Sixteen months ago, we discussed the Congressional bill to provide Washington, D.C. with one Representative in the House and give Utah an additional Representative (to balance the power). Sixteen months later, I have the same disagreements with the bill.

Today, out of all of the world’s democracies, there is only one national capital without full voting rights: this city full of monuments to democracy. – Steny Hoyer

The residents of Washington, D.C. currently do not have representation rights in either the House or the Senate. According to the U.S. Constitution:

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. – Article I, Section 2

With this qualification for Representation listed in the Constitution, there are only two possible ways Washington, D.C. can obtain representation in Congress. The first is if Washington, D.C. is given the right of statehood. According to the Enabling Act of 1802:

• The territory requesting statehood would have to have a population of 60,000
• A delegate had to be elected for every 1,200 residents in the territory
• The elected delegates would hold a Constitutional Convention to vote in favor of drafting a Constitution and forming a government
• The Constitution and government would then be presented to the U.S. Congress for approval

Washington, D.C. currently has approximately 600,000 residents; ten times the amount needed to begin the process for statehood.

The second option for the district to obtain representation in the House would be if the Constitution were amended. The process for amending the Constitution is a bit more complex.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate. – Article V

With that said, I will repeat what I stated sixteen months ago. None of the residents of Washington, D.C. are being held in the federal district against their will. They either moved there on their own, or are descendents of those who moved there at some point in the past. Washington, D.C. is not a state, and as such, it does not enjoy the privilege set aside to the states of the Union by the Constitution. The federal district is managed and maintained by the federal government.

If residents of the District feel that they are being unfairly treated due to lack of a Representative, they are free to move just a few miles into Virginia or Maryland. The public transportation system that exists within Washington, D.C. extends out into the metropolitan regions of these two states, compliments of the MetroBus and MetroRail systems. They do not have an excuse for not relocating if Representation is an over-burdening issue for them.

Any process by Congress to bypass the established rules regarding Representation should be deemed unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court. I would expect that legal teams representing all 49 states (Utah being excluded since they received an additional Representative) would file a legal complaint against the actions of Congress. Additionally, I would expect legal teams from the other non-states (to include Native American/Indian reservations, Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, U.S. Virgin Islands, and so on) to file complaints requesting Representation on behalf of the U.S. Citizens residing there.

Steny Hoyer is right that the residents within Washington, D.C. do not have Representation in Congress. If he wishes to change that, he needs to follow the rules listed above.

Related articles:
DC Examiner – “Debate over D.C. voting rights resumes before House panel”
Washington Post – “Representation for D.C.”
Washington Times – “Hill vote for D.C. faces court fight, foes warn”
Open Congress Blog – “Senate Set to Pass D.C. Voting Rights Act”

I will admit that I am not a Rush Limbaugh listener, and therefore I am not qualified to say whether his positions on the issues are correct or not. However, since he has once again become the focus of attention (even by President Obama), I think it is time to address him. There are two quotes that are needed first:

If I wanted Obama to succeed, I’d be happy the Republicans have laid down. I don’t want this to work. So I’m thinking of replying to this guy, say ‘okay, I’ll send you a response, but I don’t need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails.’ – Rush Limbaugh

You can’t just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done. – President Obama

Basically, this is a battle of ideologies. President Obama won the national election, and election that also increased the Democratic control over both Houses of Congress. He is trying to be bipartisan (or at least appearing bipartisan) but at the same time pass legislation that meets the shared ideology of the Democratic Party. Rush Limbaugh, on the other hand, is a Conservative who doesn’t want to see the country turn more liberal. This is all obvious. Where things start to become strange is with the following quote:

[President Obama is] obviously more frightened of me than he is Mitch McConnell. He’s more frightened of me, than he is of, say, John Boehner, which doesn’t say much about our party. – Rush Limbaugh

The Republican Party leadership is currently trying to show that they are willing to work with the new President, but at the same time compete with the Democratic Party leadership in Congress. I am not certain, but Rush feels that 1) the Republican leadership will cave under Democratic pressure, 2) the Republican leadership is not ‘conservative’ enough, or 3) he has an opportunity to regain his position as the anti-President like he did during the Clinton administration.

On one hand, Rush risks alienating soft support for the minority party by battling with a currently favorable President. On the other, he has the potential to solidify a Republican base that feels demoralized after the election. Playing into the latter, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) created an online petition for people express their outrage towards Rush. I personally feel that everyone involved here are acting childish and taking attention away from the more important issues of the day, but that’s just my opinion.

Related articles:
A Disgruntled Republican – “President Obama attacks Rush Limbaugh”
Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee – “Rush to Judgement: Express your outrage about Rush’s comments today”
CNS News – “Democrats Launch Petition Against Rush Limbaugh”
Politico – “House GOP member to Rush: Back off”

It is widely anticipated that President Obama will reverse President Bush’s executive order that limited taxpayer funding on embryonic stem cell research. For those that do not know what this is, this is taking an embryo that is a few days old and extracting the basic building blocks of human life. The process destroys the embryo, but the hope is that the knowledge gained from the research will save many more lives in the future.

Without going into the debate on ethics of this research, I want to discuss the spending of taxpayers funding on medical research. There is no doubt that putting more funding towards medical research is a good thing. Some of these breakthroughs came with federal funding, but many came from private funding. When President Bush used the executive order to bar further funding into new embryonic stem cell lines, he did not stop the research into the particular field of medicine, nor did he cut off all federal funding. All he did was stopped funding further research with taxpayer funds (he did increase funding in non-embryonic stem cell research though).

This action has often been called an assault to science. To me, it is called using taxpayers funds wisely. There is enough private funding in the field at the moment that government funding isn’t necessary. Additionally, there is no law requiring the government to fund any research. If Bush had banned the research all together, then there would be grounds for protest by the medical community, but this wasn’t the case. If Bush banned all federal funding into the field of research, there would definitely be complaining, but the research would still be allowed to continue (with private funding).

Stepping back in time to 2001, I think the medical community, plus any other special interest group out there, should recognize that there are many sources of funding (both private and public) available for stem cell research as a whole. If the federal government were willing to increase funding on one segment of research and restrict funding on another, the logical course of action would be the reallocation of resources. Shift private funding to embryonic stem cell research and apply for public funding on adult and cord blood stem cell research. You would still see an increase in funding without picking a fight with the government and creating partisan divide (and confusion).

I hope that President Obama will understand, especially in this current economic environment that taxpayer funds are not to be used by the federal government on any/all projects that pop up. The private sector raises large sums of funds each year for medical research. With private funds, the medical firms and companies are able to conduct research into a wider field of medicine than what they could do with public funds. Let the private sector tackle embryonic stem cell research. If it holds the potential that many in the medical lobbyist community states, companies will invest their research funds into this field of medicine in the hopes for a large return on investment later on.

I have been reading this quote a few times, and I think I finally figure out what the Speaker of the House is saying. She stated today on “This Week” on ABC:

Well, the family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children’s health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those – one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government.

From what I understand, she is saying that if we fund sexually active couples by providing them contraceptives or abortions, we are saving money since there are less kids to provide education and medical services for in a few years. So I have two questions for you:

1) Is Nancy Pelosi correct?

2) Is this a practical application of taxpayers funds?