To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District
(not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and
the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United
States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent
of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of
Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings ...
Why DC was denied voting rights in congress and presidential elections under the constitution is something that I don't understand. It was written before the city was built, so there must be a logic working there. What I do understand is that it is written in the constitution and I don't see clear and compelling reason to change that.
The argument regarding the racial composition of Washington DC is ludicrous
on its face. The exclusion of DC from Congressional representation precedes
voting rights for African-Americans by 76 years. It has nothing to do with
racial animus, but rather with preserving a neutral zone in which Congress can
work and deliberate. The founders were clear in their construct of a Congress
representing the sovereign states and not federal territory -- which is why we
don't have Representatives from Guam and Senators from American Samoa.
This is a sound argument in my opinion.
No comments:
Post a Comment