The Feb. 11 edition of National Review magazine reported the following:
“The presidential limousine has a new license plate that read ‘taxation without representation.’
“The change was made, President Obama’s spokesman told reporters, because the current arrangement is ‘patently unfair to those who live in the nation’s capital.’ In keeping with his general commitment to fairness, the president is now set upon ‘the principle of full representation’ and ‘voting rights’ for the District of Columbia denizens.”
For some reason or another, this apparent Obama goal of winning two additional U.S. Senate seats, plus an added Democrat in the House, did not evoke Page-1 prime-time coverage.
Perhaps because this D.C. statehood is such a long-time and invariably defeated scheme, which has become a goal of the black power movement.
National Review goes on to note:
“The nation’s founders would have disagreed as to its wisdom – as should all who understand America’s system of government.
“Washington, D.C., is a federal city, deliberately independent and explicitly set apart from the usual rules.
“In Federalist 43, James Madison explained that D.C.’s being discreet is ‘an indispensable necessity,’ a means of ensuring that the capital’s host state does not exercise disproportionate influence over the government and undermine the basic principles of federalism. So we can see why Obama disagrees.”
If Washington, D.C. – with its shrinking population – were ever made into a state with two U.S. senators and one member of the House, can we imagine the understandable rage in New York, Chicago and Los Angeles, all of whom have populations that simply dwarf D.C.?
Can we imagine, in such a case, the demands for statehood from Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands and Guam?
And what about the widely held belief that Texas has the right to realign itself into five states?
The Houston Chronicle reports:
“More than 65,000 people have signed an electronic petition to the White House asking President Barack Obama to allow Texas to ‘withdraw from the United States of America.’
On the petition on the White House website was the following:
“Given that the state of Texas maintains a balanced budget and is the 15th largest economy in the world, it is practically feasible for Texas to withdraw from the union, and to do so with protected citizens’ standard of living and re-secure their rights and liberties in accordance with the original ideas and beliefs of our Founding Fathers which are no longer being reflected by the federal government.”
The 1845 joint resolution for annexing Texas affirms Texas’ right to divide itself into five states if it chooses. Here’s the relevant passage:
“New states, of convenient size, not exceeding four in number, in addition to said state of Texas, and having sufficient population, may hereafter, by the consent of the said state, be formed out of the territory thereof, which shall be entitled to admission under the provisions of the federal Constitution.”
During his presidential race, Texas Gov. Rick Perry repeatedly said he does not favor secession. After the secession petition took off, Perry’s press secretary, Catherine Frazier, underscored his opposition to secession with this statement:
“Gov. Perry believes in the greatness of our union, and nothing should be done to change it, but he also shares the frustrations many Americans have with our federal government. Now more than ever, our country needs strong leadership from states like Texas that are making tough decisions to live within their means, keep taxes low and provide opportunities to job creators so their citizens can provide for their families and prosper.”