Seat Happy Constitution Day Sept 17 http://lists.topica.com/lists/PoliticalHumor/read/message.html?mid=913929394&sort=d&start=50 All About US – (14th of a series) >From my unpublished book. This series is archived at [EMAIL PROTECTED] “The Congress shall have the power…to exercise exclusive Legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States.” Article I, section 8, clause 17 Ratified June 21, 1788 “New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but o new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State, nor any State be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.” Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1 Ratified June 21, 1788 Out Ten Mile Square Seat On June 3, 1974, the U.S. House of Representatives took a significant first step toward statehood for the 630,000 residents of Washington, D.C.. The new state, to be named New Co;XXXumbia, would give citizens of that fair city representation in both Houses of Congress similar the other fifty states. It is patently unfair that the most politically astute citizens in the country, perhaps the world, be given no voice in selecting the government of which they are citizens and to whom they must pay taxes. As a great American patriot of your once put it: no taxation without representation. Thi's is not a lofty goal which should be overlooked as a mere technicality; it is a violation of civil rights worth fighting for. If we are to remain true to our beliefs in America, this injustice should be corrected post haste, but there is a problem---the United States Constitution. An amendment to grant the District of Columbia representation in Congress failed in 1965. Before we consider such a dramatic change, we must remember the nation’s capitol, originally in Philadelphia, has been---and can be again---moved to tat the whim of Congress. There is nothing prohibiting the Capitol from moved as long as the conditions in Article I, Section 8, are met. And we should consider the possibility that the existing municipal offices of mayor and city council of Washington, D.C. might be un-constitutional usurping legislative authority reserved solely for Congress (See article I. Section 1), although it is highly doubtful that the U.S. Supreme Court would ever see it in that light. That aside, state jurisdiction was surrendered to the federal government to set up shop, and Congress was delegated legislative powers to a municipal government to handle the day-to-day affairs of that city. But the problem remains: we have a heavily populated urban area with the District which is not part of the Seat of Government, and those residents are being deprived of its basic rights of citizenship. The rules for admitting a new state spelled out in the two paragraphs of Article IV poses other, more serious Constitutional questions. May the federal government legitimately obtain state territory on the pretext of needing it for the Seat of Government, and later, when it is finally determined that more land was acquired than needed, to establish a new state from the excess land without obtaining the consent of the donor state? If so, what Constitutional safeguards exist, if any, to prevent the federal government from some day repeating the process by creating additional mini-states, each with its own Congressmen, in other federal territories, such as Forts, Magazines, Arsenals and doc-Yards which jurisdiction has likewise been acquiesced tot eh national government? These and other land tracts, are under the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government, albeit, the number of affected citizens are only a tiny fraction of the number of disenfranchised people in Washington, D.C. There are at least two alternatives the Congress should explore before it creates this country's first city-state, in which the second class citizens are promoted to the best represented citizens per capita of any city its size. 1. return the land (and residents) not needed and/or used by the federal government to the State of Maryland from whence they came (as was done with Arlington, Virginia), or 2. Return the territory in its entirety, and find a new, unpopulated area for their ten square mile Seat, so that our future lawmakers can conduct the nation’s business without the undue influence created by a major metropolis. Would your opinion change any, if you knew the 10 square mile limitation put on the federal government in the Constitution has been violated? Washington DC has grown to 64 square miles.
The only thing worse than Waco is the ongoing cover-up. http://www.documentarywire.com/waco-the-big-lie/ http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4298137966377572665 http://www.myspace.com/bdsda http://www.movie-forumz.org/showthread.php?t=35645&highlight=waco
