Who Cares What the Constitution Says?

So much for that phrase about defending the Constitution of the United States that Mr. Obama uttered not once, but twice, back in January.

President Obama has made clear that he would sign into law the so-called “D.C. Voting Rights Act”, which would purport to give the District of Columbia representation in the House of Representatives.

The Constitution limits representation in Congress to states. Period.

If you want to change the Constitution, have the testosterone to work for it. This slimy deal Congress is trying to work out, with Mr. Obama's approval, is beneath contempt.

Meanwhile, As You Were Bitching About the Budget ...

Just got in from a day that required six hours of travel. The upside is I got to listen to a good deal of talk radio. The downside is that I'm almost too tired to think.

The bloated budget proposal seems to be the big thing on everyone's mind today which is why, I suppose, the U.S. Senate took today as its opportunity to pass its version of a bill that would give the District of Columbia a full-fledged voting member in the House of Representatives. The vote was 61-37, with turncoat Senators Specter, Snowe and Collins voting for it, naturally, plus Orrin Hatch (Utah gets an additional congressman in this "compromise, at least until the new census overturns everything in 2010), George Voinovich (OH) and Richard Lugar (IN).

Hell, boys, as long as we are ignoring the Constitution, which limits representation in Congress to states only, why stop at the House? Why not give D.C. two senators as well?

The House will pass its version of the bill soon, and in conference committee you can expect to see a couple of poison pill amendments, one to permanently gut the so-called Fairness Doctrine, stripped out.

In the Era of Obama not even the poor conservative dogs get scraps from under the Master's table.

Thank You, Sen. Robert Byrd

In the Dept. of Credit Where Credit is Due:

U.S. Robert Byrd, D-West Virginia, deserves praise.

Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), the longest-serving Democratic senator, is criticizing President Obama’s appointment of White House “czars” to oversee federal policy, saying these executive positions amount to a power grab by the executive branch.

In a letter to Obama on Wednesday, Byrd complained about Obama’s decision to create White House offices on health reform, urban affairs policy, and energy and climate change. Byrd said such positions “can threaten the Constitutional system of checks and balances. At the worst, White House staff have taken direction and control of programmatic areas that are the statutory responsibility of Senate-confirmed officials.”

While it's rare for Byrd to criticize a president in his own party, Byrd is a stern constitutional scholar who has always stood up for the legislative branch in its role in checking the power of the White House.

Byrd is right. If all the people who accused George W. Bush of trampling on the Constitution were consistent, they would be marching in the street against what is happening now. (And particularly during the end of his presidency, Bush made a mockery of several constitutional provisions).

Mr. Obama has thus far shown no sign of restoring Constitutional balance. He is not alone, however. Congress appears hell-bent on granting statehood privileges to the District of Columbia without amending the constitution. (See discussion of this HERE and HERE.)

Or as I remember hearing from some movie or another, "The last vestiges of the old Republic have been swept away ..."

Oklahoma Lawmakers Wasting Time?

The NRO-based blog "Bench Memos" has a post by Matthew J. Franck mildly taking Oklahoma legislators to task for House Joint Resolution 1003 which asserts, he says, that the federal government is passing laws in violation of the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

That's the amendment that says that all powers not reserved to the federal government or prohibited to the states, are reserved to the people and to the states.

Franck says the Oklahomans are right but ... so what?

But this resolution isn't much more useful than a handful of angry letters to the Tulsa newspaper. Once upon a time a state's legislature could go into high dudgeon and really affect politics in the nation's capital—as with the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, in response to the Alien and Sedition Acts (though it's widely forgotten that more states publicly disagreed with these two than agreed with them). But those were the days when state legislators chose U.S. senators, when legislatures still controlled or strongly influenced the choice of presidential electors, and when state governments in general were in a position to give national politics a hard shove just by announcing where they stood. Not so any longer. In D.C., this will hardly even be noticed.

That fact may be a result of exactly the federal depredations that Oklahoma rightly but bootlessly complains about. But the energy expended on thumping the table about the Tenth Amendment might be better spent on recruiting small-government conservatives, in Oklahoma and nationwide, to run for Congress and change things where change is possible. You say both of Oklahoma's senators and four out of its five representatives are Republicans who voted against the stimulus? That's a good start.

Actually, Matthew, conceded that you are right in every other respect, sending angry letters to the Tulsa daily newspaper is the greatest of all exercises in futility. I'm just sayin' ... At least the legislature can be reasonably sure their resolution will appear in print as they actually pass it.