Unconstitutional D.C. Voting Rights Bill

In The Washington Post, several Congressmen argue that although the Constitution says that Congressmen and Senators must represent “states,” it does not really mean what it says, and that Congress therefore can give the District of Columbia a voting member of the House of Representatives.

Not troubled by inconsistency, they simultaneously argue that the District should be given a seat in the House, because they claim it is like a “state for constitutional purposes,” and yet claim that doing so would not establish a precedent that could be used to give the District a vote in the Senate, where the Constitution guarantees each state two Senators.

They  don’t explain why Washington, D.C., which has only 500,000 residents (much less than the typical Congressional district), is entitled to a Congressman, while Puerto Rico, which has four million people, is not.

I have previously explained why there are serious problems with the bill, both in terms of fairness and because of its unconstitutionality.