On Packing the U.S. Senate

In addition to an attempt to “pack” the Supreme Court of the United States, House Democrats are now attempting to pack, in a sense, the Senate. Currently, the Senate has 50 Republicans and 48 Democrats plus 2 liberal Independents. The House is voting on a bill to make the District of Colombia a State, automatically giving the new State two Senators. And since D.C. is a very liberal voting district, the two Senators would almost certainly be Democrats. This would give control of the Senate to the Democratic party.

The reason for D.C. Statehood, like the reason for increasing the number of Justices on the Supreme Court, is purely to give control of the nation to the Democratic party and to a liberal agenda. That is not democracy. It is the thwarting of the will of the people, by a tyranny of the majority and by crass political maneuvering.

Statehood for D.C. would effectively nullify the 23rd Amendment to the Constitution, making this attempt by the House probably unconstitutional. A law that has the effect of making an Amendment null and void is unconstitutional because Amendments can only be nullified by making a new Amendment, as when the Amendment on Prohibition was nullified by another Amendment.

And this brings us to the topic of Gun Control. Laws regulating firearms have always been held to be constitutional. However, a law or set of laws that has the effect of making the Second Amendment weak, if not null and void, is still an unconstitutional law. How can we regulate firearms, so as to greatly reduce gun violence and especially mass shootings, without taking away the fundamental human right to self-defense? Gun control must always include the right to bear arms that are sufficient and effective for self-defense.


This entry was posted in commentary. Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to On Packing the U.S. Senate

  1. John Platts says:

    Even though I do not agree with the extreme political positions held by the majority of Democrats in Congress, D.C. residents should have representation in both the U.S. State and U.S. Senate since
    (a) the majority of D.C. residents are citizens of the United States,
    (b) private corporations located in D.C. and D.C. residents are subject to federal laws that apply in both D.C. and the 50 states,
    (c) the income of private corporations located in D.C. and the personal income of residents of D.C. are subject to federal income taxation under the 16th Amendment to the United States Constitution and the
    (d) the population of the District of Columbia is larger than that of the states of Wyoming or Vermont, and
    (e) other federal capital cities located in countries that are subdivided into states such as Mexico City, Brasilia, and Canberra have representation in their federal-level legislatures.

    My argument in favor of granting D.C. representation in the House and Senate is based primarily on the fact that D.C. residents and D.C. businesses are subject to federal laws that apply in both the 50 states and D.C. and not based on additional political power for the Democratic Party (the party that currently controls both houses of Congress and the Presidency).

Comments are closed.