Report a Comment

@David C: Congress can give the District greater autonomy. Or Congress can directly govern the District as it used to. Either way, it's up to Congress to decide how it would want to proceed, because that's what the Constitution provides for. (I could also point out that it's not a stretch to argue that the District government hardly governs either best or least, but I digress.)

Likewise, both you and AdamL are confusing what federalism actually is. It's the "limited government" concept you accuse Republicans of hypocrisy because they support it for states, but not for the District.

But there's no hypocrisy there, just ignorance of the Constitution and American history.

Federalism deals with the relationship between the sovereign states and the federal government. It's part of the compact of the Constitution and why the 10th Amendment exists (and why it's cited so often by Republicans, conservatives, libertarians, and the current Tea Partiers).

But federalism has no applicability to the District of Columbia for the rather basic reason that the District is not a state.

And arguing that Congress should give DC greater autonomy "because it's the right thing to do" is hardly a winning argument. Indeed, various governments, companies, and individuals should do all sorts of things "because it's the right thing to do." But that's neither a legal requirement, nor a constitutional guarantee.

by Fritz on Jul 6, 2011 8:55 am • link • report