July 29, 2006

"Pressing needs"

Get this: That stellar line-up on the United Nations Human Rights Committee yesterday urged the United States to -- hold on to your hats -- grant the District of Columbia a voting representative in Congress!

The United Nations Human Rights Committee on Friday urged U.S. lawmakers to give the District of Columbia a voting member of Congress, saying the lack of such representation appeared inconsistent with international law.

The rebuke(!!) came in a report released by the committee in Geneva on Friday which said residents of the U.S. capital deserved to take part in government affairs directly or through freely chosen representatives under the 1992 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The U.N. Human Rights Committee said it "remains concerned(!!) that residents of the District of Columbia do not enjoy full representation in Congress, a restriction which does not seem to be compatible with article 25 of the Covenant."

OK, I underlined a few key terms there -- "appeared" and "does not seem." That should be all you need to shrug this off as yet another example that the U.N. is ONE. BIG. SORRY. ASS. JOKE.

Need I explain all the REAL disastrous human rights violations across the planet, including one in a place called Darfur, Sudan, which the UN idiots refuse to do anything about?? Not to mention all across the African continent? North Korea? Cuba? Saudi Arabia? Iran? China? Etc.?

The best solution, by the way, for the D.C. "human rights problem" is to just incorporate it into the state of Maryland. Democrats, of course, hate that easy idea since it would take away three guaranteed presidential electoral votes (it is logical to assume the 23rd Amendment would have to be repealed if Maryland incorporation occurred). A different proposal has been worked on in Congress, though. According to the article,

The House Judiciary Committee this week scheduled a September 14 hearing on a bill that would create two new House seats, one for heavily Democratic D.C. and one for Utah, the largely Republican state that was next in line for a new seat based on 2000 Census Bureau data.

The bill was overwhelmingly approved by the House Government Reform Committee in May but needs approval from the judiciary panel, where it faces a tougher fight, before it can advance to the House floor.

The constitutionality of giving D.C. a voting representative is certainly in question as the Constitution reserves that right for "states." But when has something that is so plainly written in our governing document stopped "great" legal minds before?

Posted by Felix at July 29, 2006 09:35 AM | TrackBack

Comments  (We reserve the right to edit and/or delete any comments. If your comment is blocked or won't post, e-mail us and we'll post it for you.)