The Washington Post had another typically apoplectic editorial on the D.C. vote bill yesterday, but this part in particular struck me as exceedingly outrageous:
It’s also evident from this week’s debate that constitutional questions are not an issue for Congress to decide, but for the courts.
Think about what that really means. Basically, the Post is saying that even if Congress or the President knows that a particular piece of legislation is unconstitutional, they should ignore those arguments completely and just pass the damn bill. What about that part of their oaths of office that talks about “preserving, protecting, and defending” the Constitution ? Words on paper, apparently. But, then, that’s what the Post seems to think of the Constitution as a whole.
Just as stunning is this particular piece of illogical displayed by both the Post’s Editorial Board and the man I’m embarressed to say is my Congressman:
What if, as Mr. Davis challenged his colleagues, the capital had stayed in New York City or Philadelphia? Would those cities have been disenfranchised? “Of course not,” Mr. Davis said, “and neither should the people of Washington, D.C.”
There’s a distinct difference between either New York or Philadelphia and Washington, D.C. Even before the time that they served as the Capital of the United States, New York and Philly were established cities within established states. Washington, D.C., however, is entirely a creature of the Constitution and it was created to be an independent district from which the Federal Government would govern. It was a compromise meant to placate the concerns of southerners who feared that locating the Capital in a northern city would give undue influence to northern states. As originally conceived, it’s clear that the Founders did not think that the District would become a major metropolitan area.
To compare the District of Columbia to New York and Philadelphia is to ignore history.
But, then, the Post is already ignoring the Constitution so why should we be surprised ?
Previous Posts:
A Vote For D.C. That’s Unconstitutional
Congress Examines Legality Of D.C. Vote Bill
White House Opposes D.C. Vote Bill
The D.C. Voting Rights Crybabies
Will Bush Veto The D.C. Vote Bill ?
Memo From The Washington Post: Ignore The Constitution, Just Vote Already
D.C. Vote Bill Stalls In The House
March 25th, 2007 at 8:45 am
“even if Congress or the President knows that a particular piece of legislation is unconstitutional, they should ignore those arguments completely and just pass the damn bill”
See also Arlen Specter on the Military Commissions Act (”the courts will clean it up.”).
March 26th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
I am afraid some people refuse understand the following statement.
“The ends do not justify the means.”
We are too often led by those who are unwilling to follow. Yet these same people, who are so unwilling to obey the Law, would make harsh laws for the rest of us to obey. Without any requirement that they actually be honorable, they would have the rest of us to call them honorable.
Fortunately, their bad example does serve one purpose. They illustrate well the need for limited, constitutional government.
June 6th, 2007 at 7:42 pm
[...] The Washington Post: Ignore The Constitution, Just Vote Already D.C. Vote Bill Stalls In The House The Washington Post: Ignoring The Constitution Again The D.C. Vote Bill Is On It’s Way Back The D.C. Voting Rights Crybabies Are Back The D.C. [...]