S. 160, a Senate bill to create a Congressional seat for the District of Columbia, has avoided a filibuster and will likely pass the Senate later this week. The bill takes advantage of a little-known provision of Article I, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, which reads:
The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, or by the people of such other the hell crap as the Congress may legislate, and the Electors in each State or Non-State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature, unless such State or Non-State shall not be a State or shall not have a Legislature, in which case no qualifications shall be required.
Or something like that. Of course it’s no surprise they Democrats all voted for it. Sure, they take an oath to support “the Constitution” like everyone else, but everyone knows that half of them end their oath by quietly muttering “ha ha, just kidding” under their breath, while the other half speak liberal Democrat-language, in which the word “constitution” is merely a shorthand for “stuff I like” (cf. gun control and campaign finance reform are constitutional, see also abortion laws, school vouchers and the death penalty are unconstitutional). And I guess Orrin Hatch is that kind of girl, and seeing as his state gets an extra seat out of the deal, there’s no need to haggle over his price. But if Susan Collins hadn’t already pissed off enough Republicans already, she too threw her support behind this flagrantly unconstitutional bill, arguing that only the judicial branch, not the other two, is supposed to concern itself with the Constitutional concerns:
Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, who spoke in favor of the bill earlier this month, said the question of constitutionality should be resolved by the courts, not Congress.
“As a matter of fundamental fairness, I believe the residents of the District of Columbia should have representation in the House,” she said.
Which is understandable, I suppose, given that her constituents are all residents of the District of Columbia. Or whatever. Will someone please remind me why this nut even pretends to be a Republican? Or why those of us with a reason to call ourselves Republicans should care (apart from the fact that it would be much easier to oppose a Democrat who admits she’s a Democrat in the general election than to “primary” one who pretends to be one of us)?