Must be Constitutional if Orrin Says it Is!

Rather than wait for a couple of years, when Utah is a cinch to gain an additional seat in the US House of Representatives, a lot of people are putting themselves in all sorts of contorted positions to claim that it would be constitutional to give Utah a seat right now.

The only way to make it Constitutional is to pass a Constitutional amendment. It's a bit ironic that Orrin Hatch belongs to a church, one of whose prophets said that its priesthood leaders would be part of the group that saves the Constitution from destruction, but he uses a specious argument to unmask his impatience at getting Utah a fourth seat in the House of Representatives and further diluting the meaning of the Constitution.

Hatch noted that Congress has opted to collect federal taxes from D.C. residents and allows the federal court to have jurisdiction over the district, even though the Constitution says these actions are allowed for "states."

"The question is whether the fact that the District is not a state trumps Congress' legislative authority," Hatch said. "Congressional action and judicial precedent throughout American history suggest that the answer is no."


The 23rd Amendment to the Constitution made it so that the District of Columbia could choose electors for President and Vice President. I'm not sure, then, if it took an amendment for that, how it wouldn't require a similar amendment to allow DC to have a representative in Congress.

I heard the other morning that some people think that anyone who disagrees that DC should get a representative is a racist, because most DC residents are black. Hmmm. Constitution be damned. Course I've been accused of being a racist before by people who don't understand that three/fifths thingy in the Constitution.

I've also heard it said that this is a balanced, non-political solution--to give the most republican state in the Union a Republican seat and DC a surely democratic seat. In reality, this is the most political "solution" I can think of. How it can be considered a solution, I'm not sure. The only two non-political solutions are (1) be patient until the next census, and (2) amend the Constitution.

Utah will most assuredly get another seat in the US House as a result of the next census. Orrin Hatch needs to be put out to pasture. If he's leading the vanguard of further ignoring the constitution, he needs to be defeated in his next election.

Comments

  1. I concur with your analysis.

    It concerns me that the Honorable Senator Hatch has made it clear that he would like to become U.S. Attorney General when Mr. Gonzales finally goes down, as seems likely to eventually occur.

    Part of me is giddy at the prospect of getting some fresh blood in Utah's senate delegation. But on the other hand, if the good senator so lightly dismisses important elements of the U.S. Constitution, would he be a good choice for Attorney General? Although he would have less than two years, he could still do some serious damage.

    ReplyDelete
  2. You are right on except that Senator Hatch should have been defeated in the last election. Not only would he roll over the constitution on this, but he wants to dilute the constitution with his pet flag burning amendment.

    If he could become the AG that would be great, I really don't think that the new AG (whoever it is) will be able to do much before the Bush term is over. Certainly removing Hatch as an incumbent would do more good than any harm he could do in a 18 months of being AG.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I agree with both of you. I think I probably voted for Hatch once or twice long ago, but I can't remember when. It might be better to get him out of the Senate with a trial period so that we could see how much improved we would be with someone else there.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Scrap the constitution.... It's antiquated anyway. It was a sexist, racist, male dominated document that only protects men....

    I hope that you all note the tongue in cheek nature of these comments.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The size of the House of Representatives has never before required a Constitutional Amendment -- why would it require one now?

    What provision of the Constitution would stand in the way of this proposed law? I can't think of any.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Thank you for commenting. If you have a Google/Blogger account, to be apprised of ongoing comment activity on this article, please click the "Subscribe" link below.

Popular posts from this blog

How LDS Censorship May Have Led to Less LDS Faithfulness: The Ronald E Poelman Conference Talk of 1984

Changing the Narrative of the LDS Church: 35 Years Later

"Mormon Leaks": What They Really Said-Senator Gordon Smith Discusses Politcs