A WSJ editorial highlights school reform efforts by Team 44 in which a choice must be made--one the President & his minions deny--between serving the parochial interests of the teachers' union, which protects bad teachers from firing, and reformist educators such as DC's Michelle Rhee, who want performance standards made meaningful. Success in DC could tee up reform efforts elsewhere--precisely what the unions fear.
On another DC reform front lawyers David Rivkin and Lee Casey argue that the DC Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional while equally distinguished lawyers Ken Starr & Viet Dinh argue that DCVA is consonant with the design of our Founders and hence, constitutional. Rivkin & Casey point to US Const. Art. I sec. 2 as legal authority, the first clause of which, the Composition Clause, provides:
The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.
Starr & Dinh point to the District Clause of Art. I sec. 8 (the 17th and last specifically enumerated power given Congress:
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; ...
The "exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever" language is the intellectual fulcrum of the argument made by Starr & Dinh. Rivkin & Casey note that at the 1788 New York Ratification Convention Alexander Hamilton proposed to give the District a House seat & thus a vote, and was rebuffed. They propose instead that the Constitution be amended.
My own vote goes to Rivkin & Casey, as this is too big a step to take in Congress. The proper remedy is to retrocede parts of DC to Maryland (with which the District was federated from 1800 to 1854) and Virginia (which ceded its portion in 1846). Residents of DC would thus get a voting member in the House, and the right to help elect senators accordingly. The two extra votes DC residents have are an abomination created by the 23rd Amendment that Ike's last Congress passed in 1960, and which won ratification in 9 months (in 1961). Treating DC as a State was contrary to the Framers' design. Instead it should have been given one vote. So, what to do about these two extra Electoral Votes that Democrats will insist on keeping? Give Maryland & Virginia a "Retrocession EV" each, as compensation for taking DC residents under their wing.
In addition, on the practical side, both States and DC will have to be bribed with many billions to swallow an arrangement none really desire, but with trillions being tossed about like Frisbees this is a rounding error, and well worth putting an end to the headaches DC's current status gives us.
Comments