newYou can now listen to Fox News articles.
Editor's note: This essay was first published on the author's blog. Res ipsa loquitur – it speaks for itself.
“This body and this nation, [sic] It's a question of territory and colonies.'' Those words from Rep. Stacey Plaskett were heard on the House floor this week when delegates suspended the House speaker election to demand voting rights for themselves and other non-state representatives. echoed. But it is Mr. Plaskett and other members, not the House, who are calling for a violation of Article 1 of the Constitution.
'Colonial question': Delegates' microphones cut after protest during House Speaker vote
Since her election in 2015, Plaskett has often shown a disregard for constitutional principles and protections. While being a lawyer, Plaskett argued in Congress that hate speech is not protected by the Constitution.is clearly a false claim. Where there is overwhelming evidence of a system of censorship that the court called “Orwellian,” Mr. Plaskett said: denied many times Evidence given to her committee. When a journalist testified about evidence of the censorship system, Mr Plaskett hints at possible arrest.. (Plaskett suggested, but later corrected, that respected journalist Matt Taibbi had committed perjury due to a mistake he made in a tweet rather than in his testimony.)
But ignoring the values of free speech and freedom of the press pales in comparison to Mr. Plaskett's proposal this week to nullify the critical language of Article 1.
Article 1, Section 2 states:
“The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every two years by the people of the several states, and the electors of each state shall have the qualifications necessary for the electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature.”
The right to vote in the House of Representatives is expressly limited to the elected representatives of the “several states.”
Nevertheless, as votes were being counted for the final election for Speaker Mike Johnson (R-Louisiana), Plaskett stood up to demand recognition and wanted to know why he was not allowed to vote. Ta.
“Representatives from American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Marianas, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands and the District of Columbia were not named, but together they represent 4 million Americans. The Chairman said that, in total, they represent the largest number of veterans in this country per capita. ”
The text of the Constitution is clear and unambiguous. Without a constitutional amendment, only states can vote on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives.
In response, members of the Chair asked some rather poignant questions. “Ladies and gentlemen, are you having a problem?”
The answer was clearly yes.
Mr Plaskett responded: “I asked why they weren't called. I asked why they weren't called by their MP. Please.”
The reaction was clear.
“Delegates-elect and resident members-elect are not eligible to vote.As provided in Article 36 of the Rules and Manual of the House of Representatives, the Speaker shall be elected in the following manner: A majority of the members shall vote by last name. ”
Mr. Plaskett then said, “This group and this country have territorial and colonial issues. What was supposed to be temporary has now effectively become permanent. We have to do something about this,” he declared.
When Plaskett's microphone was cut off, she retorted, “But I have a voice!” Democrats gave her a standing ovation. Media outlets, including The Atlantic, also joined in the worship. referred to For her, not as a delegate, but as “Representative Plaskett.”
There is no question that the Virgin Islands has a high proportion of veterans compared to its population (only 104,000 people). It is also an important part of our country. But it's not a nation.
Plaskett had called for a floor vote for himself and delegates from American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico and Washington, D.C.
These delegates are currently only allowed to vote in committee. Because these delegates do not actually vote on the final text or adoption of the bill, the House is authorized to grant such authority.
Democrats favored allowing a vote in the full House, which would break the clear rules that have governed the House for decades. Furthermore, without the constitutional amendment, the language referring to “the state” would have been effectively deleted from Article 1, Section 2.
This is why Mr. Plaskett's “problem” goes beyond simply choosing a chair.
Democrats have long argued that delegates, including the D.C. delegate, should be able to vote as full members. I've written about that issue before in an academic publication. See, for example, Jonathan Turley. Too Smart by Half: Partial Representation of the District of Columbia in the House of Representatives76 George Washington University Law Review 305-374 (2008). I also testified at previous Congressional hearings (here and here and here) and writing column (here and here) Why I think this bill is grossly unconstitutional.
Raising such constitutional challenges is neither pleasant nor common. After Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton told senators during a Senate hearing that if they voted against the bill, they should “blame Jonathan Turley, not the authors.” was furious. But the problem has always been the strange constitutional status of these districts and territories.
The text of the Constitution is clear and unambiguous. Without a constitutional amendment, only states can vote on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives.
In this image from video, Rep. Stacey Plaskett, D-Virgin Islands, speaks at the second impeachment trial of former President Donald Trump on Wednesday, February 10, 2021, at the U.S. Capitol in Washington. (Senate TV via Associated Press)
As Del Plaskett argues, the problem is not “colonial.” The Virgin Islands are not “colonies”. You can become an independent state at any time. Otherwise, Americans would have to vote for this small island to become a state. In any case, the residents will choose the status of the island.
Had Democrats given Mr. Plaskett a standing ovation, they likely would have added six new out-of-state votes. That would likely require some additional representation in the Senate. That would certainly give Democrats a majority in the House, but it would also allow for a fluid definition of what constitutes a representative, which could be manipulated by the majority in the future to maintain control of the House. There is a possibility that
Voting for speakers highlights the problem. Just a few votes short, Democrats were demanding approval of a new form of representation to elect New York state minority leader Hakeem Jeffries. Perhaps a future House could remove the vote to get the same advantage. Other regions may also be admitted to widen the voting margin. (Notably, some liberal professors have proposed splitting up blue states simply to increase Democratic votes in the Senate, which would be constitutional if Congress approved it.) Deaf).
For more FOX News opinions, click here
The call to create a new form of electorate on the House floor coincides with extraordinary measures in other areas. for example, Despite public oppositionSen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and others have simply pushed to pack the court with a majority of liberal justices to support their agenda.
Despite public opposition to court-packing, it has not stopped Democrats. Similarly, Democrats, who were unable to secure a majority of the people to support D.C. statehood, had previously sought to create a voting representative without a constitutional amendment or change in status.
This week, they would have achieved that result not only in Washington, but also in other non-states, including the Northern Mariana Islands, a commonwealth with an area of only 280 miles and a population of less than 50,000.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
We have the world's oldest and most stable constitutional system precisely because we have resisted improvisational or ad hoc means of achieving political ends. The Constitution is an article of common faith that transcends our momentary or petty opinions. These demands for constructive constitutional reform are the voices of people of no faith.
In the words of Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, “O man in charge, [delegate] not in us [states] But within ourselves. ”
Click here to read more about Jonathan Turley
