Consent of the Governed

March 2004

Subject: Needed Constitutional Revision

May I take the liberty of suggesting a provision of the U. S. Constitution which is grievously in need of revision?

This country was founded on certain basic principles, one of them being that:

"governments are instituted among men - - deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." (my emphasis).

In passing the Declaratory Act in 1766, the British Parliament asserted "full power and authority to make laws and statutes of sufficient force and validity to bind the colonies and people of America, subjects of the crown of Great Britain, in all cases whatsoever." (my emphasis).

This assertion, of course, contravened the basic first principle of democracy, that power resides in the people, since the colonies were not even represented in the British Parliament. Ten years later, the colonists revolted against such an unwarranted assertion of power. American patriot Thomas Paine said it well (The American Crisis, Number One, December 1776):

“…Britain , with an army to enforce her tyranny, has declared that she has a right (not only to TAX) but "to BIND us in ALL CASES WHATSOEVER," and if being bound in that manner, is not slavery, then is there not such a thing as slavery upon earth. Even the expression is impious; for so unlimited a power can belong only to God.”

Unfortunately, ten years later, in their rush to design a new government, the Founding Fathers of the new nation failed to note, in writing the U.S. Constitution, that they were subjecting the denizens of the new nation’s capital to the same sort of colonial status they had recently overthrown, when they similarly asserted Congress’ overweening right (U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 17, the so-called "District Clause") to exercise exclusive jurisdiction, “in all cases whatsoever”, over the (un-represented) residents of Washington, DC.

Where were the guiding “first principles” such as “just power derives from the consent of the governed” when this provision was written? Had they forgotten so soon the rallying cry of the Revolution, “Taxation without representation is tyranny”?

The truth is that they are not the only ones who have overlooked the God-given rights of denizens of the nation’s capital. Over the years, through more than 200 years now, that unjust situation has persisted. Some Americans have occasionally given the matter lip-service, but nothing substantial has yet been done to right this grievous injustice.

In the current situation, the district known as Washington DC is not truly a part of the nation formed by the 50 so-named United States. Rather, the District, and the more than half a million souls inhabiting it (as large as many Congressional Districts and more populous than the State of Wyoming), is in effect a colony of the fifty united states, a place separate and unequal, un-represented at the national table, voice-less in national debates, and vote-less in national decisions.

This situation creates in DC a colonial mentality, a mentality that saps the native
energy of the local population, making them dependent on others for their subsistence, having no control over their lives. As de Tocqueville might have said, "it does not [so much] tyrannize, [as] it hinders, compromises, enervates, extinguishes, dazes, ..."

“Nor have We [DC denizens] been wanting in attention to our [American] brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.”

OR, the 50 states could simply, in fairness, justice, and equity, permit the denizens (we can't really call them citizens, not until they are treated as such) of the District to exercise their God-given rights to both representation at the national table, and local self-rule.

I suggest an amendment to clarify the Constitution, giving Americans living in the District equal representation in the House and Senate, and full local self-rule. National concerns about control over the seat of government could be assuaged by making any local self-rule provisions in the District subject to over-ride, by a vote of, shall we say, two-thirds of both houses (it currently requires only a simple majority for the Congress to “muck up” local DC affairs). This approach would reasonably protect the "consent of the governed" principle, while allowing the American nation as a whole to over-ride local DC decisions, but only when clearly necessary for the compelling national interest.

What say you?

- - - A more perfect union…???

1770 All men are created equal – no kings, no aristocracy…

- - - 1787 ........Oh, yeah, and non-whites are equal…to three-fifths of whites.
........ Yeah, and man means MAN…GROWN man!
......... And the people who live in that new capital district don’t get no say whatsoever.

1820 OK, non-white men are EQUAL! But we didn’t say they could VOTE!

1870 ALL RIGHT! Non-white men can VOTE, then! But nobody said WOMEN could!

1920 All RIGHT, ALREADY! Women can VOTE! But MEN means GROWN men. Over 21!

1970 Sheesh! A man’s a man at 18, then! Girls, too! But not those weirdos who live in DC!

2020 …????...