The Soul of Wit
Dear Brevitarians:
Thanks to all of you who answered my questions last Sunday for your
many thoughtful messages, all of which lead me to ask one more question:
how can people disagree so strongly while completely agreeing on the
underlying principle? About half of you said that long messages to
themail should be viciously slashed, without regret; however, the other
half of you said to leave them long — because you just skip and scroll
through all the long messages anyway. My conclusion: E-mail isn't a
congenial medium for lengthy messages, and nobody likes long E-mail
messages except for the people who write them.
One helpful suggestion, which I'm going to take starting tonight, was
to cut off really long messages after the first two paragraphs in the
E-mail version of themail, and to print the messages completely in the
web version. Let's try it for a few weeks, and then let me know how you
like it.
Gary Imhoff
themail@dcwatch.com
###############
The prerelease of the Inspector General report is a good
demonstration of why we need an independently elected Attorney General
who is accountable only to the voters. Having an Inspector General who
is accountable to either the Mayor or the Council invites cronyism.
###############
DC Government Shuts Down . . . Temporarily
Dorothy Brizill, dorothy@dcwatch.com
Mark your calendars. On September 7, the DC City Council is scheduled
to move back to the Wilson Building at 14th and Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,
from One Judiciary Square at 441 4th Street, NW. To prepare for the
move, the Council has already packed its records and files, and probably
won't be fully open for business again until September 15. After
Councilmembers identify the initial problems in the building, the Mayor
and his top staffers will make the move on September 21, leading to
another temporary shutdown.
Two key government reports are now available on the DCWatch web site.
First, the Inspector General investigated indications of collusion
between Metropolitan Police Department officers and towing companies,
leading to the towing companies' holding towed cars without notifying
their owners and to towing cars from private property without the
requests of the owners. A censored version of the IG's report is now
available on its web site at http://www.dcig.org/reportsframe.html;
the original version is on the DCWatch site at http://www.dcwatch.com/govern/ig010330.htm.
Second, John Drake reported in yesterday's Washington Times that an
internal Fire Department report concluded that DC is “'woefully'
unprepared for a major hazardous materials incident or an attack with
chemical or biological weapons. . . .” The Fire Department denies that
the report even exists; it's available at http://www.dcwatch.com/govern/fire0108.htm.
###############
IMF Protesters
Ed T. Barron, edtb@aol.com
There's a simple solution to handling the protesters that come out of
the wood work to disrupt the IMF meetings, cost a whole lot of money,
and cause major disruptions for the cities in which the IMF meetings are
held. That solution is to hold these meetings in remote locations that
have very limited access. Many such places exist in every major country.
They are generally resorts (some on mountain tops where only those with
great climbing skills could rise in protest) with ample housing and
meeting accommodations, where access is quite limited.
On my recent coast-to-coast cross Canada trip I saw several likely
locations where the IMF meetings could be held and where the limited
number of protesters who could get within a mile or so of the location
could be easily controlled. The solution to violence (and you can bet
that the late September meeting here in DC will be a benchmark for
violence) is to hold these meeting away from populated areas.
###############
DMV Registration Renewals?
Mitch Hyman, MitchHyman@aol.com
I haven't received the DMV forms for renewing my car registration and
parking permit, which expire soon, and was wondering if there was any
way I could take care of this without a nightmarish visit downtown to
DMV. Or are the renewals being sent out very late this year? The online
registration option apparently only works if one has received a paper
renewal form in the mail. I tried calling the DMV help line and the
person I spoke to was completely unhelpful. She said if I did not
receive the renewals, I had to do it in person.
###############
Emerging Issues on Privatized Prisons
Mark Richards, Dupont East, mark@bisconti.com
The US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of
Justice Assistance, released a monograph on emerging issues on
privatized prisons earlier this year. Since Congress used DC as part of
an experiment to test the theories that led to the policy choice of
establishing private prisons, this report might be of interest: http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/bja/181249.pdf.
It is full of comparative information, but I was unable to locate the
proportion of prisoners in private facilities who are from DC relative
to other states. The report indicates that private prisons function as
efficiently as public ones, but with fewer staff. It says, “In 1987,
the number of inmates incarcerated in privately operated correctional
facilities worldwide was 3,100; by 1998 the number had risen to 132,000.
In the United States today there is a total of 158 private correctional
facilities.” Texas leads the nation with 43 facilities, followed by
California (24). There are 26 private facilities in 3 other countries.
The report says that there was a crisis in the 1980s related to the
public’s belief that the penal system was not accomplishing its goal
of rehabilitating offenders. At the same time, laws were changing and
prison populations were growing. One solution to the crisis was to
experiment with private prisons, which advocates said would result in
savings up to 20%. This study found saving of about 1 percent, mainly
from lower labor costs. On the bright side, the prospect of privatizing
prisons apparently got the attention of the public prison
administrations, and they became “more responsive to reform.”
###############
I write in response to Steve Chaggaris' comments about Anthony
Williams not being responsible for the WDCU sale. Steve has apparently
forgotten that Mayor Williams was Chief Financial Officer for the city
when the WDCU sale was made. As CFO working for the Control Board, he
was most definitely behind the sale of WDCU. The University was put in a
position where it had little choice but to follow the directives of
Anthony Williams, CFO and Control Board Chair, Andrew Brimmer to make
this sale. Getting rid of one of the University's major sources of
communication and positive notoriety was merely a part of their plan to
destroy UDC so that they could ultimately sell the property to the
highest bidder. If one only would remember (or research the Washington
Post), selling UDC most valued property was one of the first things
Mayor Williams tried to accomplish when he took office.
And yes, we all should still mourn the passing of Jazz 90, as well as
the destruction of the jazz, gospel, and community service programming
that it provided. Not to mention the destruction of the lives and
careers of many of the people who dedicated everything they could to
make WDCU the station that people still mourn after almost five years.
###############
My point is this: it's all too easy to blame the Control Board and
it's even easier for Williams-haters to pin this on him. But these are
the facts: the Control Board ordered UDC to eliminate a $10.1 million FY
'97 budget shortfall by September 30, 1997. That's it. The decisions to
be made on how to get that money were up to UDC. UDC President Julius
Nimmons and the school's Board of Trustees, after realizing that WDCU
would sell for as much as $13 million, jumped at the easy solution and
sold it.
“This is good news,” Nimmons said after telling the board of
trustees that the school was solvent. “For the first time in years,
the university has no financial crisis.” (Washington Post, July
10, 1997) Nimmons: “I'm exhilarated . . . that this is going to occur
and the university is going to be able to consummate this deal and get
the resources to solve its problems.” (Washington Times, August
14, 1997) Perhaps the real blame lies in the years of poor management at
UDC, however: “Although Nimmons is upbeat about the school's future,
the university faces an uphill battle enticing back students who were
scared away by its many problems. Enrollment, which was at more than
9,000 in fall 1995, dropped 25 percent last fall. Spring enrollment was
5,917, the lowest in the school's nearly 20-year history.” (Post, July
10, 1997)
In the end, it seems the sale of WDCU was not due to an evil,
jazz-hating, bean-counting Anthony Williams or control board — it was
perhaps, like many of the problems facing the District, the sad result
of a mismanaged city government that neglected the city (and UDC) for
years.
###############
What you have quoted is the Washington Post. Too bad you don't
know the real deal. You have bought into the hype and not the truth, but
you had to be there or you just would not know the truth. I was there,
up close and personal, and what the Post reports is not always
the way it was or is. But alas, that's what “they” want you to
believe and it would appear that they have done a good job. There is no
need to respond to this; there is nothing I could tell you that would
change your mind. All hail the power of the media!
###############
A number of posters have bemoaned the closing of WDCU, and complained
about the limited choice in radio in DC. Perhaps the solution is at hand
in DC's own XM Satellite Radio, located on Florida Avenue near the New
York Avenue intersection. This will be a satellite broadcast system,
covering the entire US, so it's not local, but it will offer great
variety. Because of its nationwide coverage, and its 100 radio channels,
it can afford to dedicate channels to niche audiences. XM will offer six
channels dedicated to jazz and blues, and perhaps those will fill the
WDCU void.
Commercial operations are set to begin in September. Yes, special
equipment will be needed to receive the satellite signals. For details,
go to http://www.xmradio.com/home.html.
###############
DC Statehood v. the Tenth Amendment
Tom Matthes, tommatthes@earthlink.net
First, with apologies to those who disagree so strongly on the issue
of “Legislative Statehood,” this is going to be my last posting on
the issue for awhile. I don't wish to be unfair or rude, but these
issues have been debated many times and the rebuttals need not be
prolonged. I was asked for my opinion and leave the last word to anyone
who wishes to reply. Second, I think the objections of Mr. Piacsek and
Mr. Vorndran can be best answered by citing the Tenth Amendment: “The
powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively,
or to the people.” It is one thing to say that if Congress buys
territory for a fort or a park, it obviously can sell it again. It is
much different to argue that since Congress may assume legislative
control over a capital district up to ten miles square, it therefore may
make some or all of it a state (or make states out of national parks and
forests). The Tenth Amendment allows no such assumption, since making
that district a state, or several states, undercuts the sole purpose of
creating the district. If Congress created 50 mini states out of DC, it
obviously would overthrow the very nature of the federal republic.
Therefore, a constitutional amendment, which requires the consent of
the states as well as Congress, is required for DC statehood. But the
Tenth Amendment reserves the power of retrocession to the individual
states. Since the federal district need not be a full ten miles square
(or exist at all), this is constitutionally permissible without an
amendment. As James Madison said, the federal government only has the
powers granted in the Constitution and the states retain all powers not
denied them by the Constitution. For the record, I did not say that a
capital distinct is "mandated" in my argument, as quoted by
Mr. Piacsek.
###############
On DC Statehood and the Constitution
George S. LaRoche, LaRoche@us.net
Thanks to Mr. Matthes, for his detailed answer to my question why he
thinks statehood for the District requires a constitutional amendment,
but his argument doesn’t persuade. His first point, that the District
Clause of the Constitution (Art. I, §8, cl. 17) “must be removed by
constitutional amendment for DC to have a legitimate state
legislature[,]” merely reasserts his basic proposition in different
language, without explaining why it’s so.
Mr. Matthes buttresses this first assertion with the contention that,
“[a]s a practical matter, such a state would be in danger of being
nullified by a future Congress every two years[,]” but there’s no
reason to think that the new State comprised of (say, for the sake of
the argument) the nonfederal portions of the present District would be
any different from any other State, which means that Congress could not
“nullify” it, any more than Congress could “nullify” Nevada (an
enormous percentage of which is actually owned by the federal government
and, until a few decades ago, all the property so owned was held under
the same power of “exclusive Legislation” as the District). Rather,
the law is well-settled that any state entering the Union does so on an
equal footing with all other states, and Congress cannot create or admit
a State on any lesser terms than those enjoyed by all existing States
(see Coyle v. Smith, 221 US 559 (1910)). Mr. Matthes offers no reason to
think that admission of the nonfederal portions of the District as a
State would fall outside this settled doctrine.
Mr. Matthes' second point is that “the Constitution only enumerates
specific powers to the federal government and denies it all other
powers, so Congress only has the power to assume jurisdiction over the
capital district, not the power to use that district to create new
states[,]” which mistakes the meaning of the common assertion that the
federal government is a government of “enumerated” or limited
powers. We call the federal government a government of “enumerated”
powers because it is limited to exercise the powers specifically listed
in the Constitution (juxtapose this with State governments, which we say
are governments of “general” powers, meaning they can do whatever is
not denied to them in their state Constitutions). But the power of
“exclusive Legislation” and the power to admit new states are both
granted to Congress in the Constitution (Art. I, § 8, cl. 17, and Art.
IV, § 3); they are among its “limited” powers and each power is
absolute, meaning that Congress and Congress alone can determine how the
power is to be wielded (at least so long as no provision of the
Constitution is violated in the process of wielding the power). And
there’s no reason to think that the power to do the former negates the
power to do the latter. In fact, the various clauses of the Constitution
are taken to work together, and no one clause necessarily means than
another clause is nullified or removed from the Constitution.
If Congress chose to admit the District as a State under Article IV,
Section 3 of the Constitution, Congress would, of course, be withdrawing
its power under Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, but that's within
Congress' power under the District Clause, which is
"exclusive" and, within the bounds of other provisions of the
Constitution, relatively unlimited. And there’s no reason to doubt
that Congress can choose to cease to wield its power under the District
Clause. Congress held the power of “exclusive Legislation”
over Alexandria County, as the former portion of the District southwest
of the Potomac River was called when it was part of the District, and
then Congress ceded Alexandria County back to the State of Virginia,
making Alexandria County a part of the State of Virginia. No amendment
to the Constitution was passed to make Alexandria County Part of the
State of Virginia and, thus, to give the residents of the former
Alexandria County “a legitimate state legislature” (by the way, what’s
an “illegitimate” state legislature?). And dozens and dozens of Acts
of Congress have accomplished the same result for hundreds of what are
called “federal enclaves” located throughout the United States —
all once governed by the same power of “exclusive Legislation” as
wielded over the District, without anyone ever raising a challenge that
these actions required an amendment to the Constitution.
Mr. Matthes states, in addition, that “[t]he congressional power
over the capital district is not plenary; it is granted for the sole
purpose of making Congress independent of any state, a power compromised
by creating a state out of all or part of the national capital and a
matter of concern to every other state in the Union” (emphasis added).
This statement runs against over a century's worth of judicial and legal
opinion, holding that Congress’ power is "plenary," which is
to say, that it gathers together in one place — Congress — the power
of a State and the federal government, i.e., all government. See Binns
v. United States, 194 US 486, 491 (1904). True, the power was included
in the Constitution in order to provide that Congress would be free from
the influence of any particular state or states, but it's not at all
clear how this concern would be “compromised” by admitting the
nonfederal portions of the District as a State. Congress retroceded
Alexandria County to Virginia, and it didn’t raise any threat to
Congress’ immunity from Virginia. Congress could retain all the areas
being used by the federal government as the “District” comprising
"the Seat of the Government of the United States, and admit the
rest as a State, and Congress would stand in the same relation to all
States as it does now — outside the jurisdiction of each and every
State, just as Congress remained outside the jurisdiction of Virginia,
even after retrocession of Alexandria County in 1846. Further, retention
of the nonfederal portions of the District doesn’t buffer or insulate
Congress from any influence whatsoever (does anyone really fear that a
Maryland State militia might storm the district, running down Georgia
Avenue, while Congress sends the Marines to entrench themselves on the
heights above Florida Avenue?). There’s far more concern today with
the influence of money on Congress, than the influence of a particular
State on Congress. The plain fact (that all but the most hopeful
conservatives nurse) is that the federal government is and will remain
the proverbial five-hundred pound gorilla and no particular State is
going to shove it around or influence it, especially as long as Phillip
Morris and Microsoft and all the other corporate interests which have
millions of dollars to contribute to political campaigns are busy
manipulating the game.
And Mr. Matthes’ claim that he turns to the Constitution as
authority for his viewpoint is one we all can share. That’s where I
find my authority, so in the race to wrap ourselves in the Constitution,
let’s call this contention a draw.
But his closing reference to Professor Mark Tushnet's work is
puzzling. I hope Mr. Tushnet is a subscriber to this list and files a
response of his own, but in the mean time, I’d have to say that I
don't get the pertinence of the reference, especially in Mr. Matthes’
proclamation that he “endorse[s] the 'thick constitution' described
by" Professor Tushnet.” Since Professor Tushnet’s discussion of
the “thick constitution” is aimed at dethroning it or putting it on
a par with what he calls the “thin constitution,” Mr. Matthes
“endorses” the very sense of the Constitution which Mr. Tushnet is
busy arguing we should not vest with such endorsements.
Tushnet's dichotomy between the “thin” and the “thick”
constitutions is a tool to distinguish two broad, categorical ways in
which the Constitution is understood, embraced, and used. The “thick
constitution” is the body of “detailed provisions describing how the
government is to be organized” (Taking the Constitution Away from
the Courts (1999) at 9), and this is the Constitution analyzed and
construed, mostly, by courts. On the other hand, the “thin
constitution,” is the document which reifies and vindicates the
principles on which the United States was built, such as that all people
were created equal and all have various inalienable rights (see id. at
11), and this is the Constitution venerated in the hearts of most
citizens. These two senses of the Constitution are not necessarily
mutually exclusive, but the latter has been neglected as courts have
taken over constitutional analysis and Tushnet’s work is dedicated to
resurrecting a “populist” constitutionalism arising from the “thin
constitution” (id. at 177-94).
But neither sense of the Constitution means that the people of the
District of Columbia should be deprived of the same fundamental rights
enjoyed by all other citizens of the United States. And in the sense of
the “thick constitution” (lauded, puzzlingly, by Mr. Matthes),
taking the Constitution as a complex, multilayered blueprint for
government, there is no reason that the residents of the District cannot
be part of that blueprint, in which all citizens are both citizens of
the United States and of a State (Amendment XIV, § 1).
So let’s lay to rest the contention that statehood for the District
“requires” an amendment to the Constitution. The only credible
argument that statehood would have any such effect is made by Professor
Adam Kurland of Howard University Law School (in Partisan Rhetoric,
Constitutional Reality, and Political Responsibility: The Troubling
Constitutional Consequences of Achieving D.C. Statehood by Simple
Legislation, 60 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 475 (1992)), who argues
persuasively that the Twenty-third Amendment (giving District residents
votes in the electoral college) should be repealed if the District is
admitted as a state. But even if one agrees with every element of
Kurland’s argument, it still doesn’t mean that the Twenty-third
Amendment prevents admission of the District as a state; it merely
creates an opening for “troubling consequences” unless it is
repealed.
In short, one can’t foreclose discussion of the merits of statehood
by recourse to “legal” arguments that statehood is impossible or
requires an amendment to the Constitution. Maybe statehood is a good
idea or a bad idea, maybe it’s economically viable or not, but
statehood itself is completely constitutional.
###############
CLASSIFIEDS — MEETINGS AND EVENTS
Ward 6 ANC Redistricting Task Force
Chuck Burger, caburger@msn.com
The Ward 6 ANC Redistricting Task Force is seeking public comments on
ANC redistricting as a result of the 200 Census and changes in Ward 6
boundaries. We will be having a Ward 6 Town Hall Meeting on ANC
Redistricting on September 12 at 7:00 p.m. at Judiciary Square, 441 4th
Street, NW on the 10th Floor. All Ward 6 residents are encouraged to
attend. In addition, the public is invited to the regular meetings of
the Task Force held on September 5th, 17th and 24th at 6:30 p.m. at
Judiciary Square on the 7th Floor. Please contact Chuck Burger, Chair,
at 543-7336 or caburger@msn.com
with any questions.
###############
The Fair Budget Coalition will meet September 5 at 9:30 a.m. at
Washington Legal Clinic for the Homeless, 1800 Massachusetts Avenue, NW,
6th floor. The agenda includes identifying goals for the FY 2003 budget
cycle. All are welcome and encouraged to attend. For more information,
contact Patty Mullahy Fugere, 872-8958.
###############
Film and Panel on Immigration in DC, the World
Bank and the IMF
Monica Wilson, mwilson@essential.org
The Mobilization for Global Justice will sponsor a film and a panel
discussion on immigration, the World Bank and the IMF on Tuesday,
September 4, at 6:30 p.m., at All Souls Unitarian Church, Pierce Hall,
16th and Harvard, NW. Speakers will include: Saro Nwigia, Movement for
the Survival of the Ogoni People, Nigeria; Silvia Navas, Casa of MD and
the Campaign for Migrant Domestic Worker Rights; Jennifer Satlin-Fernandez,
Columbia Heights activist.
Also featuring a new film: “Uprooted” (30 minutes) looks at three
different recent immigrants to the US, how economic turmoil (much of it
IMF/WB inspired) forced them to leave their countries, and the
challenges they face upon arrival to the US Spanish-English translation
will be provided. Directions: Take Metro to Columbia Heights Station,
walk one block west to 16th and two blocks south to Harvard. For more
information, go to http://www.globalizethis.org
or call 265-7714.
###############
CLASSIFIEDS — FOR SALE
'76 Mercedes; dark blue with tan interior; a classic that runs
beautifully and looks good. Best offer. ngranof@rcn.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 themail@dcwatch.com
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 themail@dcwatch.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.
