The editors of the Washington Post are nothing if not persistent in their disregard of the Constitution when it comes to congressional representation for D.C. Today they bang on President Bush, who said in his recent press conference that he would look at any legislation Congress sent him on the subject before committing himself on whether it was possible for him to sign it. But the reporter the Post quotes (was it their own?) wanted a “philosophical” statement on the “principle” at stake, and the president wasn’t biting. So the editors do the president the honor of scripting what he should have said: “I know that citizens of the District of Columbia pay taxes for their country, and I know many of them have gone to war for their country. They should have a say in how their country is ruled. I look forward to working with Congress to find the best way to make that happen.” That he didn’t say anything of the kind is a sure sign, according to the Post, that the president is no real friend of democratic principles, despite his soaring rhetoric on the subject in foreign affairs. They conclude with a harrumph: “Either he believes in democracy, or he doesn’t.” Riiiiight. The entire editorial is written without a hint that there might actually be some constitutional difficulties in the way of giving D.C. its own full-fledged members of Congress. Insuperable difficulties, in fact, as I have written (and so have others). But the Post can’t let a little thing like the Constitution get in the way. You know, that same Constitution it thinks it rises to defend when the president tries to prosecute a war without the entanglements of civilian due process . . .