D.C. Voting Rights bill slowed down but not DOA -- What parts of the U.S. Constitution are "value voters" willing to give up?

by Bill Smith, ARRA Editor: Yesterday, the D.C. voting rights bill did not get 60 Senate votes to limit debate. Their was a majority based on Democrats and a few compromising Republicans who voted for cloture. Before proceeding, as with many words used in Washington D.C, the term "D.C. voting rights" is a misnomer. The people of D.C. do get to vote in elections. However, according to the U.S. Constitution, the District of Columbia (D.C.) like our other territories, protectorates and commonwealths do not have voting U.S. Representatives or U.S. Senators.

Unfortunately, the bill was not DOA as it should have been. The reason; some Republicans are willing to sacrifice a clearly worded part of the U.S. Constitution and the historical precedence of both the Constitution's designers and 200 years of actions by Congress, in return for "who knows what." Republicans who voted for the bill were Sens. Bob Bennett (UT), Norm Coleman (MN), Susan Collins (MA), Orrin Hatch (UT), Richard Lugar (ID), Olympia Snowe (MA), Arlen Specter (PA) and George Voinovich (OH). The two Utah Senators Bob Bennett and Orrin Hatch are the most disappointing of the group. In an apparent effort to get an early allocation for Utah of one additional voting U.S. Representative, which they will still get with the next redistricting, they voted to compromise the Constitution and to give the D.C. a voting U.S Representative.

Congress has been more than generous in the past by allowing seated non-voting representatives for D.C. and the territories, protectorates and commonwealths. In good faith, how can Utah continue to identified as a "conservative" state, when their two Senators would abrogate the Constitution for the benefit of their own state? Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), a co-sponsor of the bill, said the measure deserved to pass to give citizens voting rights. "Frankly, if it’s so unconstitutional, then what does the other side have to fear?" he said. "We’re prepared to accept whatever the Supreme Court says." Sen. Hatch, a Republican, was willing to compromise the Constitution and let the US Supreme Court be their final conscious to justify or repudiate his deed. Et tu Brute!

What did other senators say on this issue to give us some hope and to offer the other senators a chance to pause on this issue:

Max Baucus (D-MT) said, "It’s a slippery slope. If we expand the playing field now, then who is to say where it will stop? Will we give votes to territories, protectorates and commonwealths? This measure just doesn't make sense."

Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) did not vote because he has constitutional concerns and favors a resolution that would amend the Constitution.

Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said the bill is unconstitutional because the Constitution limits membership in the House to the states and thus excludes the District. "If the residents of the District are to get a member for themselves, there remains a remedy: Amend the Constitution."

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), presidential candidate, "I come down on the constitutionality side of it."

Although there may be no hope for a few senators, all Republicans and "conservative" Democrats, who voted without concern for protecting all of the Consititution, should repudiate their actions. It is only under the full measure of the U.S. Constitution that all of our citizens are protected.

As Republicans look for a presidential candidate who can both win the election and who will solemnly uphold the oath to "preserve and protect the Constitution of the United States," we are already faced with a paradox in one campaign. Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee has identified that he would ignore the Constitution and said he would sign a bill allowing D.C. to have a voting U.S. Representative. [background info] Huckabee says he is the "values voter's candidate" and indeed for the moment appears to many to be their "value voter's" candidate. He has also gained the support of several Christian rights advocates. Since the "Christian rights value voters" rely for protection on both God and the U.S. Constitution, a fair question would be which parts of the Constitution are you willing to give up if your primary candidate wins? In keeping with the values voter debate guidelines, mentally press your green button for "willing to give up NO parts of the Constitution"; press red button for "willing to give up a part of the Constitution." COMMENTS WELCOME!
Tags: Washington, D.C., Mike Huckabee, US Constitution, US House, value voters, voting rights To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!