Tag Archives: U.S. Constitution

Taxation without Representation

Posted on by

When American colonists rebelled against the British Empire, they complained of “taxation without representation” because the British Parliament was levying taxes to gain additional revenue from its American subjects without giving them any say or a vote on the issue.

The next time you visit Washington, DC, check out the license plates.  Residents have adopted the revolutionary slogan as part of their long battle to gain the representation in Congress that other Americans enjoy.

In 1789, the U.S. Constitution authorized Congress to “exercise exclusive legislation” over the future U.S. capitol.  This was so the federal government would be on neutral territory rather than part of a particular state.  After Maryland and Virginia agreed to give up land for the federal district (Virginia later regained its territory in 1847), Congress moved there in 1800 and Washington, DC’s residents have since had no representation in Congress and could not even vote for president until 1961.

As DC has grown into a densely populated city, more are questioning the district’s founding arrangement.  About 600,000 DC residents pay taxes and serve in the military but lack a vote in Congress.  Congress also reviews and modifies their local budget and annuls any local laws it does not agree with.  

So why not simply give DC voting representation?  Politics is partly to blame.  It is all but assured that any DC representative would be a Democrat, and Republicans are well aware of that.  A compromise worked out over the past few years to simultaneously allocate a safe Republican seat in the House of Representatives fell apart April 20 over objections to an amendment that would have repealed DC’s gun control laws.  Utah, who would have gained the additional Republican, will get its new seat anyway, thanks to the 2010 Federal Census that will document its increased population.  The solution also denied DC residents voting representation in the Senate.  (Consider that Wyoming, population 544,000, has a Representative and two Senators.) 

Another proposal is DC’s retrocession to Maryland, which gives them Maryland’s two Senators and their own Representative.  However this would require a U.S. constitutional amendment and Maryland is reluctant to take on the responsibility and costs of governance, considering its own budget constraints and because it already has a huge metropolis (Baltimore).  Some advocate full statehood, but along with needing an amendment, detractors says this undermines the original neutral territory idea for the nation’s capitol.

There’s much more to this, but I’m out of space.  What do you think is a fair solution?

Free Speech and Corporate “Big Mouths”

Posted on by

I love looking at political cartoons; in my opinion, they sum up the pure essence of any political debate. My most recent favorite shows a corporate titan with a loudspeaker that completely dwarfs that of an ordinary citizen. You can see it here at “Political Irony.” To me, this Steve Sack cartoon aptly addresses the fallout that may result from the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that finds no difference between a corporation and an individual in terms of free speech and allows unlimited corporate spending in elections. (You can read the Supreme Court decision (PDF, 2.57MB) on “Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission” on the court’s Web site.)

In the 5-to-4 decision, the majority of the Justices cite the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech. They hold that the government does not have the authority to limit businesses’ right to free political speech. The dissenting Justices, however, say that allowing unlimited corporate money to flow into election campaigns will “buy” politicians and corrupt democracy. The ruling potentially also opens the door for foreign entities to contribute to campaigns.

President Obama quickly criticized the January 21 Supreme Court decision, saying it “gives the special interests and their lobbyists even more power in Washington — while undermining the influence of average Americans who make small contributions to support their preferred candidates.”

Obama addressing crowd

During his State of the Union Address, President Obama criticizes a Supreme Court ruling permitting more corporate involvement in elections.

During his January 27 State of the Union Address — with the Supreme Court Justices sitting right in front of him — President Obama spoke again against the court’s decision.

“With all due deference to separation of powers,” the president said, “last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections. I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people.”

The president also urged Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct the problems he believes the Supreme Court decision will generate. We’ll have to see if Congress will respond to the president’s request.

Freedom of speech is a cherished human right in democracies, but — let’s face it — some people have bigger mouths and louder voices, especially when those voices are backed by significant money. Should the free speech of “big money” be limited to keep elections and political debate fair? Should foreign entities play a role in U.S. elections? Where do you draw the line?

On Eminent Domain

Posted on by

Back in my lawyer days, I frequently represented local governments. From time to time this would oblige me to prosecute an action “in eminent domain.” Eminent domain is legal speak for “the town needs a piece of your front yard to widen the traffic-clogged roadway that passes by your house.” The state’s ability to take land for a public purpose is an unquestioned attribute of sovereignty, limited in the U.S. by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution: “…nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

From the fledgling attorney’s point of view, eminent domain cases were a way to pad one’s record. You couldn’t actually lose one. It was not unlike American college football, where State U. runs up a string of 64-0 victories against the hapless opposition (Marylanders: this does not apply to you. The idea is to win against the hapless opposition.) Homeowners might argue that their property was worth more compensation, but not that the town could not take the property. Many tried, and were crushed by my sage legal argumentation: “I represent the town. I win.”

But the key was that the state could only take private property for a public purpose. Until, many feel, Kelo v. City of New London. In that 2005 case, the Supreme Court held that the city of New London, Connecticut, could exercise eminent domain against private property —what some considered a poor, unsightly neighborhood — and then transfer that property to another private owner who promised to “redevelop” it into more desirable (and only tenuously public) uses that Justice Thomas characterized as “suspiciously agreeable to the Pfizer Corporation,” which had recently built a facility nearby.

Big-time political disputes ensued. Had the high court defined “public use” so broadly as to drain the constitutional language of all meaning? Some 42 states responded by enacting laws narrowing the eminent domain power.

But now comes news from New York, where the Court of Appeals will hear a Brooklyn case in which the state seeks to seize private property (another “blighted” neighborhood) in favor of a $4.9 billion project to include residential and commercial buildings … and a $170 million basketball arena for the NBA New Jersey Nets franchise, who would thereupon move to Brooklyn. Just to complete the picture, the Nets soon may be sold to Russian billionaire Mikhail Prokhorov, who has offered $200 million for an 80% stake in the Nets, and 45% in the new stadium.

My questions: has eminent domain gone too far? How ought we define “public use?” And can the tender egos of young lawyers stand losing a few cases?