Clearly unconstitutional

The local propaganda are of the Dema-Dope party (aka The Ft. Wayne Journal Gazette) published this glittering jewel of stupidity on Monday:

Few Americans would say that what the nation really needs is a larger Congress – except for residents of Washington, D.C.

Efforts to give the District of Columbia a vote in Congress have popped up over the years. But now both houses of Congress have voted to give D.C. a seat in the House of Representatives.
To keep an odd number – and, for political purposes, to add a Republican to balance out the certainty of a Democrat representing the district – Utah would get a fourth U.S. representative. The House would grow from 435 to 437.

But a Senate move to tie the extra seats with a heavy-handed amendment to strike down local Washington laws governing gun restrictions weighs down the bill mightily. And some members of Congress insist the U.S. Constitution allows only states to be represented.

So the debate will likely concern guns and legalities, not whether the nation wants two more lawmakers.


In my continuing effort to bring the light of truth into the darkness of the JG editorial boardroom, Lex fired this off yesterday:

Re: Representation or guns for D.C. in Monday’s JG

Does anyone on the JG editorial staff see the irony in referring to an amendment to protect the easily understandable language contained in the Second Amendment as “heavy-handed” while minimizing the un or extra-Constitutional nature of the actual bill?

I suppose Congress could use the “To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over [the] District [of Columbia]” clause of Section 2 Article I, as a fig leaf for this action. But, how do they get around that pesky language about representatives being chosen by the “people of the several States?” Oh yeah, and what about the apportionment of representatives being according to the census? How does the bill get around that? How is it constitutional for the Congress to simply offer up another Representative to Utah as a quid pro quo for a D.C. representative?

There is a mechanism for changing the Constitution. All that needs to be done is for 66 Senators and 38 states to agree to amend the “heavy-handed” language of the Second Amendment and representation for the District. But, following the law is always way too hard for Liberals. It’s better and faster if they just make it up as they go along in Congress or in some courtroom.

Oh, and to answer the initial question, no. When you have a bunch like-minded people sitting around a table nodding knowing approval to one another, no one has the brains or courage to say, “Whoa, wait a minute. Do you know how stupid that sounds?”