Like the proverbial bad penny that keeps showing up, a bill to grant the District of Columbia a voting congressman has reappeared this session. I previously opined about it being unconstitutional and one Democrat commenter noted the irony that many Utah Republicans supported the bill. It is ironic because this bill is all about adding an extra Demo seat in congress. The proposal of balancing DC's expected Democrat vote with an additional Republican seat for Utah is a farce because Utah will get their additional seat in the 2010 census without the DC deal.
But here is the part you would find bizarre unless you’ve followed the antics of Senator Orrin Hatch over his career:
Meanwhile, in an interview Friday, Hatch told Washington Post Radio that he would support the bill, because he told Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, D-D.C., that he would. However, he also said is "hesitant" about voting for something that is unconstitutional.
So Hatch is honor bound to vote for something he thinks is unconstitutional because he told the D.C. delegate he would? Why did he make the promise in the first place? Didn’t the Senator make an oath to uphold the constitution too? Why can’t he feel honor bound to keep that promise instead?
Norton said she also does not listen to any talks about a White House veto because she doubted that Bush would be the "big, bad wolf" and deny Utah and the District a vote if the bill passed the House and Senate.
I hope Norton’s assessment isn’t accurate, though it certainly is based on precedent. The McCain-Feingold passed the House and Senate and President Bush allowed it to become law with a pocket veto. Spineless Congressional Republicans (or is this redundant) expected the president to veto the bill. President Bush showing similar weakness demurred and left it to the Supreme Court to kill the unconstitutional law – but they didn’t.
Seems like Senator Hatch is about to kick-off another round of pass the buck.
Posted by Dave Calder on April 17, 2007 9:23 PM
| Permalink
