To WV Public Broadcasting
"Connecting Communities"
An admirable goal, but considering that WV Public Broadcasting consistently, persistently and insistently refuses to acknowledge that they EXCLUDE me (and more than a half-million of my neighbors, ordinary Americans all) from participation in the country of my birth, the hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance are overwhelming.
I spend every weekend (given my work schedule, that amounts to 6-7 days out of every two weeks, or nearly half my time) in WV, much of it listening to WV Public Radio. I am a native of Wisconsin, and, inspired largely by JFK's "Ask not what your country can do for you" line, have spent the last 35 years of my life serving the people of the fifty States. In spite of my pretty well-established bona fides as a loyal American, and in spite of the ostensible principle of "Consent of the Governed" upon which our participatory form of government is founded, WV Public Radio refuses to acknowledge, recognize, or respect the principle that the roughly one-in-600 Americans who happen to live in DC, have the same fundamental and inalienable rights to participate in our nation as the other 599 who live elsewhere, whether it be in the fifty states, or as expatriates abroad.
This stance is unprincipled, and hypocritical. Shame on you!
Consent of the Governed. Equality, Nothing More, but Equality, Nothing Less. "Your" Constitution notwithstanding (DC denizens have had no input to "your" constitution since 1801, so it becomes less and less "our" constitution with every amendment into which we DC denizens have had no input), those principles, and those rights, are innate, inherent, intrinsic, ....inalienable. What is lacking is YOUR respect for and recognition of that fact. Again, shame on you for being such ill-informed and unprincipled citizens as to let this situation persist for this long.
Until DC denizens are allowed to participate equally (perhaps, at least similarly to the other expatriate Americans abroad), DC stands for "Decline Cooperation".
No Pledge for YOU!
Saturday, October 23, 2010
Thursday, October 14, 2010
An Alternative Solution
At the very least, residents of DC should, under the fundamental principle of " ...Just Power derives from the Consent of the Governed...", be allowed, as are military personnel and (other) expatriates, to participate in developing the national consensus by voting in the State of their choice, whether or not they actually reside there at the moment. Just let them each individually affiliate with a single State at the time of each census, and vote there absentee, during the following decade.
And DC should have the same degree of autonomy that other States have. No state can be compelled to surrender their individual sovereignty absent a constitutional amendment ratified by three fourths of the other states. Similarly, DC should have to submit to the power of Congress on individual issues only when the compelling national interest is such that a three-fourths vote of both houses can demonstrate an overwhelming national consensus that the compelling national interest requires DC to do so.
At the very least, residents of DC should, under the fundamental principle of " ...Just Power derives from the Consent of the Governed...", be allowed, as are military personnel and (other) expatriates, to participate in developing the national consensus by voting in the State of their choice, whether or not they actually reside there at the moment. Just let them each individually affiliate with a single State at the time of each census, and vote there absentee, during the following decade.
And DC should have the same degree of autonomy that other States have. No state can be compelled to surrender their individual sovereignty absent a constitutional amendment ratified by three fourths of the other states. Similarly, DC should have to submit to the power of Congress on individual issues only when the compelling national interest is such that a three-fourths vote of both houses can demonstrate an overwhelming national consensus that the compelling national interest requires DC to do so.
Monday, October 11, 2010
In response to the following post...
http://q-thesophist.blogspot.com/2010/10/dc-voting-rights.html
"I have a proposal to address the long-festering issue of DC voting rights.
First let me frame the issue:
As a libertarian, I believe that the citizens residing in Washington DC have the inalienable right to have a voice in choosing their elected representatives.
But, I also believe that Washington DC was created sui generis to be our national capitol, outside the jurisdiction of any state. Therefore DC statehood as a remedy completely misses the point. Two new Democrat Senators is also a non-starter to Republicans who would have to approve such a measure.
My proposal: let all members of the District of Columbia select a ‘state of residence’ in which they will vote for Senate and House candidates. Their votes will also count toward presidential electors in that state. This is akin to the way military service members can select a state of residence regardless of where they are actually assigned.
This does one main thing. It ensures that the citizens votes will actually count. The voting rights activists say they want only equal representation in Congress. Conservatives say, “move to a state." I say they can have what they want, without having to move.
It is ironically great for conservatives. If you are a conservative resident of the District, your vote will never count (I think 98% of Washington DC voters voted for President Obama.) The democratic primary for mayor is (for all intents and purposes) the election for mayor. This is depressing for conservative residents. At least under my system, those conservative residents could cast their votes elsewhere, perhaps a battleground state where they will matter.
Ultimate control of the city should rest with Congress, as it is a federal enclave. Practically, they can delegate that responsibility on a day-to-day basis to the mayor and city council. But DC should never be seen as a state or near state. It is not. If the residents want their vote to matter, we can make that happen. If they want more, too bad.
It is terribly ironic that the overwhelmingly democratic residents of DC usually enthusiastically and unquestioningly support the Left’s agenda of centralized planning and strong federal control. Yet when it comes time to walk the walk, they complain about the federal government’s plenary power over them, and insist they want independence and self government...
... there is a teachable moment in there somewhere."
http://q-thesophist.blogspot.com/2010/10/dc-voting-rights.html
"Friday, October 8, 2010 DC Voting Rights"
"I have a proposal to address the long-festering issue of DC voting rights.
First let me frame the issue:
As a libertarian, I believe that the citizens residing in Washington DC have the inalienable right to have a voice in choosing their elected representatives.
But, I also believe that Washington DC was created sui generis to be our national capitol, outside the jurisdiction of any state. Therefore DC statehood as a remedy completely misses the point. Two new Democrat Senators is also a non-starter to Republicans who would have to approve such a measure.
My proposal: let all members of the District of Columbia select a ‘state of residence’ in which they will vote for Senate and House candidates. Their votes will also count toward presidential electors in that state. This is akin to the way military service members can select a state of residence regardless of where they are actually assigned.
This does one main thing. It ensures that the citizens votes will actually count. The voting rights activists say they want only equal representation in Congress. Conservatives say, “move to a state." I say they can have what they want, without having to move.
It is ironically great for conservatives. If you are a conservative resident of the District, your vote will never count (I think 98% of Washington DC voters voted for President Obama.) The democratic primary for mayor is (for all intents and purposes) the election for mayor. This is depressing for conservative residents. At least under my system, those conservative residents could cast their votes elsewhere, perhaps a battleground state where they will matter.
Ultimate control of the city should rest with Congress, as it is a federal enclave. Practically, they can delegate that responsibility on a day-to-day basis to the mayor and city council. But DC should never be seen as a state or near state. It is not. If the residents want their vote to matter, we can make that happen. If they want more, too bad.
It is terribly ironic that the overwhelmingly democratic residents of DC usually enthusiastically and unquestioningly support the Left’s agenda of centralized planning and strong federal control. Yet when it comes time to walk the walk, they complain about the federal government’s plenary power over them, and insist they want independence and self government...
... there is a teachable moment in there somewhere."
- "This is akin to the way military service members can select a state of residence regardless of where they are actually assigned." It is also the way that all (other) expatriate Americans vote (absentee, in the state of their last residence). DC residents are not residents of the "united states", they are effectively expatriates. Additionally, I would add that Congress' plenary power over the District should be limited in the same manner as limits on permanently imposing the general consensus on the minority that may disagree, via constitutional amendment.... It takes a three quarters vote to ratify a Constitutional amendment. It should take a three quarters vote of both houses (representing a compelling national consensus) to impose Congressional oversight over the free people who reside in the District. If these two changes were made, I'd be happy, as a District resident. An equal voice in national affairs (having one congressional representative and two senators, as does every other American), and having an equal degree of local autonomy with residents of the states, would, in my view, suffice.
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Which of these quotes is not American?
"That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity;"
Virginia Bill of Rights
" That elections of members to serve as representatives of the people, in assembly, ought to be free; and that all men, having sufficient evidence of permanent common interest with, and attachment to, the community, have the right of suffrage, and cannot be taxed or deprived of their property for publick uses without their own consent, or that of their representatives so elected, nor bound by any law to which they have not, in like manner, assented, for the publick good."
Virginia Bill of Rights
"That no free government, or the blessing of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue, and by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles."
Virginia Bill of Rights
"Bad principles in a Govt. tho slow are sure in their operation, and will gradually destroy it."
A. Hamilton
"Equal laws, protecting equal rights, are found, as they ought to be presumed, the best guarantee of loyalty and love of country;..."
J. Madison
"[T]he right of electing the members of the government constitutes more particularly the essence of a free and responsible government."
J. Madison
"[M]en cannot be justly bound by laws, in making which they have no share."
J. Madison
" Extreme cases of oppression justify... a resort to the original right of resistance, a right belonging to every community, under every form of Government..."
J. Madison
Friday, February 19, 2010
Thursday, February 18, 2010
First principles? Like Consent of the Governed?
"The conservatism of the Declaration asserts self-evident truths based on the laws of nature and nature’s God. It defends life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It traces authority to the consent of the governed."
From "The Mount Vernon Statement", February, 2010
And yet half-a-million-plus Americans have been Governed Without Consent, for more than two centuries, their participation in the national consensus denied, their inalienable (innate, inherent, intrinsic) right as free citizens to a fair and equal vote with the rest of their countrymen in determining the affairs of the nation unrecognized and un-respected. Artificial, anachronistic, and arbitrary provisions notwithstanding, under the First Principle of "Consent of the Governed", the national legislature has no legitimate right or authority to assert Absolute Power, as of 1801 (as in "Congress shall have the power ... to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over such District"), than the British Parliament had in 1766 to assert similar power over a similarly unrepresented minority (at the time) of the British nation. No legitimate basis exists to exclude otherwise eligible citizens from full participation in the national debate and concensus simply because of location or proximity. Concepts such as court eunuchs and royal demense are antiquated and feudal, with no place in a government conceptually based on participatory principles such as "All men are created equal". Treating fellow citizens and countrymen in effect as house-slaves, a lower caste, outcasts, expatriates, pariahs and/or exiles, simply because of the location of their residence, diminishes the honor of the nation, and the legitimacy of the government.
"The conservatism of the Declaration asserts self-evident truths based on the laws of nature and nature’s God. It defends life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It traces authority to the consent of the governed."
From "The Mount Vernon Statement", February, 2010
And yet half-a-million-plus Americans have been Governed Without Consent, for more than two centuries, their participation in the national consensus denied, their inalienable (innate, inherent, intrinsic) right as free citizens to a fair and equal vote with the rest of their countrymen in determining the affairs of the nation unrecognized and un-respected. Artificial, anachronistic, and arbitrary provisions notwithstanding, under the First Principle of "Consent of the Governed", the national legislature has no legitimate right or authority to assert Absolute Power, as of 1801 (as in "Congress shall have the power ... to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over such District"), than the British Parliament had in 1766 to assert similar power over a similarly unrepresented minority (at the time) of the British nation. No legitimate basis exists to exclude otherwise eligible citizens from full participation in the national debate and concensus simply because of location or proximity. Concepts such as court eunuchs and royal demense are antiquated and feudal, with no place in a government conceptually based on participatory principles such as "All men are created equal". Treating fellow citizens and countrymen in effect as house-slaves, a lower caste, outcasts, expatriates, pariahs and/or exiles, simply because of the location of their residence, diminishes the honor of the nation, and the legitimacy of the government.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Making Representation Happen
There are MANY ways to accomplish DC representation, but ALL must pass muster with the residents of the fifty states, and NONE depend in any way on the opinions of we DC residents. (If that isn’t close to slavery, I don’t know what IS).
But here’s a suggestion, anyway.
Since expatriate Americans are allowed to vote in the State of their last residence, why not create a similar allowance for (expatriate) DC residents? Allow them to “affiliate” with one of the states and vote there. After all, it does say “people ‘of’ the several states”, not people “residing in” the several states. This would alleviate the partisan problems of making DC a state, or retroceding it to Maryland. I could have moved from my home state to anywhere else in the WORLD (except Washington, DC) and continued voting for the last thirty-five years. And the people of DC are clearly “of” the several states, as opposed to being the people “of” the Asian steppes, or “of” the African savannah, or “of” the Argentinian pampas, or “of” the (Ant-)Arctic tundra.
Look up the definition of the word “of”.
And if you want to alleviate or mitigate an even wider disparity, allow them to affiliate only with the –smaller– states; Wyoming has two Senators for only about half a million people, whereas California has only two Senators for well over 25 million, a greater than fifty-to-one disparity.
That solution, along with a more restrictive limit on the local power of the Congress over DC (for example, make them pass exclusive legislation over DC “in all cases whatsoever” by a super-majority of both houses, if it is for such a compelling national interest!), would resolve most if not all of the objections to the present situation.
Power corrupts, and Absolute Power, “in all cases whatsoever”, corrupts absolutely. Government without Consent is Tyranny.
There are MANY ways to accomplish DC representation, but ALL must pass muster with the residents of the fifty states, and NONE depend in any way on the opinions of we DC residents. (If that isn’t close to slavery, I don’t know what IS).
But here’s a suggestion, anyway.
Since expatriate Americans are allowed to vote in the State of their last residence, why not create a similar allowance for (expatriate) DC residents? Allow them to “affiliate” with one of the states and vote there. After all, it does say “people ‘of’ the several states”, not people “residing in” the several states. This would alleviate the partisan problems of making DC a state, or retroceding it to Maryland. I could have moved from my home state to anywhere else in the WORLD (except Washington, DC) and continued voting for the last thirty-five years. And the people of DC are clearly “of” the several states, as opposed to being the people “of” the Asian steppes, or “of” the African savannah, or “of” the Argentinian pampas, or “of” the (Ant-)Arctic tundra.
Look up the definition of the word “of”.
And if you want to alleviate or mitigate an even wider disparity, allow them to affiliate only with the –smaller– states; Wyoming has two Senators for only about half a million people, whereas California has only two Senators for well over 25 million, a greater than fifty-to-one disparity.
That solution, along with a more restrictive limit on the local power of the Congress over DC (for example, make them pass exclusive legislation over DC “in all cases whatsoever” by a super-majority of both houses, if it is for such a compelling national interest!), would resolve most if not all of the objections to the present situation.
Power corrupts, and Absolute Power, “in all cases whatsoever”, corrupts absolutely. Government without Consent is Tyranny.
Tuesday, February 02, 2010
"Protect our democracy" in light of Citizens United ruling...????
PROTECT our Democracy??? How about RESTORE our democracy??? We denizens of DC have been living under the despotic constitutionalism of the District Clause (compare with the Declaratory Act of 1766; in both cases a national legislature arrogates to itself illegitimate, unwarranted absolute power over an unrepresented national minority) for over 200 years.
PROTECT our Democracy??? How about RESTORE our democracy??? We denizens of DC have been living under the despotic constitutionalism of the District Clause (compare with the Declaratory Act of 1766; in both cases a national legislature arrogates to itself illegitimate, unwarranted absolute power over an unrepresented national minority) for over 200 years.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
DC: Despotic Constitutionalism
"When ... man governs himself that is self-government; but when he governs himself, and also governs another man, that is more than self-government---that is despotism."
A. Lincoln, 1854
"Congress shall have the power ... To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over such District as shall become the seat of Government..."
Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, U. S. Constitution
"When ... man governs himself that is self-government; but when he governs himself, and also governs another man, that is more than self-government---that is despotism."
A. Lincoln, 1854
"Congress shall have the power ... To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over such District as shall become the seat of Government..."
Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, U. S. Constitution
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)