Decline Cooperation...

Re: Blood Donations Desperately Needed
http://www.wtop.com/?sid=217614&nid=25
I was born and raised in Wisconsin, moved to DC at age 24. I am a law-abiding contributing citizen, have given MANY pints of blood over the years, I pay my taxes, and have spent a career as a public servant. And how am I treated in return? -- like a felon, I have had my voting rights suspended for the past 30 years.
We have "progressed" in this "democracy", from counting non-whites as 3/5ths of a person to actually letting them vote; we have overcome generations of tradition by letting the female gender have an equal say in national and local affairs; we have extended the franchise to 18-21 year-olds. It is illegal to discriminate on the basis of race, gender, age, national origin, sexual orientation, etc., but it is still legal (and embedded in the Constitution to boot ?!?) to discriminate against residents of the 200 _ _ ZIP CODE??.
In the Declaratory Act of 1766 the British Parliament asserted absolute power "in all cases whatsover" over the unrepresented 13 colonies. They rebelled. In the Constitution (the "District Clause"), Congress asserts the same power over the unrepresented citizens of the District. As American Patriot Thomas Paine said, "...if this be not slavery, there is no such thing as slavery upon the earth. Even the expression is impious, for so unlimited a power belongs only to God."

Disenfranchised Citizenry? Decline Cooperation! In other words, you want my blood, give me my (inalienable, inherent, intrinsic) VOTE!!!

Universal Suffrage - Sovereignty of the People

"When a nation modifies the elective qualification, it may easily be foreseen that sooner or later that qualification will be entirely abolished. There is no more invariable rule in the history of society: the farther electoral rights are extended, the more is felt the need of extending them; for after each concession the strength of the democracy increases, and its demands increase with its strength. The ambition of those who are below the appointed rate is irritated in exact proportion to the great number of those who are above it. The exception at last becomes the rule, concession follows concession, and no stop can be made short of universal suffrage."
Democracy in America, Alexis de Toqueville, 1835

Nothing can reach the heart that is steeled with prejudice...

"majestic" and "plenary"... Words used by Judge Kenneth Starr in his testimony of June 23, 2004 before the House Committee on Government Reform, supporting the view that the Constitution permits Congress to provide for DC voting representation legislatively.

Given that the District Clause closely resembled the Declaratory Act, and therefore also usurps the inalienable (inherent, intrinsic) right of the people to grant or withold consent of their government through representatives that they select, we might choose slightly different words to describe the situation, such as, maybe,

for MAJESTIC--
Monarchic??
Undemocratic??
Totalitarian??
Despotic??
Tyrannical??
Autocratic...??
Dictatorial??
Authoritarian??

And for PLENARY--
Comprehensive??
Sweeping??
Overweening??
Overreaching??
Indiscriminate??
Arrogant??
Unjustified??
Overbearing??


"Yet it is folly to argue against determined hardness; eloquence may strike the ear, and the language of sorrow draw forth the tear of compassion, but nothing can reach the heart that is steeled with prejudice."
Thomas Paine, The American Crisis, Number One, December 23, 1776 (qv)

Do the right thing...

"It's the action, not the fruit of the action
that's important. You have to do the right thing.
It may not be in your power, may not be in your time,
that there'll be any fruit. But that doesn't mean
you stop doing the right thing. You may never know
what results come from your action.
But if you do nothing, there will be no results."
- Gandhi

Resistance

"Extreme cases of oppression justify… a resort to the original right of resistance, a right belonging to every community, under every form of Government…"
James Madison, Letter to N. P. Trist, December, 1831 (Madison, 1865, IV, page 206)

What, then, would be the type of resistance justified by an assertion by the U.S. Congress, under the U. S. Constitution, of the power “to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever” over a community such as Washington, D.C.? The "original right of resistance"
was exercised, under very similar conditions, by the communities of the 13 original colonies when faced with similar assertions by the British Parliament in the Declaratory Act of March, 1766 (q.v.).

Equal laws protecting equal rights...?

Was it because of fears that the denizens of Washington D.C. might prove disloyal, that they have, since 1801, been deprived of their rights to national representation and local autonomy?

Consider what a Founding Father said in that regard:

"Equal laws protecting equal rights — the best guarantee of loyalty and love of country."
James Madison, letter to Jacob de la Motta, August 1820

Now consider what might be the potential, eventual result of the LACK of equality under the laws, and the DENIAL of equal rights...