Posted by: bridget | 5 May 2007

Taxation Without Representation

The Washington Post reports that the movement among Washingtonians to garner Congressional representation is at an all-time high.  Senators Lieberman and Hatch have introduced a bill that would give one House seat to DC and another to Utah (the former being assuredly Democrat, the latter being assuredly Republican).  The White House has threatened a veto on the grounds that the legislation is unconstitutional.

The constitutional issue arises because representation in the House (Art. I, Sec. 2) is limited to the States (of which DC is not): “The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature.”  Likewise, Art. I, Sec. 3 limits representation in the Senate to states: “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state….”

It is certainly odd that the Hatch/Lieberman bill would give Washingtonians a right to Congressional, but not Senatorial, represenation, as the constitutional issues are identical.  If DC is considered to be a state for the purposes of Art. I, Sec. 2, then it is also entitled to two senators.

The Sixteenth Amendment, which gives the federal government the right to tax individuals, is limited to the members of the States:  ” The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.” Yet, DC residents pay federal income tax.

Of course, this is being framed in terms of civil rights, akin to the struggles of African-Americans and women to gain suffrage rights.  This misses the point: Washingtonians are more than able to live in Virginia or Maryland if they so desire; one can hardly cease being female or cease being black.  Furthermore, the claims that the Founders did not intend to disenfranchise DC residents is entirely without merit.  If such was never the intention, there would have been two Senators and at least one Congressman from DC during the early days of America: this issue is not like private ownership of an AK-47, which was, arguably, not foreseen when the Second Amendment was passed.

The solution is quite simple.  Washingtonians, instead of attempting to thwart the Constitution, should sue for the right to not pay federal income tax.  If Washington, DC is a “state” for the purposes of the Sixteenth Amendment, then it should be a “state” for the purposes of Art. I.  The more likely alternative is that the XVI will be held to not apply to DC: the “state” language is unambiguous and should be read to be akin to similar language throughout the rest of the document.

The other alternative is an amendment to the Constitution, which is how black suffrage, federal income tax, and women’s suffrage came into being – those things found to be good and necessary by modern society but not by the Founders.  Our forefathers had the wisdom to predict that changes to the structure of government would be necessary, so they implemented an amendment process.  What is unacceptable is for Congress to ignore that amendment process and ignore the mandates of history to suit their own political ends.



  1. People are too lazy to amend the constitution these days.

  2. “This misses the point: Washingtonians are more than able to live in Virginia or Maryland if they so desire; one can hardly cease being female or cease being black.”

    That comment summed it all up for me.

    The bigger question is why are they even talking about this? I wouldn’t think that it would make their list of the top 50 most important problems to solve. It seems like a classic case of not being able to solve the tough problems, so they spend time on minutiae.

  3. i am all for them suing not to pay federal tax if they don’t take time to ammend the law. Your arguement is totally reasonalbe and sound. Does the law say anything about adding a new state? Could they declare DC a state?

  4. You can amend the Constitution and declare DC to be a state; you can sue to not pay federal income tax; or you can amend the Constitution and have DC get representation (but still keep Art. I, Sec. 8 rights).

    What you can’t do is just change the laws to make them unconsitutional.

  5. An Amendment would be the proper vehicle.

  6. I’d like to see them sue to not pay federal income tax; of course then I and about 300 million others will try to move to the already crowded DC area.

  7. (Laughing.) Sounds like a good idea.

    Well, mostly, the wealthy would move. Everyone in Maryland and NoVa with money would have their houses moved a quarter-mile to save millions every year.:)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: