Bench Memos

What’s the Constitution Between Friends?

Like a broken record, the Washington Post is back yet again today to press the unconstitutional case for full voting representation for the District of Columbia in the U.S. House of Representatives. And get this: the Post says that “opponents of D.C. voting rights have latched onto the only argument they can make with a straight face — that the bill is unconstitutional.” Um, yeah. Straighter faces are not necessary. Are they? Next we are told this: “Former judges and constitutional scholars such as Kenneth Starr, Patricia Wald and Viet Dinh, not to mention the American Bar Association, believe the bill is constitutional.” That “not to mention the ABA” has me in stitches, since the track record of the ABA in making sound pronouncements on the meaning of the Constitution is, frankly, abysmal, more or less since the organization’s founding. But it gets worse. The editorial ends this way: “We concede that serious people hold the contrary view. [Thanks! See this critique of the Starr-Wald argument.] No court has ever weighed in on the D.C. Voting Rights Act [how could any court have done this, since the act hasn’t passed yet?], so the constitutional question is open. That, though, is an issue for the courts to decide, in the event of a legal challenge. It should not be an excuse for Congress to continue to deny a basic right to more than half a million people.” Why is it “an issue for the courts to decide”? And why, in heaven’s name, should the Congress use the excuse of judicial supremacy as a reason to pass a bill that is unconstitutional on its face, under its skin, and at its heart? If members of Congress believe the bill is unconstitutional, or even doubtful, they should vote against it and look for another solution to alleged plight of D.C. residents (like making them Marylanders again). Not that Congress and the executive haven’t kicked tough constitutional issues to the courts before, on the wrongheaded pretext that they are “for the courts to decide” when as often as not they are no such thing. Keith Whittington of Princeton has in fact just published an entire book apparently devoted to this irresponsible practice. I look forward to reading it.

Matthew J. Franck — Matthew J. Franck is the Director of the William E. and Carol G. Simon Center on Religion and the Constitution at the Witherspoon Institute in Princeton, New Jersey.

Most Popular

Politics & Policy

Kat Timpf Chased Out of Brooklyn Bar

Fox News personality and National Review contributor Kat Timpf was forced to leave a bar in Brooklyn over the weekend after a woman she had never met became enraged upon learning she worked in conservative media. Timpf, who has twice previously been harassed while socializing in New York City, first described ... Read More
U.S.

The Present American Revolution

The revolution of 1776 sought to turn a colony of Great Britain into a new independent republic based on constitutionally protected freedom. It succeeded with the creation of the United States. The failed revolution of 1861, by a slave-owning South declaring its independence from the Union, sought to bifurcate ... Read More
Film & TV

The Dan Crenshaw Moment

Given the spirit of our times, things could have gone so differently. On November 3, when Saturday Night Live comic Pete Davidson mocked Texas Republican Dan Crenshaw’s eye patch, saying he looked like a “hit man in a porno movie” — then adding, “I know he lost his eye in war or whatever” — it was a ... Read More