Download - UDC Law Review

8 UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICf OF COLUMBIA LAW REVIEWCongress may at any time - for any reason or no reason, at times arbitrarily,capriciously, and even whimsically - decide to interfere and intervene in the affairsof the people of Washington, D.C. and tell them how to live or tell them howto die. 43 There is pending language in an amendment to the current D.C. VotingRights Bill that would effectively repeal the revised gun regulation law passed bythe District government following the Heller 44 case. That language mirrors languagein a bill introduced in a recent Congress. 45 Before Heller, gun controlexisted in Washington, D.C. for more than thirty years and was supported by thevast majority of District residents because crimes involving guns is a matter ofgrave concern when it comes to public safety in the District.Notwithstanding that strong local sentiment, Congress sought to repeal theDistrict's strict gun control law. 46 Congress has considered denying tax exemptionsfor interest on bonds used for health care facilities that perform abortions. 47A number of rules enacted by Congress are opposed by most District residents,including: bans on the spending of local tax dollars on reproductive rights,48 medicalmarijuana,49 AIDS prevention measures,50 and domestic partnership benefits.51 In fact, at this writing the U.S. House of Representatives voted to end theshape attitudes leading to the American Revolution. Its origin is unclear, however, it is often attributedto a Harvard Trained Lawyer, James Otis, Jr., who lived in Massachusetts and believed strongly,when the British passed the Stamp Act, that the Parliament had no right to tax the colonies that werewithout representation in that body. Id.43 See If You Favor Freedom, supra note 3.44 District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. _, 128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008).45 District of Columbia Personal Protection Act, H.R. 1288, 109th Congo (2005).46 Id.47 H.R. 4922, 101st Congo (1991).48 NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR A HUMAN LIFE AMENDMENT, PRO-LIFE LEGISLATION IN CON­GRESS 2000 9 (2000). "On July 11,2000, the District of Columbia City Council. .. approved the HealthInsurance Coverage for Contraceptive Act of 2000 (D.C. Bill 13-399), a measure that mandated contraceptive... coverage in health insurance plans. On July 13, 2000, the subcommittee approved theFY 2001 D.C. Appropriations Bill ... with the provision that the proposed D.C. Council law 'shall nottake effect.'" Id.49 District of Columbia Appropriations Act of 1999, H.R. 4380, 105th Congo (1998). On October21,1998, Rep. Robert L. Barr Jr. (R-GA.) attached an amendment to the above-noted 1999 D.C.appropriations bill. The so-called "Barr Amendment" prohibited the District from spending moneyon any initiative that would legalize or reduce the penalties for users of marijuana. The measurepassed along with the D.C. spending bill.50 Drug Free Century Act, S. 5, 106th Congo § 3005(a) (1999). "Notwithstanding any otherprovision of law, none of the amounts made available under any federal law for any fiscal year may beexpended, directly or indirectly, to carry out any program of distributing sterile needles or syringes .... , Id. See also Makebra Anderson, Needle Exchange Program Sticks with Addicts, MINN. SPOKES­MAN-RECORDER, Mar. 7, 2005, http://www.spokesman-recorder.comlnews/article/article.asp?NewsID=3814&sID=3&ltemSource=N. ("Because of its unique relationship with the federal government,D.C. is the only city in the U.S. that has been barred from using local tax dollars to fund needleexchange programs.").51 The D.C. Council initially passed a bill allowing for health benefits, among other things, forpersons in a "caring relationship," but not necessarily married. District of Columbia Appropriations