But it's a very good thing, I'm sure of it.

Quote: "Although volume upon volume is written to prove slavery a very good thing, we never hear of the man who wishes to take the good of it by being a slave himself" -- Abraham Lincoln

Nor do we hear of any offers by Americans outside of DC to permanently relinquish their Congressman and Senators; neither do we hear any offers to "lend" the representation of a Congressman or Senator entirely to the interests of the unrepresented denizens of DC for an extended period.

But it MUST be a good thing for DC to go unrepresented, though, because it says so in the Constitution, right? So why examine the idea critically by weighing the pros and cons, or by examining the motivations of those who created the situation, or by considering the moral consequences of egregiously violating the very "first principles" upon which the nation is founded ?

Denizens of the District

DC: Separate and unequal since 1801; where America commemorates and preserves past societal injustices by continuing to impose them anew on the daily lives of some few of their countrymen trapped in this small and anachronistic corner of today’s society.

Equal justice under law is the motto inscribed above the entrance to the Supreme Court.

Word games? Equal justice under law. Does that mean the GOAL is equal justice, provided by and resulting from a system of law? OR,instead, (as more often seems the case in a legal system preoccupied by complying with every legal technicality rather than delivering justice), does it imply that the objective of rendering equal justice is only an occasional secondary outcome, “under" (that is, subordinate to) the primary goal of meeting every possible technicality of the law? And then, of course, calling the result, by definition, “equal justice?” The answer depends on what “under” means: does it mean “resulting from” or “subordinate to”?

As the Founding Fathers noted, in a legal system truly dedicated to equal justice under (“resulting from”) law, careful consideration of the “first principles” on which the system was founded ought to trump laws, and even constitutional provisions. These first principles include, among others, such concepts as “all men are created equal” and “just power derives from the consent of the governed”. Under such a system, when the “justices” noted discrepancies between provisions of the laws and the fundamental desired outcome, equal justice, it would be their right, it would be their duty, to point out such discrepancies, and to promote their correction by ordering a modification of the system of laws that led to the deficiency. And it would be equally the duty and right of those governmental representatives entrusted with making, executing, and enforcing the laws (that is, the legislative and executive branches) to then propose, implement, execute and enforce such changes to the laws as will most surely result in the desired outcome – equal justice.

Failing that, it is the right and the duty of the People themselves to make such changes in the system, as to them shall seem most likely to effect the primary goal – equal justice.

Slave, or indentured Servant?

Indentured servants are bound to do their masters’ bidding “in all cases whatsoever,”
during the term of their servitude. So are slaves.

A primary difference between a slave and an indentured servant is that the term of servitude of an indentured servant is fixed and finite, whereas a slave’s term of servitude is indefinite and, in effect, infinite, until and unless his master chooses to set him free.

So, consider now the more than half-a million denizens of DC. Bound by the overwhelming might of their masters and countrymen, as embodied in the nation’s Constitution, they are to be ruled indefinitely, “in all cases whatsoever;” to be forced forever to do their countrymen’s bidding, without any real say whatsoever of their own, in either national or local affairs. Should they be considered indentured servants, or slaves? Clearly, one thing they are not is a free people. They cannot be free until set free (if ever) by the “noblesse oblige” (q.v.) of their masters and countrymen, the American people.

This, we call “democracy.” Surely the Founding Fathers would agree.