EFFORT FOR TOKEN DC SEAT IN HOUSE LOSES AGAIN

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

YOU'D never know it from the coverage in the media, but the effort for
DC to get a token seat in the House of Representatives was a loser from
the start. As a cause, it not only fell far short of statehood - the
best way for the capital to fully join the union - but was about the
weakest partial improvement on the city's colonial status one could
devise. Rather than dealing with serious issues like control over the
city's budget or justice system or gaining the right to impose a
commuter tax or not have local legislation vetoed by Congress, a
coalition that ranged from the merely naïve to the out and out corporate
colonial tied up the entire freedom effort in the capital for years in
their effort to win a symbolic seat in the House.

Using issue of a token representation to distract attention away from
substantive self government has been going on for over a hundred years.
This time it had the added touch of an anti-DC GOP suburban congressman,
Thomas Davis, dreaming up a scheme in which DC would get its seat but
only if neutered by a new one from Republican Utah plus one more GOP
electoral vote. A nice little political con for which the local
Democrats fell without blinking an eye.

Here's some background on the issue:

WHAT IS THE BASIC PROBLEM WITH REPRESENTATION?

Representation in Congress would increase DC's political power somewhat
but would not affect any of the basic colonial precepts under which the
city is governed. For example, the federal government would still:

-- have plenary power over all aspects of local governance
-- control the budget
-- control the prosecution and adjudication of, as well the imprisonment
for, crimes.
-- have the power to deny the city a commuter tax
-- be able to pass laws in contravention of the will of DC citizens

In other words, even with representation, DC would remain a full colony
of the US, just as Algeria was before it gained independence even though
it had representation in the French National Assembly.

Short of a highly improbable constitutional amendment, there are only
two ways to gain full democracy by making DC residents equal to other
Americans:
statehood or joining DC with an other state.

ISN'T REPRESENTATION A STEPPING STONE TO DEMOCRACY?

Theoretically yes, but in practice not. The reasons for this are
two-fold:

-- the means by which representation would be obtained could greatly
complicate any future move towards real enfranchisement. For example, a
constitutional amendment granting some congressional representation
could become a legal stumbling block to statehood or retrocession.

-- for more than a hundred years, the drive for representation has been
used to distract DC residents from the issue of democracy and suppress
efforts on its behalf. For the better part of a decade, for example, a
proposed constitutional amendment giving DC representation in Congress
hurt the drive for statehood. Although using the language of democracy,
these representation drives crop up whenever there is agitation for full
democracy.

The current drive, as with earlier ones, has received backing from the
city's big business interests and the media that support them. The
business backers include the president of Bell Atlantic, the former vice
president of Ford Motors, and lawyer-lobbyists including those from the
huge firm of Covington & Burling. The presidents of the major
universities - tightly aligned with big business - all support
representation but have not lifted a finger for real democracy. Another
supporter of representation is a former member of the control board, a
totally undemocratic institution.

ISN'T THIS REALLY A TECHNICAL ARGUMENT?

Not at all. Not only does it reflect a century-long political struggle
within the city, if representation and democracy were truly similar, the
recent special court would have merged the two status cases before it
rather than merely hearing them at the same time.

Here is some of the history of this issue:

1888: Conservative newspaperman Theodore Noyes of the Washington Star
launches campaign for congressional representation; strongly opposes
real democracy. Noyes writes, "National representation for the capital
community is not in the slightest degree inconsistent with control of
the capital by the nation through Congress."

1899: A political scientist describes the Board of Trade - which
supports a congressional vote only -- as providing DC with the ideal
form of local government through a "representative aristocracy."

1919: Board of Trade and Chamber of Commerce advocate congressional
representation and oppose home rule. Labor unions urge elected
officials.

1943: Board of Trade appears before Senate Committee to support
representation in Congress but opposes local self-government.

1960s: Segregationist Rep. John McMillan favors a DC vote for president
and vice president, says a struggle for home rule will cripple the
national vote. McMillan thinks the national vote should "satisfy" DC
residents "at least for a while."

1971: DC gets a nonvoting congressional delegate. In first delegate
race, the statehood arguments of Julius Hobson are strongly opposed by
Walter Fauntroy who will become the leader of a lengthy and futile drive
for a constitutional amendment granting congressional representation.

1972: Walter Fauntroy and John Hechinger, later major players in the
voting rights drive, sabotage George McGovern's planned announcement of
support for DC statehood.

1981: The League of Women Voters, Walter Fauntroy, and the Washington
Post - all strong advocates of congressional voting representation - are
the leading voices again DC statehood.

1985: The voting rights amendment is defeated with less than half the
required states voting for it. Meanwhile years of potential work for
full democracy are dissipated and diluted.

1998: Twenty citizens file full democracy law suit. Establishment
figures and elite bar refuse to help. Four months later, the latter file
a suit for congressional representation.

2004: Del. Norton convinced the Democratic Party to drop DC statehood
from its platform, to be replaced by a call for voting rights. According
to The Washington Times, "Pat Elwood, vice chairman of the [Democratic]
state committee, said she agreed with Mrs. Norton's view that statehood
'dilutes' the message of congressional voting representation.

WHAT WAS BEHIND THE REPRESENTATION DRIVE?

Two things:

-- Genuine and understandable confusion about the issue by
well-intentioned citizens who have been propagandized into thinking that
self government and representation are the same.

-- The interests of big business and lawyer-lobbyists in having
representatives on the Hill that they can buy through campaign
contributions and later control. While this problem would exist in any
form of status change, it is preeminent when representation is sought
and democracy isn't.

WHAT ABOUT THE SAYING, "NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION?"

This is one of these slogans that sounds far better than it is. The
slogan actually stemmed from a major complaint of the business and upper
classes against the British crown and, much like corporate mantras of
today, such as "free markets", it gained a currency far broader than its
applicability.

While New England businessmen were speaking of representation in the
English parliament, perhaps the most famous speech on behalf of real
democracy was by Patrick Henry in a fiery address in 1765 against the
Stamp Act in which he declared, "If this be treason, make the most of
it."

What's significant is that Henry was not speaking of representation in
the Parliament, but rather of the right of the Virginia legislature to
approve any taxes on the people. In other words, Henry was taking the
side of full democracy rather than insignificant representation in a
national legislature that still held plenary powers over the colonies.
It is this critical and similar distinction that current use of the
phrase "taxation without representation" obscures.

By the time the Declaration of Independence was written, America had
come cleanly down on the side of full democracy as opposed to mere
representation. The only mention of taxes in the Declaration of
Independence attacks the crown for "imposing taxes on us without our
consent," something Congress can still do even if it grants DC
representation.

HOW WOULD DC STATEHOOD BE ACHIEVED?

The mechanics of statehood are relatively simple. They have been invoked
37 times since the first 13 colonies formed their union. A territory
must petition the Congress, draft a constitution with a republican form
of government, Congress must approve by a simple majority, and the
President must sign the bill.

A constitutional amendment requires a two-thirds vote of Congress as
well the support of three-quarters of the state legislatures. In other
words, 13 states can veto a constitutional amendment. The last time a
voting rights amendment was circulated, less than half the required
states approved it within the seven year time limit.

A constitutional amendment may be repealed. Statehood cannot be
repealed.

WHAT ABOUT CONGRESS' POWER OVER THE DISTRICT?

The Constitution states the upper size limit of the district over which
it has power; it does not state the lower limit. The size of the
District has been changed in the past, most significantly when the
Virginia portion was retroceded to that state. DC statehood would
require a simple reduction of the size of the federal district to an
unpopulated area running, say, from the Capitol along the Mall to the
Lincoln Memorial.

ISN'T STATEHOOD IMPRACTICAL?

Far from it. We've created a new state 85% as frequently as we have
elected a new president.In fact, it will become increasingly impractical
for the Senate to remain our most segregated and unrepresentative
legislature, one which would be subject to court-ordered bussing if it
were a school system; sued under civil rights laws if it were a
corporation; and from which, if it were a private club, one would want
to resign before running for public office.

The Senate also discriminates against cities and the largest states. For
example, there are nine states with 18 senators that have in aggregate
less population than New York City. There are 21 states with 42 senators
(almost a majority) that together have less population than California
with its two senators.

In fact, the malapportionment of the Senate is perhaps the most
important, undiscussed issue in the country today for there is hardly a
matter of political importance that would not be affected if that body
were to reflect 21st century, rather than 19th century, demographics.

Further, in not too many years, white Americans will cease to be in the
majority. Even leaving moral questions aside, how much longer will it be
politically practical to tell blacks and latinos that the rules can't be
changed to let them into the Senate in some reasonable number?

PERMANENT LINK
http://prorev.com/dclink.htm

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||