Wampum

It's a nice picture that has nothing to do with this post, but it's funny because white bears eat people, and it looks like Senator Kerry is offering this bear a hand, followed by a main course of Senator and three more sitting seals.

On to the task at hand wrist.

A few days ago Shahid Buttar wrote that the American Constitutional Society (which I really should join, if they'll have me) had a post (with streaming audio) on on their blog on the issue of the DC franchise. I read it in my usual I'm-wicked-dumb fashion until my head hit the lamp post.

Last Thursday, March 15, ACS hosted a panel discussion exploring voting rights for residents of the District of Columbia. As it has in past congressional sessions, Congress is currently considering legislation that would extend voting representation to D.C. residents. Some observers, in addition to a recent Congressional Research Service report have raised questions about the constitutionality of extending the right to vote to residents of a "non-state." Whereas proponents of the legislation -- including former D.C. Circuit Judges Patricia Wald and Ken Starr -- argue that Congress has broad power to extend voting rights to the District of Columbia. Does Congress possess the power to provide such voting rights through simple legislation, or would a constitutional amendment be required? Advocates from both sides of the issue presented their positions in a panel discussion that included questions from the audience.

I wrote to Shahid this little note:

I know this is outside the box, but a simple act of Congress was sufficient to impose American citizenship, and extend the Federal franchise (but not a State franchise) to Indians.

Shahid was kind enough to reply that if (and when) I got around tuit and actually wrote something on the subject at Wampum, he'd link to it. Offers like that are wicked rare. Links to Wampum are ... like rain in the desert.

This isn't that post. I've been distracted by Spencer Overton's dumb piece on Chad Smith's October Surprise special election on race and retardation (Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma), and work, and non-work.

The answer to the ConLaw question is wicked easy. Somewhere in our archives is my post on the act of congress (an appropriations bill) that ended the Senate's, and the Excutive's, ability to enter into treaties with Indian Nations. That's a bondo-free dent in Article II, Section 2. That answers the Amend or Act question. Then there's the imposition of the Federal franchise on Indians after WWI. That answers the specific non-state Federal franchise authority question.

Really, all that is left is the single representative or the representative plus two senators question. That's really a tactical question. One for the District and one for the Mormons, or the Missouri Compromise, lacking both Missouri and any Compromise.

However, today gun control stopped the DC franchise bill from coming to a vote.

I expect I will write a serious post, one worth linking to. This isn't it.