Democrats Turn Their Back on the Constitution
By: Marshall Manson on January 20, 2007 - 11:09 am

Article I, Section I of the U.S. Constitution reads, in part, “The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen … by the people of the several states.”

This is one of those rare Constitutional directives that is utterly without grey area. House members are to be from states. Period.

Unless, apparently, the new Democratic House leadership wishes it otherwise.

Yesterday, Democratic House Leader Steny Hoyer introduced a proposed change to House rules that would allow Delegates and the Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico to vote on the floor of the House.

Delegates and the Resident Commissioner represent U.S. territories and other possessions in the House. There are five: one delegate each from the District of Columbia, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands and Guam, and the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico.

Needless to say, four of the five are Democrats.

Under House rules, delegates and the Resident Commissioner are currently allowed to cast votes in House Committees. (A practice that I believe is also contrary to the Constitution.) At present, they are not allowed to cast votes on the floor.

If the Democrats get their way, that will soon change.

The Democrats can violate this clear Constitutional instruction owing to a quirk in the manner that the House usually does its business. When the House considers legislation on the floor, it usually refashions itself as the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union.

Hoyer’s rule change would allow the delegates and the Resident Commission to cast votes in the Committee of the Whole, as it is usually called.

This isn’t the first time the Democrats have done this. They pushed through a similar rules change in 1993. The Republican majority removed it in 1995.

But the reaction to the 1993 effort is enlightening. The New York Times said about the proposal, “This maneuver is nothing but shameless political tyranny.”

The Chicago Tribune opined that, “This amounts to a blatant end-run around the Constitution, which allows full voting status only to the representatives of the states.”

USA Today warned, “House Democrats, always eager to grab more power, are expected to open Congress’s new year Tuesday by making an end run around the Constitution.”

Hoyer’s proposal will likely be brought to a vote sometime in the next few days.

And it strikes me that this will be an interesting test for some of those newly minted “conservative” Democrats. Will they stand with their party in a blatantly partisan and unconstitutional act? Or will they stand on principle and with the Constitution?

So it’s time to crank up the phone lines again. Let’s get after those Democratic freshmen like Heath Schuler and ask them to stand up for the Constitution. Heaven knows the Democratic leadership isn’t going to do it.

Here’s the full text of Hoyer’s proposal. (.pdf) This version doesn’t show its designation, which is H.Res.78.

Jim: Infurating, utterly infurating. The debate has gone thus:

Democrats: It’s not faaaaaaaair! We have four representatives from U.S. territories who can’t vote!

Republicans: Then change the Constitution. I’ll oppose it, but good luck with that.

Democrats: That takes too looooong! I don’t have the patience! It’s too haaaaaard!

Republicans: Tough.

Democrats: Why can’t we just change the rules?

Republicans: Because the rules change will violate the Constitution.

Democrats: That’s not faaaaaaaair! I don’t want to follow the Constitution! It’s too haaaaaard! I was going to go to the Tocce Station to pick up some power converters!

What the hell happened to the Constitution? Congress gets to skip the parts it doesn’t like? Flag burning, lap dancing, and “death to America” from a radical imam is protected, but political speech before an election isn’t? Doesn’t anybody believe in playing by the rules anymore?

Cam: Whoa. Did you really just compare Hoyer to Luke Skywalker? I know, whiny whiny whiny, but still. You can’t do that.

Jim: Come on, the “WAAAAAAH Power converters” is the whiniest line in the history of cinema. Had Mark Hamill delivered another line in that tone of voice, we all would have been rooting for the Sand People.

 


Related Posts
» An anniversary I didn’t mind overlooking
» Second Amendment vs. the First Amendment
» Obama and the Constitution
» Strategery!
» Crazy Thought
divider
4 Responses to “Democrats Turn Their Back on the Constitution”
  1. 1
    Frank Martin Said:
    January 20, 2007 - 2:36 pm 

    gosh, is it time to redesign the flag? Because it looks to me like we just added 5 new states.

    Should we be also looking to Sen. Reid to also propose an additional 10 senators as well for these 5 new “states”. Hmmm, that would seem to make votes in the Senate instantly veto proof, now doesnt it?

    You now the thing is, getting into the union is easy, but getting out - as the states in the former confederacy will certainly agree - is not so easy. Id advise the residence of those places to be careful what they wish for. PR for example enjoys all the benefits of statehood, but it also enjoys the benefits of not being a state as well. Minimum wage laws and OSHA come to mind(witness the recent pelosi-star kist tuna dilemma). If that were to change, it might upset more than a few things for the people of those place, and I dont mean votes on the floor.

    I say if you want to come into the union, then do so. DC is out of the question- (im not sure people should even be allowed to live there), but the rest of those candidates becoming full states is fine by me. I suspect however the residence therein might feel a bit different about it.

    This does seem to be historys first example of ‘representation without taxation’.

  2. 2
    Jeff Harrell Said:
    January 20, 2007 - 3:57 pm 

    I dunno, dude. On the one hand, yes, it’s blatant partisanship. Please call me immediately when one political party or the other corners that market; I’ll be the first one to beat to quarters.

    But on the other hand, it feels all funny to get up in arms about giving people representation in the government. It’s kinda like being wrong for the right reasons, you know?

    As for myself, I’m a pretty solid supporter of having just fifty states. It’s a nice, round number. I memorized all their names and capitals when I was a kid, and I think I even remember most of them. Plus, have you seen the Army Institute of Heraldry’s just-in-case 51-star flag? It’s just ugly. Of course, I bet my parents felt the same way about the move from 48 to 49.

  3. 3
    Cam Edwards » Blog Archive » This Seems Odd Pinged With:
    January 20, 2007 - 6:38 pm 

    […] Or nefarious.  From Marshall: […]

  4. 4
    Gun News » Blog Archive » January 22 - Today in the News Pinged With:
    January 29, 2007 - 5:53 am 

    […] On Tap adds his two cents with Democrats Turn Their Back on the Constitution. […]

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment