Download - UDC Law Review

More documents

Recommendations

Info

2 UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICr OF COLUMBIA LAW REVIEWI. INTRODUCTIONA. Making D. C. Citizens the Same as All Other Citizens of the WorldEvery human being on this planet, residing in a nation with representativegovernment, enjoys political standing l , and most enjoy sovereignty2 - exceptthose who happen to reside in Washington, D.C. 3 Political standing in Americagrows out of the Seventeenth Amendment, providing for the popular election ofsenators;4 as well as Article I of the Constitution. s The absence of true representationfor the people of Washington, D.C. in the United States Senate and only acloistered presence in the House of Representatives is a blight on America's democracy;a glaring imperfection of a way of life this nation seeks to foist on allothers. This contradiction empowers America's detractors and weakens its proponents.6 Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA) testifying at a House of Repre-1 Political standing in this context is equal participation; voting representation in a nation'sgoverning body. "[E]qual representation for equal numbers of people" is a fundamental goal. Wesberryv. Sanders, 376 U.S. I, 18 (1964).2 Sovereignty is U[s]upreme dominion, authority, or rule," independence. BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 1430 (8th ed. 2004).3 In fact, many federal nations that extend the rights of representation to the residents of thecapital have molded their governments after our own. Yet, on this basic issue of representation, theyhave taken the lead and surpassed the United States. A full discussion of the status of the District ofColumbia in the context of other capital cities around the world is presented in International <strong>Law</strong> andthe District of Columbia, infra, with excerpts from a wider discussion prepared and presented by theauthor in the booklet, If You Favor Freedom: You Must Favor Statehood for the District of Columbia,published in October, 1986, when he served as Chief of Staff to former Congressman Walter E. Fauntroy(D-D.C.). If You Favor Freedom was preceded by another booklet prepared and presented bythe author in 1978, A Simple Case of Democracy Denied, published when he served as Counsel toCongressman Fauntroy. Interestingly, nothing changed between 1978 and 1986 regarding the Districtof Columbia's standing compared to other world capitals and nothing has changed to this date. Seegenerally OFFICE OF CONGRESSMAN WALTER E. FAUNTROY, IF You FAVOR FREEDOM: You MUSTFAVOR STATEHOOD FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Johnny Barnes, ed., 1986), reprinted inH.REP. No. 100-1 (1987), available at http://www.dcvote.orgltrellis/struggle/1986favorfreedomstatehood.cfm, [hereinafter IF You FAVOR FREEDOM].4 U.S. CONST. amend. XVII, provides that, "[t]he Senate of the United States shall be composedof two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof ..." Prior to the adoption of theSeventeenth Amendment, Senators were elected by state legislatures. U.S. CoNST. art. I, § 3, c1. 1.5 U.S. CONST. art. I, § 2, c1. 1 provides, "The House of Representatives shall be composed ofmembers chosen every second Year by the people of the several States." There are 435 Representativesin the House. That number was set by Congress in 1911 and is not a Constitutional mandate.The number has varied, over the years. Initially, each state had one Representative in a UnicameralBody. Election of Senators and Representatives, Pub. L. 62-5, 37 Stat. 13, 14 (codified as 2 U.S.c. § 2(1911».6 Timothy Cooper, Executive Director of the World Rights Organization and D.C. Statehoodenthusiast and activist who has traveled around the world, has reported that, "On December 30, 2003,the Organization of American States' (OAS) Inter-American Commission on Human Rights issuedRep. No. 98/03 in case 11.204 - Statehood Solidarity Committee v. United States. That report readsin part: 'The Commission hereby concludes that the State is responsible for violations of the Petitioners'rights under Articles II and XX of the American Declaration by denying them an effective oppor-
TOWARDS EQUAL FOOTING 3sentatives D.C. Statehood Hearing in 1984 stated, "The time has come at longlast to end the unacceptable status of the District of Columbia as America's lastcolony.,,7Sovereignty for non-federal entities in the United States stems from the TenthAmendment. 8 The constraints on sovereignty for non-federal entities are specificallystated in several parts of the Constitution, but are generally found in theCommerce Clause - for example, only the federal government maintains thepower to make money, declare war, enter into treaties with foreign governments,and exercise broad taxing authority.9 These constraints on non-federal entitiesshould not be read, however, as only limiting the rights given to the states andlocal governments, but those of individuals. In New York v. United States, theUnited States Supreme Court noted, "[t]he Constitution does not protect the sovereigntyof states for the benefit of the states or state governments as abstractpolitical entities, or even for the benefit of the public officials governing thestates. The Constitution divides authority between federal and state governmentsfor the protection of individuals.,,10 When citizens have the benefit of politicalstanding and sovereignty, as every American except those residing in Washington,D.C. have, they are said to be on equal footing. lltunity to participate in their federal legislature ... '" Statehood Solidarity Comm. v. United States,Case Rep. No. 98/03 Inter-Amer. Comm. H.R. (2003); INTER-AMERICAN COMM'N. ON HUMANRIGHTS, ORG. OF AM. STATES, REP. No. 09/03 § 117 (2003), http://www.cidh.orglannualrep/2oo3englUSA.11204a.htm. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights recommended to the UnitedStates that it "[p]rovide the Petitioners with an effective remedy, which includes adopting the legislativeor other measures necessary to guarantee to the Petitioners the effective right to participate,directly or through freely chosen representatives and in general conditions of equality, in their nationallegislature." Id. at § 119. Moreover, the Organization for Cooperation in Europe (OSCE),both the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODHIR) and the Parliamentary Assemblycall "on the Congress of the United States to adopt such legislation as may be necessary togrant the residents of Washington, D.C. equal voting rights in their national legislature in accordancewith its human dimension commitments." ORGANIZATION FOR SECURITY AND COOPERATION IN EuROPE, WASHINGTON, D.C. DECLARATION ON DEMOCRACY, HUMAN RIGHTS AND HUMANITARIANQUESTIONS § 58 (July 5, 2005). A fuller discussion of the implications of America's denial of votingrights to its own citizens and the impact of such denial on America's standing in the world communityis presented in International <strong>Law</strong> and Politics supra.7 Kennedy Introduces Bill Urging Statehood for D. c., WASH. POST, Jan. 25, 1985, available athttp://www.washingtonpost.comlwp-dynlcontentlarticle/2oo9/03/18/ AR2oo9031802555.html.8 U.S. CONST. amend. X provides, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."9 U.S. CONST. art. I, §8, cl. 3 states that, "The Congress shall have the Power To regulate Commercewith foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes ... "10 New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 181 (1992) (emphasis added).11 U.S. CONST. amend. XIV provides that, "no state shall ... deny to any person within itsjurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Known as the "Equal Protection Clause," this provisionof the Constitution makes clear and true America's promise that "aU men [and women] arecreated equal." Id. The protections of the Fourteenth Amendment were extended to the people ofWashington, D.C. in Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (1954), a companion case to the landmark school
Page 2 and 3: University of the District of Colum
Page 10 and 11: 4 UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICT OF COL
Page 12 and 13: 6 UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRIcr OF COL
Page 14 and 15: 8 UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICf OF COL
Page 16 and 17: 10 UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CO
Page 18 and 19: 12 UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICI' OF C
Page 22 and 23: 16 UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRlcr OF CO
Page 24 and 25: 18 UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICf OF CO
Page 30 and 31: 24 UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRIcr OF CO
Page 42 and 43: 36 UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICr OF CO
Page 46 and 47: 40 UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICr OF CO
Page 58 and 59:
52 UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICf OF CO
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
70 UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRIcr OF Co
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
78 UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICI' OF C
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
82 UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CO
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
88 UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRKi OF COL
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
92 UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICr OF CO
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
100 UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICf OF C
Page 108 and 109:
102 UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICT OF C
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
BRINGING HOME THE BACON: A TWO·PRO
Page 122 and 123:
BRINGING HOME THE BACON: A TWO-PRON
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
APPEALING TO THE LEGISLATURE: A COM
Page 144 and 145:
POST-CONVICfION DNA & PRESERVATION
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
POST-CONVICTION DNA & PRESERVATION
Page 150 and 151:
POST-CONVICflON DNA & PRESERVATION
Page 152 and 153:
POST-CONVICfION DNA & PRESERV A nON
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
POST-CONVICTION DNA & PRESERVATION
Page 160 and 161:
MISSING IN ACTION:PRISONERS OF WAR
Page 162 and 163:
MISSING IN ACfION 157provide humane
Page 164 and 165:
MISSING IN ACTION 159quantity, qual
Page 166 and 167:
MISSING IN ACfION 161tion of the ca
Page 168 and 169:
MISSING IN ACI10N 163rently in the
Page 170 and 171:
MISSING IN ACfION 165Rasul v. Bush.
Page 172 and 173:
MISSING IN ACTION 167missions. ,,91
Page 174 and 175:
MISSING IN ACfION 169The Supreme Co
Page 176 and 177:
MISSING IN ACfION 171constitute a c
Page 178 and 179:
MISSING IN ACTION 173Court has open
Page 180 and 181:
MISSING IN ACfION 175sel. But, the
Page 182:
MISSING IN ACTION 177posed, efforts
show all

Download - UDC Law Review

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?