The basic issue is Consent of the Governed (taxation is just one aspect of being governed). While the issue discussed here relates to the District specifically and primarily, the issue generally potentially relates to a wider circumstance. ANY circumstance of government without consent (as embodied in free, fair, and regular elections) constitutes a deficit in the legitimacy of the governing power. The extent of the deficit in governmental legitimacy relates directly to the extent to which the governed are denied the opportunity participate in the general consensus, by expressing their will to either grant or withhold their consent toward the government and laws that rule them.
This fundamental principle of Consent of the Governed trumps legislative and even constitutional provisions (”…whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it….”). When the principle of consent is violated consistently and persistently, “a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires” that something be done about it. To ignore, to stall, to temporize, or to confine the endless debate to arbitrary, unprincipled, and archaic provisions of “law” and “constitution” is unacceptable. Such provisions include the District Clause, which was debatable at best when instituted, and whose purpose and necessity today is even much less compelling than it was in the late 1700s. The District Clause is eerily similar to the Declaratory Act of 1766, in that each unwarrantedly arrogates to the national legislature an unlimited Absolute Power “in all cases whatsoever” over an un-represented minority of the nation.
Our Founders recommended that in the final analysis we be guided by fundamental principles: “a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles” (Mason, Virginia Bill of Rights, Section 15); “A frequent reference to fundamental principles is absolutely necessary to preserve the blessings of Liberty,…” (Franklin); “It was a principle in the Bills of Rights, that first principles might be resorted to.” (Madison).
We have corrected a number of situations over the years where laws and constitutional provisions conflicted with and violated first principles: for example, counting non-whites as three-fifths, though “all men are created equal”; and refusing the vote to blacks, women, and young adults, though “all men are created equal”. Now we need to continue that process of creating a “more perfect union”, by conceding and re-confirming that we believe that ” all men are created equal” and that they have certain inalienable (innate, inherent, intrinsic) rights. Those rights include the right to an equal opportunity with their fellow countrymen, to participate in developing a national consensus, by expressing consent (or withholding that consent), to the laws under which we all must live; EVEN if they live, whether by choice or happenstance, in the so-called District of Columbia.
As it is, the Congress of the United States is not the Congress of DC denizens: they have had no voice or vote in it for over 200 years. The Courts of the United States are not today the Courts of DC denizens, as they have neither had a say in the laws nor in the appointment of the officers who enforce them; even the Constitution of the United States is hardly the Constitution of DC denizens, since they have had no say in Amendments 12 through 27.
This is the grievous problem of legitimacy, and of alienation, disillusion, and disaffection, that eats at the heart of the nation’s capital. DC denizens have not abandoned their country…they have been cast out, and for the flimsiest of reasons. Failure to deal with this issue in a most timely fashion gives the lie to the noble concepts on which the nation was founded, such as the Motto on the building housing our Supreme Court, “Equal Justice Under Law”.
The failure over the past two centuries to provide for equal DC representation is an issue that transcends the words and the interminable discussions of Law and Constitutionality, and goes to the heart of actions (or the lack of actions) on Principle. It is an American sham, and an American shame.
F4S
· 7 months ago
My "It's Tea Time" post was not put there in order to slam any one political administration in America solely. Many administrations have fiscally failed the people and the American Church to various degrees. We just want the abuse of authority in DC to stop (and having Congress sign the pork bill as of late without the members even being allowed to read it is simply wrong). I protest the stupidity! We want less Gov and less taxes so that we can better get the Gospel Message out farther and faster to needy people. Our country used to be the number one missionary-sending Country around the world, and now we are not. Many have been distracted away from God, the Bible and righteous living. It's time for half-committed Christians to humble themselves, repent, to turn back to Christ, to pray for others and to seek the Lord's face daily. It's time for us to example what we preach too. Christians and other Americans do not need the Government to support us. We’ve been paying high taxes for many decades but our roads are still not fixed and our next generation is being slaughtered instead. We just need to work, protect our people, be wise and quit being lazy. Less Government in our land just works better for Heaven's sake!
All Comments
The basic issue is Consent of the Governed (taxation is just one aspect of being governed). While the issue discussed here relates to the District specifically and primarily, the issue generally potentially relates to a wider circumstance. ANY circumstance of government without consent (as embodied in free, fair, and regular elections) constitutes a deficit in the legitimacy of the governing power. The extent of the deficit in governmental legitimacy relates directly to the extent to which the governed are denied the opportunity participate in the general consensus, by expressing their will to either grant or withhold their consent toward the government and laws that rule them.
This fundamental principle of Consent of the Governed trumps legislative and even constitutional provisions (”…whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it….”). When the principle of consent is violated consistently and persistently, “a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires” that something be done about it. To ignore, to stall, to temporize, or to confine the endless debate to arbitrary, unprincipled, and archaic provisions of “law” and “constitution” is unacceptable. Such provisions include the District Clause, which was debatable at best when instituted, and whose purpose and necessity today is even much less compelling than it was in the late 1700s. The District Clause is eerily similar to the Declaratory Act of 1766, in that each unwarrantedly arrogates to the national legislature an unlimited Absolute Power “in all cases whatsoever” over an un-represented minority of the nation.
Our Founders recommended that in the final analysis we be guided by fundamental principles: “a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles” (Mason, Virginia Bill of Rights, Section 15); “A frequent reference to fundamental principles is absolutely necessary to preserve the blessings of Liberty,…” (Franklin); “It was a principle in the Bills of Rights, that first principles might be resorted to.” (Madison).
We have corrected a number of situations over the years where laws and constitutional provisions conflicted with and violated first principles: for example, counting non-whites as three-fifths, though “all men are created equal”; and refusing the vote to blacks, women, and young adults, though “all men are created equal”. Now we need to continue that process of creating a “more perfect union”, by conceding and re-confirming that we believe that ” all men are created equal” and that they have certain inalienable (innate, inherent, intrinsic) rights. Those rights include the right to an equal opportunity with their fellow countrymen, to participate in developing a national consensus, by expressing consent (or withholding that consent), to the laws under which we all must live; EVEN if they live, whether by choice or happenstance, in the so-called District of Columbia.
As it is, the Congress of the United States is not the Congress of DC denizens: they have had no voice or vote in it for over 200 years. The Courts of the United States are not today the Courts of DC denizens, as they have neither had a say in the laws nor in the appointment of the officers who enforce them; even the Constitution of the United States is hardly the Constitution of DC denizens, since they have had no say in Amendments 12 through 27.
This is the grievous problem of legitimacy, and of alienation, disillusion, and disaffection, that eats at the heart of the nation’s capital. DC denizens have not abandoned their country…they have been cast out, and for the flimsiest of reasons. Failure to deal with this issue in a most timely fashion gives the lie to the noble concepts on which the nation was founded, such as the Motto on the building housing our Supreme Court, “Equal Justice Under Law”.
The failure over the past two centuries to provide for equal DC representation is an issue that transcends the words and the interminable discussions of Law and Constitutionality, and goes to the heart of actions (or the lack of actions) on Principle. It is an American sham, and an American shame.