Freshman Andrew Pazdon, a Hatchet columnist, argues that for D.C., getting a Congressional vote and gun rights do go hand in hand.
“In a city filled with big egos, the District’s government should not have the biggest one. It has to accept the fact that, until there is a Constitutional amendment, it is subject to the supreme authority of Congress. If the District wants the liberty to have votes in the Congress that it hosts, then it should accept the fact that owning a useable firearm is also a liberty that should not continue to be abridged. “
It is hard to know where to start. I applaud you for embarking on an education. I recommend that you start with courses in history of the colonial era and the American Revolution. There you will learn, among other things, about an act of the British Parliament (The Declaratory Act of 1766, qv) in which the British nation’s legislature unwarrantedly tried to arrogate to themselves Absolute Power “in all cases whatsoever” over an un-represented minority of the British nation’s population who lived in the American colonies. The colonists resisted, and thereby established perhaps the most fundamental principle of participatory government: That “Just power [ie, legitimate power] derives from the Consent of the Governed”.
For some reason, which is still debated, the founders of the new nations similarly attempted to arrogate to themselves(See the “District Clause, Article I, Section 8, Clause 17), “in all cases whatsoever”, an Absolute Power over an un-represented minority living in the new capital of the nation, creating what has become America’s last colony.
“[Congress], with an army to enforce her tyranny, has declared that she has a right (not only to tax) but “to bind us in all cases whatsoever,” and if being bound in that manner, is not slavery, then is there not such a thing as slavery upon earth. Even the expression is impious; for so unlimited a power can belong only to God.” (you can Google that, and explore the context in which it was written, on your own).
Just because Congress “can” tread on us, does not give them the right to do so. The right to have an opportunity to consent to the the laws under which we all must live is an inalienable (innate, inherent, intrinsic) right, without which there IS, by definition, no freedom. One cannot be subject, “in all cases whatsoever”, to laws imposed by outsiders from elsewhere, and still be “free”. Our government is a social contract (qv) in which we agree to abide by the majority concensus, with certain rights protected for the minority (ie, The Bill of Rights). But the very term “consensus” presupposes that our government “of the people, by the people, for the people” includes, not just some, but ALL of the people.
DC denizens have been excluded for the past 200-plus years from participating in their own country (since 1801). This is why they can say, ruefully, that the Congress of the United States is not really their Congress, since they have had neither voice nor vote in it since 1801; that the courts and the Court of the United States are not their courts, since they have had no say in the laws being enforced, the operations of the courts, nor the naming of the officers that operate them, since 1801; and that even the Constitution of the United States is not their Constitution, really, since they have had no say in any of the Amendments made since 1801 (Amendments 12-27). But it is still their country, and they insist on being included equally in the future national consensus.
DC was part and parcel, progeny and Posterity, for whom the Founders pledged their Lives, their Fortunes, and their Sacred Honor” to secure Liberty.
Oh, and finally, I think you meant “conscience”, though I am sure you have a “conscious” also.
Thank you for your comment and your good wishes on my education.
However, I embarked on an education many years ago so I’m not as inept at life as you appear to think I am. I’m quite well versed in colonial history, so any such course would be redundant as were your plethora of quotations.
I would suggest that you reread what I have to say. I fully support DC voting rights, but I believe that it is important to know what the Constitution has to say about the District. It is, after all, supreme law. We cannot pick and choose which parts adhere to for our own personal gain. We cannot also take writings that have no legal precedent and elevate them to a level that outweighs the Constitution. If that were the case then anything intelligent that I or anyone else would write would be law without the “consensus” you so deeply admire.
The fact of the matter is, like it or not, that DC is a territory of the national government. I’m sorry but that’s the way life is. That is not to say that it’s citizens and inhabitants don’t matter, quite the contrary. But was does matter is recognizing the situation and playing by the rules. You can banter all you want about life and liberty all you want, but that does not change the status quo.
Thank you for the correction of conscious, it has been noted.