State of Suspension
To My Fellow Stateless Citizens:
If you're not interested in the statehood (or voting rights) issue, just
skip the first half of this issue of themail. There are plenty of other topics, ranging
from the Cayman Islands to dog do-do, in the second half. The message by Tom Matthes to
which most of the statehood posters refer is available on the web at http://www.dcwatch.com/themail/1999/99-04-21.htm
. George LaRoche's message far exceeded the length limits for themail, so I've just cut it
in half. The rest of his message will follow in Wednesday's issue, so this topic will be
continued for at least that long, if you want to contribute your own thoughts on it. In
the meantime, you can read more about it. The documents in the Adams v. Clinton case are
posted at http://www.georgia-ave-mall.com/20dccitizens
Adams versus Clinton
George S. LaRoche, attorney for the Plaintiffs in Adams v. Clinton, George_S._LaRoche@csgi.com
I am the attorney for the Plaintiffs in one of the two cases heard last
Monday, Twenty Citizens of the District of Columbia [Adams] v. Clinton, which cases are
the subject of Mr. Matthes' post. First, I represent twenty INDIVIDUALS. The City is not a
party in my suit, nor are any "groups." In fact, the members of the panel I
represent have different opinions on many issues, except one: that they are entitled to
all rights of citizenship.
But more importantly, the question presented in the Twenty Citizens case
is not whether the citizens are entitled to representation in Congress. The fundamental
question is whether Congress can continue to segregate the District from the rest of the
United States. We do not ask the Court to award any form of representation, and we
certainly do not ask the Court to order Congress to "do" ANYTHING. We ask the
Court to restrain Congress from continuing to manage the District.
Generally, bracketing lawyerly quibbles, I agree with Mr. Matthes' reading
of the Constitution, except for a couple MAJOR points. I also agree with Mr. Matthes that
the answer is not clever lawyers. Remember, the District Committees in the House and
Senate and the Department of Just-us have had the able assistance of the finest lawyers
for two centuries, and that assistance has only cemented the bonds Congress holds. But
please save your slams; I probably know more (and nastier) lawyer jokes than you do and I
know where in the closet we hide our skeletons, so I can damn my profession quite
effectively, if need be.
One major point on which Mr. Matthes is wrong is his assertion that there
is a "constitutional requirement that Congress retain legislative authority over the
district serving as the federal capital." There is no such thing. The Constitution
ALLOWS Congress to exercise power, but it does not require it. Compare the District Clause
with other clauses in Section 8 of Article I. Congress has the power "to borrow money
on the credit of the United States" (clause 2), but no one has ever construed this to
mean Congress is REQUIRED by the Constitution to run a debt. Congress has the power
"to declare war" (clause 11), but no one has ever construed this to mean that
the Constitution REQUIRES the United States be in a CONSTANT state of war with some
country. [To be continued in the next issue.]
DC s Voting Right's Lawsuits
U.S. Senator Paul Strauss, District of Columbia (Shadow), SenatorDC@aol.com
Although, Tom Matthes remarks were really directed at our respected
Delegate, since it was actually my office that filed an Amicus Brief in the case, I
thought I would respond to his misdirected and even more misguided attack. It is difficult
to reply to so many misstatements of facts and law in just two paragraphs, but I'll try.
While no one disputes the recitation of the original text, Mr. Matthes ignores the fact
that the Constitution HAS BEEN AMENDED 27 times, and its meaning interpreted by the
Supreme Court on far more occasions. It is in these amendments, and more importantly, the
Supreme Court Cases interpreting these amendments on voting rights that the lawsuit is
based. The lawsuit is based on the modern case law governing apportionment, or how voting
districts are drawn. Although, a gross oversimplification, the same amendments and body of
interpretive case law that prohibits improper gerrymandering, and makes the relatively new
"one person one vote" doctrine a requirement, are what the law suit is in
part based on.
Like the DOJ lawyers in opposition, Mr. Matthes can't seem to understand
that States can be States without being called States, (like our "Commonwealth"
neighbor across the river). Even more astonishing, was his recitation of the other
Constitutional rights, specifically the privileges and immunities and due process clauses,
as some sort of justification of DC's lack of rights. The voting rights advocates rely in
fact on the Supreme Court cases which hold that these fundamental rights apply equally in
the District of Columbia. In essence, to rule against us, the court will have to find that
DC residents enjoy every fundamental right except the right to vote, an argument far more
dubious than Mr. Matthes' plain English reading of the basic text. Those who try and reach
legal conclusions by reading the Constitution out of context, without the amendments or
the interpretive cases could easily reach the mistaken impression that segregation or even
slavery remains legal, that African-Americans remain counted as 3/5 of a person, or even
that Prohibition remains the law of the land.
Constitutional Quirks In Our Favor
Mark Eckenwiler, email@example.com
In the 4/21 issue, Tom Matthes argues that the DC voting rights theory is
all hooey because, among other reasons, the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause only
relates to "states." He's right that the 14th doesn't apply to us, but he hasn't
followed the tangled thread of constitutional law far enough. Let's get some perspective:
in Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court held that "separate but equal"
schools in the states violate the 14th Amendment. Since the 14th amendment doesn't apply
to DC, would it be constitutional to restore the odious segregated educational system that
existed here for decades? Of course not, but why not? Because in Bolling v. Sharpe (1954),
the Supreme Court held that the Due Process Clause of the *Fifth* Amendment (which isn't
limited in its reach to "states") includes an implicit "equal
In other words, we DC residents are guaranteed equal protection of the
laws even though we do not live in a "state." I don't pretend to know if that's
adequate to guarantee us voting rights (given the contrary implications elsewhere in the
Constitution), but I do know that the (in)applicability of the 14th Amendment to us is
beside the point, legally speaking.
DC Voting Rights & the Constitution
David Sobelsohn, firstname.lastname@example.org
Tom Matthes is right that the lawsuit for DC voting rights is doomed. But
not, as he argues, because the 14th amendment's equal protection clause doesn't support
the case. Yes, the 14th amendment only limits state action, and yes, the lawsuit demands
action from Congress, not from any particular state. But the plaintiffs' argument doesn't
rely on the 14th amendment; it rests on the 5th, which does limit Congress. To be sure,
the 5th amendment has no equal protection clause. But the same day the Supreme Court
decided Brown v. Board of Education under the 14th amendment, the Court also invalidated
school segregation in DC under the 5th. The Court reasoned (if you can call it that) that
the due process clause of the 5th amendment contains the same equality principle, embodied
in the 14th amendment's equal protection clause, that supported the decision in Brown.
Since then, the Court has generally (not always) interpreted the 5th amendment's
"equal protection principle" as identical to the 14th amendment's equal
protection clause; the one limits Congress, the other limits the states. The Court has
also found a general equal-right-to-vote command inherent in the 14th amendment's equal
protection clause. Consequently, it's reasonable to argue the 5th amendment's equality
principle has the same equal-voting-rights command and that it applies to DC voting
rights. There's no doubt that it would violate the equal protection clause for a state to
carve out a district whose residents had no voting representation in the state
legislature. Hence (the argument goes) Congress violates the equality principle in the 5th
amendment by denying voting representation to residents of the District of Columbia.
Matthes is also off base when he raises the specter of a constitutional
crisis if the courts were to order Congress to accommodate DC voting rights. Ten years
after Brown, the Supreme Court ordered Congress to engage in massive reapportionment to
accommodate one-person, one-vote. Reapportionment directly threatened the seats of
incumbent members of Congress. Nevertheless, and despite a lot of grumbling and proposals
to overturn the Court's decision, Congress complied. Congress would comply with a court
order to accommodate DC voting rights. Finally, Matthes is wrong when he suggests that
Congress couldn't, if it wanted, successfully recognize DC as a state. Yes, article I of
the Constitution vests Congress with plenary power over "the Seat of the
Government." But the Constitution doesn't specify a minimum size for that area, just
a maximum (10 square miles). With Maryland's consent (since the territory was originally
Maryland's), Congress could recognize a state in virtually the entire current area of the
District outside a small federal enclave, over which the Congress would retain
jurisdiction pursuant to article I. And even if constitutional questions remained, the
Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that questions of statehood recognition are better left
to the political branches of government. If Congress decided to admit some or all of DC as
a state, the courts wouldn't intervene.
Why. after all that, is the case doomed? How is DC statehood actually
antidemocratic? Why is retrocession the way to go? I'll answer those questions in a
Bravo Zulu (well done!) to Tom Matthes on his last posting this subject.
There's just no logic to having a minuscule new "state," with another layer of
bureaucracy (Governor, Legislature and Courts) and two Senators for 600k people. The
appropriate solution would be recession having all but a small Federal enclave
given back to Maryland, with the number of HR reps that population would justify and
voting for Maryland's Senators. This would satisfy the "voting representation"
questions if that's not what the argument is about, then we should examine the
ulterior motives of the complainers.
14th Amendment and District Representation
T. Jr. Hardman, email@example.com
Tom Matthes makes a fairly close call in his take regarding Congressional
representation for the District. However, he makes the same mistake that has doomed
and will eternally continue to doom any attempts to get District residents voting
citizen status He thinks the District is worthy of a totally independent vote in Congress
and that cannot ever happen unless and until the Constitution is amended specifically to
Here's what will work. A 14th Amendment approach is indeed the only
workable strategy -- but the District is not and cannot ever be a State nor can it have
equivalent status. However, the District lies entirely within the State of Maryland.
Rather than suing the Federal government for voting rights in an independent polity,
rather the suit should be directed against the State of Maryland for depriving residents
of their voting rights. There is no need to retrocede the District to Maryland, the
Federal government retains their control, the District gets their own congresscritters
(probably two, perhaps three) with full vote, and vote for the two Maryland Senators. It's
simple, top-down, avoids divisive issues, and removes all red-herrings and show stoppers.
Chris Richardson, CHRISR@AECF.ORG
My suggestion for solving the vexing problem of no congressional
representation for D.C. residents undoubtedly is an old one offered many times before.
Just in case this idea hasn't been proposed in a while. . . . Washington, D.C. should be a
relatively tiny portion of land (such as The Federal Triangle times five or ten) for
conducting federal business. This chunk of land should then be zoned accordingly no
residential, commercial, or other properties would then be able to exist on this
"federally zoned" land. Consequently, any piece of land outside this zone would
belong to either Maryland (north of the river) or Virginia (south of the river).
Would this plan be easy to implement? Of course not. Any solution, at this
point, will necessarily be a fight among competing interests. Many gnarled issues to
untangle, too, such as what to do with the commercial and residential structures that
already exist in the heart of this proposed "federal zone." Nevertheless, this
simple plan seems reasonable (and perhaps terribly idealistic) at heart.
Ed Barron is partly right, and partly wrong. Right: cutting personal
income taxes won't bring a flood of residents into DC, because there are other important
issues. Wrong: it's not a good idea. It's a piece of a good idea; the question to be
answered ss why DC needs 9.5% of its citizens' incomes to function.
I'm a former DC resident who left specifically because of the income tax.
I'm in the category that's hardest hit by it: single, no kids, good income, renter. And
while I liked living in DC, crossing the river meant a significant increase in my standard
of living (and the surprising discovery that some of the area's most diverse urban
neighborhoods are actually in Arlington). Now I'm getting ready to buy, and thinking of DC
again, but frankly, the idea of handing over a huge chunk of my income to the DC
government makes Arlington even more appealing, as much as I love DC. And if it were for
Ed's favorite thing, school vouchers? That would seal the deal. If I want to subsidize
private schools, I'll do it directly, thank you very much.
Residential Parking Tickets
Kerry Jo Richards, firstname.lastname@example.org
I registered my car in DC last year and got my residential parking
sticker. I remember that there was some kind of weird thing going on and they said I'd get
a new one before the year was up. To be honest, I forgot about it and just realized last
week that my parking sticker expired Dec 31, 98! I haven't gotten any tickets yet, but
would like to find out if it's possible to get my new sticker without making a trip to the
DMV. Anybody have any ideas? Real people don't ever answer the phone at DMV, so I haven't
been able to ask anyone there. It used to be you could get some information at http://www.ci.washington.dc.us/DPWWEB/main.htm
but those URLs don't work anymore. If I have to go downtown, I will, but I'd like to avoid
it. Any advice?
RE: Delay Receiving Renewed Car Registration
Frank Pruss, frank.pruss@SiliconVilla.com
My new registration stickers and resident parking permit came in the mail
stapled together. Sounds like you are getting lame information.
Prison Close to Home?
James E. Taylor, Jr., email@example.com
Mr. David C. Sobelsohn's response to a comment made by Mr. Ed. T. Barron
was very interesting. Mr. Sobelsohn criticized Mr. Barron's statement that "if people
want to be close to home they should not commit crimes." Mr. Barron's statement is on
target. Mr. Sobelsohn has evidently overlooked the fact that building a "Federal
Prison" in Washington, DC does not guarantee that DC residents convicted of crimes
will be placed in the facility. If the proposed prison, as promised, is suppose to provide
jobs, and a prison business related industry, in proximity, who will guard and transport
prisoners? Will friends or family members be guarding friends and family members? Will
prisoners create a situation of intimidation by contact threats to prison employees and
their families? Who will be responsible for escapees? I think that every young person on
the streets know that if they are convicted of a crime, they are placed in confinement to
protect society, and not for their comfort or convenience. What study does Mr. Sobelsohn
refer to when he made the statement about being close to home lowers recidivism among
those paroled or released? I would say, education, training, in prisons and targeted and
available jobs on the outside would be a determining factor, not some made up statistic
concluding that being close to where they were living when they committed the crime to
begin with, will render them less likely to do it again. We need to stop building jails
and put a stop to the horrendous condition that causes our young people to choose this
path of self destruction. Will building more prisons eradicate the conditions which caused
the awful school killings situation in Colorado? I don't think so.
Not a Prayer
Ed T. Barron, firstname.lastname@example.org
With the D.C. Public Schools operating as a mediocre monopoly beholden to
the politicians and the unions, there is little hope of any real reform or real school
choice for low income families residing in the District. As opposed as I am to Federal
Government intervention, I see no way out for D.C. other than for the Feds to undertake a
program that will introduce real reform in the failing schools of the District. The Feds
could establish a set of standards for the teachers, another set of standards for the
students, create a curriculum in the schools that would result in properly educated
students, and and provide the funds to hire new, qualified teachers. It will take
considerable uncharacteristic courage on the part of the political leaders in D.C. to ask
for this help. The school officials will never acknowledge that they cannot fix the
A few states have already taken control of poorly performing urban schools
in parts of the country. Wisconsin and Ohio (Milwaukee and Cleveland) are two of these
states and Florida is exploring a voucher system in places where the public schools are
failing. George Bush is trying to do the same in Texas. Since D.C. is not a state (thank
God), we will have to rely on the Feds to take control of our schools if there is ever to
be real reform in the educational system in D.C.
Not My Idea of Paradise
Paul Williams, Pkelseyw@aol.com
Ed T. Barron wrote a nice tome about idealic Cayman Island. I, too, have
been there in my youth, but can't go back any longer. Why? Because the government has an
anti-gay stance strong enough last year to warrant turning away a regularly scheduled
cruise ship enroute to the island that happened to be full of gay and lesbian travelers
that particular week. The government of the Caymans have since reported that to allow gay
and lesbian visitors would compromise their morals and endanger their population! The
British government has been so far unable to change this policy, and it will have to do so
to regain complete independence from Britain. I choose carefully where to travel and
spread my American dollar (and freedom), and choose vacation spots accordingly.
A correspondent asks for info concerning any laws about putting used dog
food (sealed in plastic) in someone else's supercan. Even if it is legal, I expect he will
still get plenty of "that" from folks who don't want "that" in their
trash. There's a Supreme Court decision that makes it legal for you to look through and
take your neighbor's trash (once it's "abandoned" at the curb), but carrying a
copy of that decision with you wouldn't mollify those who did not want you to be scanning
Here's a solution: carry the bagged goodies home. A middle-aged (and
perhaps apocryphal) woman used one of her old purses to accomplish this chore. One day a
teenager, despite the dog, snatched this purse from her arm and fled. As he rounded the
corner, she fell down laughing thinking of his upcoming surprise.
Calling all Cable TV Attentives. Drawn from ad in District Weekly, The
Washington Post, 4/22/99:
The Office of Cable Television and Telecommunications is holding Town Hall
Meetings on DC's future cable television needs on Tuesday, May 4th, at 441 4th St. NW,
Room 1030S (6-9 pm) and on Tuesday, May 18th, at 2217 14th Street, NW, Studio A (6-9 pm).
Both to be simulcast live on Channel 16. For information call Walter Adams at 671-0066.
AU Law School Raising the Bar
Ed T. Barron, email@example.com
If you haven't seen the AU Law School building (48th Street and
Massachusetts Avenue NW) lately, you ought to come by to see the great landscaping job
that has transformed that corner into a lovely garden. AU is raising the bar for the rest
of the neighborhood in terms of beautifying their front, side and back yard. There are
even nine (count 'em) Grecian urn planters with flowers planted in them dotting the
helicopter sized landing pad at the front entrance. Nice job AU.
Anybody have an update on the moribund Alban Towers property at the
intersection of Wisconsin and Mass Avenues?
As a reader of themail for approximately three months now, I have seen
more than a few gripes and groans about the eternal service problems that plague the DC
government. It was extremely refreshing to see a post from Alex Butler in the April 21st
issue lauding the government and local business organizations for their assistance in
opening his company's new office. Mr. Butler's great enthusiasm for our city is a
testament to Washington's return from the brink of disaster I only hope that we
will be able to lure more businesses to choose DC over the suburbs and other metropolitan
areas. After all, I can't think of a better place to be!
The Common Denominator
John Olinger, North Lincoln Park, firstname.lastname@example.org
Thanks to Kathy Sinzinger for replying to my query about Common
Denominator. Happily, I found a copy in CVS and enjoyed it. I recommend it to Post
readers who get it but, when it comes to the place we call home, still don't get it. And
thanks too, to themail, for alerting me to the paper.
For rent: two bedroom apartment, half of a historic row house on beautiful
street in East Dupont Circle. Central air, washer/dryer, wood burning stove, patio access,
gated parking space. Pets ok. Available first week of May. $1600/month plus electric. For
more info, email: email@example.com
themail@dcwatch is an E-mail discussion forum that is published every
Wednesday and Sunday. To subscribe, to change E-mail addresses, or to switch between HTML
and plain text versions of themail, use the subscription form at http://www.dcwatch.com/themail/subscribe.htm
. To unsubscribe, send an E-mail message to firstname.lastname@example.org
with "unsubscribe" in the subject line. Archives of past messages are available
at http://www.dcwatch.com/themail .
All postings should also be submitted to email@example.com , and should be about life,
government, or politics in the District of Columbia in one way or another. All postings
must be signed in order to be printed, and messages should be reasonably short one
or two brief paragraphs would be ideal so that as many messages as possible can be
put into each mailing.