The Washington Post reports this morning that Sen. Orrin Hatch has joined Sen. Joe Lieberman in sponsoring the Senate version of the unconstitutional bill to give the District of Columbia a full voting seat in the House of Representatives. According to the Post, Hatch has been persuaded that since “Congress treats the District as a state in many ways” (in the newspaper’s paraphrase), “it’s only fair” (Hatch’s words this time) that D.C. have a seat in the House.

I’ve commented on this little fiasco many times (most recently here, with links), but I have to say Senator Hatch brings the conversation about this matter to a new low. “Only fair”? Sure, the Constitution commands all things fair, doesn’t it? Take a look, Senator: in exactly what ways does federal law treat the District as a state? Does federal law refer to D.C.’s governor, its state legislature, its state judiciary, its constitution, all self-subsisting without the sufferance of the Congress? Oh, right. D.C. doesn’t have those things, because it’s not a state. And not being a state, it cannot have a House member.

As long as we’re being “fair,” wouldn’t it be fair to add two seats to the Senate as well, and give those to the District? As long as we’re treating D.C. “like” a state but not making it one, that is. Funny how that doesn’t occur to Senator Hatch. Funny how it does occur to him to strike this statesmanlike deal that just happens to give Utah a new seat in the House as well–but only five years before the state would get one anyway after the next census, as NRO’s editors have pointed out.

This all becomes low comedy when the Post reports this:

The Lieberman-Hatch bill differs from the House version in several ways. The Senate legislation would redraw Utah’s electoral map to add the extra House seat, instead of temporarily establishing an “at-large” seat chosen statewide. Hatch had strongly opposed the “at-large” provision as unconstitutional.

If this is accurate reporting, I’d like Sen. Hatch to explain what principle in the Constitution is offended by an at-large House seat–an arrangement that was once common in Congress’s early history, and has been used even in the last century for ad hoc reasons now and then–while he blithely ignores the obvious unconstitutionality of giving the District of Columbia a seat at all. It’s nice to know Sen. Hatch has some constitutional scruples left. Too bad they’re so muddle-headed.