This article came to my attention and rang some alarm bells in my head. Essentially, the people who live in Washington DC (the ordinary people, who I've heard are quite poor) don't get representation in the house because DC is a district and not a recognised state. The constitution only guarantees representation to states, so these people miss out.
I have a big problem with a system that votes down a bill designed to give people the fundamental right of that system (voting), jsut because the constitution didn't say they had to have it (by this I mean the fact that they weren't given it initally when the district became a large residentual area. Something about this seems very undemocratic and I think its issues like this that will undermine the American system in this century, as the nation is ruled by a document written for a society from 300 years ago. Times change, America's constitution needs to change with society and this doesn't seem likely to happen, with Americans protesting healthcare as unconstitutional and everything.
Also, of note, is how the bill was rejected because the NRA lobbied to have the removal of Washington's strict gun control laws (strict in an American sense). Any system that will deny people one right because they chose (then and now) to reject another is an inherently broken system in view.
Sort of contradicts the foundation of the country as they originally protested against taxation without representation. Most people would agree that the constitution needs to be updated but like you said thats never going to happen as lobby groups such as the NRA will prevent any of that happening anytime soon. It makes us realise that by not having a constitution in NZ, it allows us to move on with the times and be able to pass legislation more freely. Lobby groups in NZ dont have as much influence in America as they dont have an old constitution that they can always lean on in an argument, even though its archaic its still legally binding.
ReplyDeleteR., I concur with you that residents of D.C. should be given the full rights of citizenship that all other Americans enjoy, particularly the right to vote and be represented in Congress. However, I strongly with your opinion, "I have a big problem with a system that votes down a bill designed to give people the fundamental right of that system (voting), just because the constitution didn't say they had to have it."
ReplyDeleteThe U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the United States, and it cannot be merely revoked to suit the whims of a given lawmaker. As someone who is the citizen of a country with no constitution, this may be difficult to fathom. Before you malign the American Constitution too much, keep this in mind: 223 years after the Constitution was ratified, the U.S. is still the most powerful nation in the world. I know correlation does not imply causation, but at the very least, we can agree that a constitutional law system has not precipitated a demise in American hegemony.
But you do bring up a very interesting point when you say, "Times change, America's constitution needs to change with society and this doesn't seem likely to happen." But America's constitution HAS changed, as manifested in the 27 amendments to our constitution. Said amendments cement our most cherished hallmarks of democracy, from freedom of speech, press, and religion (1st amendment) to women's suffrage (19th) to equal protection under the law (14th, 15th, and 24th).
The genius of the Constitution lies not solely in its original form (though you must admit that the Founding Fathers had pretty good foresight), but in its malleability. Constitutional amendments are difficult to pass, but they are nonetheless possible, and they have led to the advancement of wonderful ideals that showcase America at its best.
So in the battle over D.C. statehood and citizenship, let's shift some of the blame to where it belongs. Let us malign the shortsighted lawmakers beholden to special interest groups rather than the document which upholds our most cherished freedoms and ideals.