D.C. Voting Rights Can't Be Traded for Tax Breaks
By Robert Schlesinger, Thomas Jefferson Street blog
My friend Doug Heye has an interesting post over at The Hill's Pundit's Blog on the issue of D.C. voting rights, or lack thereof. As I wrote in my column, people should be outraged that nearly 600,000 American citizens are legally disenfranchised. Doug agrees that it's a problem but comes to a different (and, of course incorrect, conclusion). He embraces the taxation red herring.
Doug's post is interesting for two reasons. First, he gives a concise assessment of the political obstacles regarding a D.C. vote:
...the legislation moving forward in the House and Senate is clearly unconstitutional. Federal representation for District residents requires changing the Constitution. Ratifying a constitutional amendment on the issue is unlikely; it's simply not in any state's interest to willingly diminish its own power.
I disagree that the legislation is "clearly" unconstitutional. I think it's not an open-and-shut case. But that's neither here nor there. Here's the meat of Doug's post:
Proponents of D.C. statehood, with the license plates and signs all over town reading "Taxation Without Representation," however, have things backwards. If they really want to improve life in the District, forget about the representation and focus on the taxes.
The idea is that instead of seeking their full rights as American citizens, D.C. residents should literally sell them: Stop seeking congressional representation and instead settle for not having to pay federal taxes. He goes on to argue that this would create a financial boom that would benefit the district. Maybe it would.
But this misses the point. Rights are fundamental, non-negotiable, and are certainly not for sale. Full representation in our federal government isn't a privilege that can be bought and sold or must be earned. It's a right—a right that's being denied, but a right nevertheless. In fairness to my friend, he is coming at this from the point of view of practical politics, but we too often lose sight of the fact that there are larger issues at stake here.
What would be the reaction if residents of Tucson were given the option of skipping taxes if they forsook the right to freely assemble? Or if Nashville was offered exemption from federal taxes in exchange for worshiping at only the Catholic Church, or not worshiping at all? Laughter would be a polite reply.
It may be that turning D.C. into a tax-free zone would spur economic growth in the city. But that's a separate issue from the 600,000 American citizens living there being denied their rights. And it's not a solution.
On Facebook? You can keep up with Thomas Jefferson Street blog postings through Facebook's Networked Blogs.
- Read more by Robert Schlesinger.
- Read more from the Thomas Jefferson Street blog.
- Read more about Washington, D.C.
Tags: Congress | voting | Washington, DC
Tools: 
Share
|
| Comments (5) | Print
Reader Comments
To Jeff of Wi
Born a Wisconsin native, I have the right to vote by birthright.
Rights such as the right to Consent to how one is Governed do not depend on boundaries or place of residence. If I lived in Europe or Asia, I would still be voting in Wisconsin. The right to Consent to how one is Governed is inalienable, that is, innate, inherent, intrinsic to membership in the nation. Just as the rights of blacks and women are/were innate, inherent, and intrinsic, even if they went unrecognized and unrespected for decades or centuries... You can not believe, on the one hand, that "all men are created equal" and then deduce that some men have the right to legislate over others "in all cases whatsoever", as was the attempted assertion in both the District Clause of 1789, and the Declaratory Act of 1766.
Logic and principle require equality. The founders (Madison, Mason, et al.) specifically urged "frequent recurrence to fundamental principles." Fundamental principles such as Consent of the Governed must inevitably and eventually trump such archaic, arbitrary, anachronistic and artificial condtions as slavery, subjugation of women, and the District Clause.
Still dumber than a box of Rocks
Bob I see that you removed the last post so here it goes again. The Bill of Rights define the limits that are placed upon Government not individuals. If anything what should come out of the desire for the District of Columbia to have a voice in congress is to go through the process to become a State. Since the District of Columbia is not the property of the state of Virginia it has that ability. The citizen of DC who wrote should learn where the boundries are before making false assumptions concerning his rights. Legally he is in a different ballpark.
Which brings me back to you Bob. I questioned your intelligence before on the basis that 200 plus years of law precident have been established on the issues of statehood. If you look at the 23 amendment you would see in Section 1 right after the first statement it says that the Distric would be entitled if it were a state, but in no event more than the least populous state.
You should read your Constitution before making wild conjecture in your blog.
aaaaaasasasasa
pow vai logo atende
advertisement
