POWERS vs. RIGHTS

[The following was sent to the Richmond (Va.) Times-Dispatch around March 19, 2009. It would not run because the later piece about public prayer was published earlier.]

In his vitriolic March 17 rant against the collectivist sins of the 56-day-old Obama Administration, DeWitt Taylor Brooks lectures us about the multiple violations of the US Constitution.as he (mis)understands it. He sternly warns us that "the 10th Amendment states anything [my emphasis] not delegated specifically to the United States ... are [sic] reserved to the states and to the people!" He further declares that "I've found nothing about giving the District of Columbia a voting seat in the House of Representatives. In fact, the Constitution specifically forbids this action."

These and other statements in his pathetic letter betray a profound ignorance of the Constitution that is, unfortunately shared by a large number of people who should know better. This ignorance is most often represented by frequent and common assertions that government officials have a presumed "right" to do a particular thing when, in fact, our Founders took great pains to draw a clear distinction between the expansive "rights" of individuals and the limited "powers" exercised by governments and their minions. Governments (and officials) do not have "rights" as such. Only people have "rights." Governments either have "powers" or they do not.

Yet, there is widespread evidence of the presumption of government POWER to act and a concurrent notion that RIGHTS are limited unless specifically expressed. This is exactly backward. The 10th Amendment does not use the word "anything" but instead makes it clear that POWERS not specifically granted to the United States are reserved to the states and to the people, and the 9th Amendment says that the enumeration of certain RIGHTS in the Constitution shall not disparage other unstated rights retained by the people.

DC residents should not need a specific grant of their congressional representation under the Constitution, nor should they need statehood either. The residents of what was originally laid off as the "District of Columbia" incorporated both citizens of Maryland and of Virginia. The area south of the Potomac River was ceded back to Virginia in the late 1700's and became Arlington County, and its citizens continue to enjoy full congressional representation, though the County was initially part of the District of Columbia. One needs only to look at the map to see that.

Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution empowers the Congress "to exercise exclusive Legislation [not jurisdiction] ... over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States ... become the Seat of the Government...." Our Founders were very precise in their use of language, so we should not arrogantly infer meanings not expressed in their writings. There is nothing whatsoever in there about the people residing in that District surrendering their congressional representation, so Mr. Brooks's assertion that "the Constitution specifically forbids" that is utter nonsense.

I would suggest that not only do the residents of the District have the unfettered right to have a voting representative in the House, but also that they are entitled to continue voting for Maryland's two senators since neither Congress nor the State of Maryland ever had any POWER to revoke their congressional representation. Conventional wisdom, even if 222 years old, can be still wrong.