newYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Editor's note: This article was first published on the author's blog: Res ipsa loquitur – the same thing speaks.
“This body and this nation have (sic) the problem of lands and colonies.” Those words from Rep. Stacey Plaskett echoed on the House floor this week when the delegate boycotted the House Speaker's election to demand voting rights for herself and non-state representatives. But the problem is not with the House of Representatives, but with Plaskett and other members demanding a violation of Article 1 of the Constitution.
After her election in 2015, Plaskett often showed a certain disregard for constitutional principles and protections. Although he is a lawyer, Plaskett insisted in Congress that hate speech is not constitutionally protecteda patently false claim. Where there is overwhelming evidence of a system of censorship that the Court called “Orwellian,” Plaskett did so. Repeatedly denied Evidence presented before its committee. When a journalist testified to evidence of this censorship system, Plaskett suggested his possible arrest. (Plasket suggested that respected news journalist Matt Taibbi committed perjury because of an error he made, not in his testimony but in a tweet that he later corrected.)
However, ignoring free speech or press freedom values pales in comparison to what Plaskett proposed this week in invalidating the critical language in Article I.
Article 1, Section 2, states:
“The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every two years by the inhabitants of the different States, and the electors in each State shall have the qualifications required for electors from the most numerous body of the State legislature.”
The ability to vote in the House of Representatives is expressly limited to representatives elected from the “several states.”
However, as the final election vote for House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) was taking place, Plaskett rose up to demand recognition and to know why she would not be allowed to vote:
“I note that the names of representatives from American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Marianas, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and the District of Columbia, which collectively represent 4 million Americans, have not been named. Mr. Speaker, combined, the largest veteran capital in the world is in this country.” “
The language of the Constitution is clear and unambiguous. In the absence of an amendment to the Constitution, only states may vote in the U.S. House of Representatives.
The presiding member asked a rather poignant question in response: “Does the lady have a problem?”
The answer was definitely “yes.”
Plaskett responded: “I asked why they had not been contacted. I asked why they had not been contacted by the parliamentarian please.”
The response was clear:
“Delegates-Elect and the Resident-Elected Commissioner are not eligible to vote/Representatives-Elect are the only individuals eligible to vote in the election of the Speaker of the House. As provided in Rule 36 of the House Rules and Manual, the Speaker of the House is elected by a majority of the members-elect voting by title.”
Plaskett then declared, “This body and this nation have a territory and colony problem. What was supposed to be temporary is now, effectively, permanent. We must do something about it.”
When Plaskett's microphone was cut off, she protested, “But I have a voice!” While the Democrats received her with a standing ovation. The media joined the cult, including The Atlantic magazine Referred to Her as “Congresswoman Plaskett” and not a delegate.
There is no doubt that the Virgin Islands has a high percentage of veterans compared to its population (which is only 104,000). It is also a dear part of our country. But it is not a country.
Plaskett was demanding votes for herself 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 committees. The House is allowed to grant this authority since these delegates do not actually vote on the final language or adoption of legislation.
What Democrats were supporting was allowing a vote on the House floor, which would have collapsed the bright-line rule that has governed the chamber for decades. Language referring to “states” could also have been removed from Article I, Section 2, without a constitutional amendment.
This is why Plaskett's “problem” goes beyond simply choosing a speaker.
Democrats have long argued that delegates should be allowed to vote as full members, starting with the D.C. delegate. I have previously written about this issue in academic publications. See, for example, Jonathan Turley, Too Smart by Half: The District of Columbia's Partial Representation in the House of Representatives76 George Washington University Law Review 305-374 (2008). I have also testified at previous congressional hearings (here and here and here) and written columns (here and here) Why did you consider the bill blatantly unconstitutional?
It is neither nice nor popular to raise such constitutional objections. She came under fire after one Senate hearing, where Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton told senators that if they were going to vote against this bill, “don't blame the framers, blame Jonathan Turley.” However, the problem has always been the peculiar constitutional status of these provinces and territories.
The language of the Constitution is clear and unambiguous. In the absence of an amendment to the Constitution, states may only vote in the U.S. House of Representatives.
In this image from the video, Dale is speaking. Stacey Plaskett, Democrat from the Virgin Islands, during former President Donald Trump's second Senate impeachment trial at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, Wednesday, February 10, 2021. (Senate Television via AP)
The problem, Dale Plaskett claimed, is not “the colonies.” The Virgin Islands are not a “colony”. It can, at any time, move to become an independent state. Otherwise, the American people would have had to vote to turn this small island into a state. In both cases, citizens will choose island status.
Presumably, Democrats who applauded Plaskett would have added six new non-state votes. The call will then likely be to add some representation in the Senate. This would certainly give Democrats control of the House, but it would allow for a fluid definition of what constitutes a representative – a definition that could be manipulated in the future by the majority to maintain its control of the House.
Voting for the speaker explains the problem. A few votes later, Democrats were demanding recognition of new forms of representatives to elect Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York. Presumably, a future House could then remove votes to achieve the same advantage. It can also recognize other territories to increase the voting margin. (It's worth noting that some liberal professors have also suggested gerrymandering blue states in order to double Democratic votes in the Senate. That would be constitutional if Congress allowed it.)
Click here for more Fox News opinions
The call for new forms of voting members in the House of Representatives is consistent with ad hoc measures in other areas. For example, Despite public oppositionSen. Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts, and others have pushed to pack the court with a majority of liberal justices to support their agenda.
Public opposition to court packing has not deterred Democrats. In the same way, unable to secure a majority of citizens to support D.C. statehood, Democrats previously sought to create a voting member without a constitutional amendment or change in status.
This week, they could achieve that result not only for Washington, but also for other non-state nations, including the Northern Mariana Islands, a commonwealth covering just 180 miles and with a population of less than 50,000.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
We have the oldest and most stable constitutional order in the world precisely because we have resisted ad hoc or ad hoc measures to achieve political ends. The Constitution is a common article of faith that transcends our fleeting or trivial divisions. These demands for constructive constitutional amendments are the voices of non-believers.
To paraphrase Shakespeare's play Julius Caesar, “The fault, dear legate, lies not in our nations but in ourselves.”
Click here to read more from Jonathan Turley
