Unconstitutional? Who cares?

"I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.'' -- President Barack Obama, January 20, 2009

Like every president before him, Barack Obama uttered these words on his Inauguration Day. They are just barely three weeks old, and we may see soon how quickly they will have lost their meaning to him.

It is immensely obvious that the Constitution itself has lost its meaning and importance to many of your Congressmen and Congresswomen.

In a recent column, George Will writes about the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act and its attempts to subvert the Constitution. In summary:

• The act, covered in H.R. 1905 and S. 160 would create a permanent seat in the U.S. House of Representatives for a Representative from the District of Columbia.
• The Constitution states that the House "shall be composed of Members chosen...by the people of the several states."
• The District of Columbia is not a state. Rather it is the "Seat of Government of the United States."
• Though the Constitution is rather vague on the steps necessary to add a new state to the Union, Washington D.C. is a special case since it is already identified as a territory within the Union (though not a state) by the Constitution. Therefore, an amendment to the Constitution would be the only way to modify the status of D.C. to that of a state.
• Again, Washington D.C. is not a state and no amendment has been ratified recognizing it as such.
• Since D.C. is not a state, as holds forth in the Constitution, it cannot have representation in the House of Representatives.

The logic is fairly clear. This is not to say, though, that the people of D.C. should not and can never be allowed representation in Congress. The only thing needed is an amendment to the Constitution. With such an amendment, D.C. would be awarded at least one Representative (or such a number as reflective of their population) and two Senators.

So why the push for this legislation, that clearly flies in the face of the Constitution? Easy:

• The Democrats currently control both the House and the Senate.
• The voters of Washington D.C. typically vote over 70% along Democrat lines.
• The Democrats (who introduced the respective bills) would be most assured of gaining one more seat in the House. Similar efforts to award two seats in the Senate for D.C. (and for the Democrats), is not far off should this legislation be signed into law.

Barack Obama, who, as a Senator, supported an earlier attempt at the legislation, will undoubtedly sign this into law. His oath of office will have become a farce, he will become (again?) like all the rest of the power-hungry politicians, and our Constitution will once again be rendered insignificant.