Cornyn keeps ‘em honest- or at least scared

If you can’t keep them honest, keep them scared of losing elections. This seems to be the lesson the NRA and Senator John Cornyn of Texas have taught us- and as a general fan of the Constitution, I am grateful.

During the 111th Congress, for the umpteenth time, the D.C. voting issue was brought to the legislative table. Cornyn, however, put a gun amendment into it a number of months ago that caused a major issue- many Democrats didn’t want to pass the gun amendment, but they DID want to allow D.C. residents the right to vote in national elections (which, considering the liberal bias of D.C., would be offset by a Republican seat in Utah)- but more conservative Democrats wanted to pass the bill WITH the gun amendment. According to Wednesday’s issues of Roll Call, as well as the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/09/AR2009060902083.html), the gun amendment (which would would limit the District’s authority to restrict firearms, repeal the D.C. semiautomatic gun ban and remove gun-registration requirements (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/dc/2009/02/_the_senate_today_considered.html)) has essentially killed the bill.

Unfortunately, two issues currently exist- first, Constitutionally, D.C. residents cannot vote (http://www.heritage.org/Research/LegalIssues/lm37.cfm), and the longer Democrats hold power the more likely it is that D.C. residents will have that unconstitutional right. However, this leads to the second issue, which is the quandary that ALL citizens of America should have the right to vote in national elections, since they pay taxes and are otherwise influenced by federal decisions (especially in D.C., where Congress has direct authority over much of the city’s decisions and laws). Fortunately, The Heritage Foundation has come up with multiple potential solutions to the issue (including the various drawbacks to each):

* Propose an Amendment. Congress could propose an amendment granting the District a representative in Congress, perhaps using the 1978 proposal noted earlier as a model. Adding such representation directly to the Constitution would by definition avoid running afoul of the nation’s supreme law. In addition, the amendment solution would retain the Founders’ intention that the capital city remain subject to the “exclusive legislation” of Congress–even as it grants the city’s residents a more direct voice in that legislation. For many purposes, this would treat the District as if it were a state granted representation in Congress, but it would seem to require unanimous consent of every state if it sought to provide representation in the Senate, per Article V. An amendment would also upset the Framers’ design for the federal district and placement in the national polity.
* Grant Statehood. It is highly unlikely that Congress could simply grant statehood to the District upon its application. More likely, doing so would require a constitutional amendment, because the Constitution grants Congress, not any state body, “exclusive legislation” over the nation’s capital. Such a plan would also run counter to the Framers’ still reasonable intent to have a national capital outside the influence of state politics. Granting statehood would also automatically provide the District with a representative and two senators, more representation than it would receive under current legislative proposals, possibly shifting the balance of power in that smaller chamber.
* Retrocede to Maryland. Congress may be able to return, or “retrocede,” residential portions of the District to Maryland, allowing residents to vote as citizens of that state. Some scholars argue that this would be analogous to the retrocession of Arlington and Alexandria to Virginia undertaken by Congress in 1846. The constitutionality of retrocession is hardly settled, however. The Supreme Court avoided ruling directly on the Virginia retrocession, and the 23rd Amendment, by conferring three electoral votes for President upon the District, may limit the changes that can now be made to its territory. At this date, legal scholars are sharply divided on the issue.
* Allow Voting in Maryland. Though the idea has been proposed many times, Congress could probably not allow District residents to vote as if they were residents of Maryland or some other state. While such a plan would give city residents a say in congressional elections and would not affect the District’s status under the Constitution, it would suffer from a number of practical and constitutional defects, due in part to the 23rd Amendment.
* End Federal Taxation. Given its exclusive power over the District, Congress could abolish federal income taxes on District residents, providing a powerful solution to the city’s “taxation without representation” complaint. This compromise is fully within Congress’s powers, and indeed, Congress has enacted special tax policies for the District in the past, something that it cannot do concerning states. There are also strong policy arguments in favor of this approach.[20]
* Change of Residence. It should be noted that District residents–unlike the American colonists, who had little choice in the face of British denial of representation–have always had the option to move to other U.S. jurisdictions, like Maryland or Virginia, where they could enjoy full representation in Congress. While this might not be preferable or immediately affordable to all District residents, it remains a simple and unobjectionable option.
(http://www.heritage.org/Research/LegalIssues/lm37.cfm)

All of the above have various strengths and weaknesses- however, they are far better options constitutionally than what Democrats are currently offering. On a personal level, I like the end of the federal taxation- more on that from Heritage’s Robert Book here: http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/wm2338.cfm.

- dustin