matheson, out of a seat in the next election. However, they lost in the Supreme Court.
Now Utah has a prospect of getting its wish after all, but in a very odd way. A bill has been introduced that proposes to give Utah a fourth seat in the US House of Representatives. To allay the concerns of Democrats, the bill would also confer a Representative on the District of Columbia. These two seats would be added to the current 435 until the results of the 2010 Census allow the normal reshuffling of the 435 seats that is required by relative changes in population over the decade. Utah is confident that the high growth rate that make it the youngest state in the Union will ensure it a permanent fourth seat at that time. The District of Columbia would keep its representative, at the sacrifice of some non-Utah state in 2010.
I can sympathize with both Utah and the District. I am a former long-time resident of Salt Lake. I also lived in the Virginia and Maryland suburbs of Washington, DC, worked in the District, and attended law school at George Washington University near the White House. Residents of Washington regularly complain because Congress, in accordance with the US Constitution, makes the laws for the District, even though its residents are unable to elect Senators or Congressmen. Similar complaints led to enactment of the Twenty-Third Amendment to the Constitution, which gives the District three votes in the Electoral College, so its residents can help elect the President.
The only problem with simply conferring a House seat with full voting rights on the District is that it violates the Constitution. Currently, the District elects a Delegate to Congress who, like the delegates from American Samoa, the US Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico, cannot vote on legislation. This is because Article I of the Constitution plainly states that members of the House of Representatives can only be elected from the "States." If a Representative dies or resigns, holding an election for a replacement is the duty of the Governor of the "State," but DC has no Governor. The power to govern the District is assigned by the Constitution to Congress, a District that was created by the transfer of land from the State of Maryland to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal government.
It is not even necessary to pass this unconstitutional bill, because there are three ways that the City of Washington can properly and constitutionally become entitled to elect a real Representative:
(1) Amend the Constitution. This was previously done to give DC presidential electors, which clearly shows that the District is not now a "State" and not eligible to elect a Representative to Congress without another amendment.
(2) Admit DC as a State by legislation. However, the Constitution specifies that the national capital must not be part of any State. DC must either give up its status as the national capital, or another amendment to the Constitution would be needed. Furthermore, the notion of giving two seats in the Senate to the City of Washington would be unacceptable to the Republican Party.
(3) Cede the residential areas of DC back to Maryland. This can be done by legislation, without amending the Constitution, and is the best solution.
In fact, this has already been done. The original District of Columbia was a square 10 miles on a side, with one corner in Alexandria, and one side running northwest from there, enclosing modern Arlington County in Virginia. The portions of the District south of the Potomac River were returned to Virginia in 1847 when Alexandria wanted Virginia to subsidize new roads and canals because Congress wouldn’t pay for them.
Once the city of Washington is returned to Maryland, its residents could vote for Maryland’s senators and help elect a Representative to the House. Adding the city's population might get Maryland another Representative in the 2010 Census.
The Federal capital would shrink to the core Federal offices, monuments and museums, primarily from Capitol Hill and the Supreme Court down the Mall and Pennsylvania Avenue to the White House, the State Department at Foggy Bottom, and the Naval Observatory (where the Vice President lives). Other non-contiguous Federal buildings can be retained in the smaller District.
Without permanent residents, the Twenty-Third Amendment would become null and void, and Congress could state that in the legislation retroceding the City of Washington to Maryland.
Thus it is clear that the current bill, which would simply give Washington, DC a Representative, is not only unconstitutional but also unnecessary. The end of giving Utah more clout in Congress seems to justify, for Utah’s Republicans, plainly unconstitutional means. The sponsors of this bill complain of unconstitutional lawmaking by the Supreme Court, but they are ready to do the same thing when it promises to give them more power.
********************
Raymond Takashi Swenson is an environmental attorney in Idaho Falls. He has also practiced law in Utah, California and Washington. He can be reached at coltakashi@aol.com.
Stupid Republicans. I'm a strong Conservative... but I left the Republican Party at 19 for good reasons.