The Tyranny of the United States Constitution

The Tyranny of the United States Constitution

When one thinks of the word 'revolution', it gives us visions of the prolls marching through the streets demanding change....or perhaps young, starry-eyed communists rising up to combat the oppression of the Bourgeoisie.

In the United States, the oppression and heavy-handed rule of King George III and the British Empire spawned the American Revolution. While the Empire continued to levy unfair taxes on to the people and enact laws upon the people from across the Atlantic, including higher taxes to help the Empire pay the costs of the Seven Year War, a political movement within the American Colonies began to grow and the people began to demand a change.

Realizing a need to separate from the Empire and the desire of the people to be free and govern themselves, the American Forefathers drafted the document that declared our independence from the British. In this declaration was a list of grievances against the King, one grievance in particular being the most important of all as it played a huge role in the rise of dissent and hatred towards the Empire.

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent

Taxation without representation. The American Revolution's roots were based on the anger spawned by unfair tax enactments by the Empire on to the Colonies. Namely, the Tax Stamp Act and the Sugar Act.

James Otis Jr. was the man attributed with the saying "taxation without representation. But there was a bit more to his statement.

Taxation without representation is tyranny

Tyranny. Keep that in mind as we move along.

In 1788, after the colonies were able to defend against the wars brought to their lands by the British, the US Constitution was ratified and set forth the basic structure that allowed the people to govern themselves. It outlines the basic rights of the people, rights of the independent states within the US and the roll of the Federal government as well.

Article 1 of the US constitution specifically defines the role of the Legislative branch of the Federal government. The House and Senate. But we are going to look at Article 1, section 8, clause 17. This is also know as the Enclave Clause.

The Congress shall have the power to.......To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

This clause is describing the ability of Congress to create a "seat of the Government of the United states" Also known as Washington DC. Congress would also have complete power over the described area and it's people, exclusively.

Now we come to the part I find most interesting.

Washington DC does not have representatives in Congress:

In the United States House of Representatives, the District is represented by a delegate, who is not allowed to vote on the House floor but can vote on procedural matters and in congressional committees. D.C. residents have no representation in the United States Senate. As a result of the Twenty-third Amendment to the United States Constitution, adopted in 1961, the District is entitled to three electoral votes in the election of the President of the United States

This has been an issue for some time and has even sparked license plates in DC that bear the phrase "taxation without representation". In 1980, people in the district approved a convention to draft a state constitution, giving them representation on congress and proper voting right....but congress rejected it.



Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 1833

And yet this clause did not escape the common fate of most of the powers of the national government. It was represented, as peculiarly dangerous. It may, it was said, become a sort of public sanctuary, with exclusive privileges and immunities of every sort. It may be the very spot for the establishment of tyranny, and of refuge of the oppressors of the people. The inhabitants will be answerable to no laws, except those of congress. A powerful army may be here kept on foot; and the most oppressive and sanguinary laws may be passed to govern the district.

See where I am going with this?

This nation's Revolution was fought to separate itself from the tyranny of and Empire that wished to tax the people without "representation" and one of the grievances against King George was taxation without representation.


But in our own remarkable constitution, that gives American's more rights and liberties than any other nation in the world, there is a clause that, in fact, allows for the creation of a district in which the people are taxed without representation of any kind.

So my question is this: Even though it can be considered the most important document in our history as a nation, is the US Constitution hypocritical....and through this one clause, tyrannical?

Declaration of Independence
US Constitution
American Revolution
James Otis Jr
Article 1, US Constitution
Enclave Clause
DC Voting Rights
Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution

reply to post by sheepslayer247


No, it is an administrative enclave populated almost entirely by government officials and, as such, cannot be allowed to influence public policy. Indeed, they really should not even be able to vote in presidential elections.

I heard an astonishing figure recently, 60% of all jobs available in the US are in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area.

reply to post by greencmp


That's what I thought as well but if that's the case, why have the residents of the area fought and campaigned for representation and voting rights?

There are people that live in DC that are not out-of-state representatives with the option to vote in their home districts.

sheepslayer247
reply to post by greencmp

 

That's what I thought as well but if that's the case, why have the residents of the area fought and campaigned for representation and voting rights?

There are people that live in DC that are not out-of-state representatives with the option to vote in their home districts.

The residents are certainly correct in their claim to proper representation. However, they will need to reside in the United States of America to get it, not the District of Columbia.

reply to post by greencmp


The District of Columbia is the United States of America. Any other location is considered an independent state of the union.

ETA: I tried to point out in the thread that we broke away from the British due to taxation without representation. To reside in DC or any other area without that right....is wrong, correct?

DC, Our nations largest ghetto.

Ever been?

SLAYER69




DC, Our nations largest ghetto.

Ever been?

Yes, it was a horrible experience and I was spit on outside of the Smithsonian. Not fun at all.

reply to post by sheepslayer247



Lets look at Slavery in The U.S.

They didn't pay tax as they were never paid a wage

They had no representation because they had no freedom.

When it came to independence they had no independence whatever.

So those people never counted in your so called "Freedom"

sheepslayer247
reply to post by greencmp

 

The District of Columbia is the United States of America. Any other location is considered an independent state of the union.

ETA: I tried to point out in the thread that we broke away from the British due to taxation without representation. To reside in DC or any other area without that right....is wrong, correct?

edit on 5-3-2014 by sheepslayer247 because: (no reason given)

It is not a state, there are territories which do have some representation and voting rights but, not all. This particular enclave was intentionally carved out of the territories of two states from the outset with that specific understanding.

reply to post by alldaylong


Even though that is not part of this discussion, I will address it anyway.

It is incorrect to say slaves were not paid and were not taxed. They were paid, not well of course, and paid taxes but were not allowed to vote.

reply to post by greencmp


Correct, DC is not a state and I never claimed as such.

I'm trying to point out the hypocrisy of how DC is structured compared to the historical reasons for declaring independence from the British Empire.

reply to post by sheepslayer247


Just curious, would you be happy to sacrifice your representation if there was NO taxation?, because the constitution cuts both ways as it implies the alternative of, no representation is fine and dandy just as long as there is no taxation.

reply to post by Bellor


I am more then happy to pay taxes for proper representation. We could argue over the quality of representation we receive, but that is not within the scope of this thread.

reply to post by sheepslayer247

So my question is this: Even though it can be considered the most important document in our history as a nation, is the US Constitution hypocritical....and through this one clause, tyrannical?

I'm not sure if it's tyrannical or not to tell the truth, possibly if it was written this way with ulterior motives. People can leave DC if they wish but I wish the America could leave DC.

I think the current folks there are doing everything possible to maintain the lifestyle they've become accustomed to. Doubt they will change anything regardless of logic and certainly not in the name of freedom. They don't care if anyone there is represented unless it interferes with their current agendas.


Full sized graphic

sheepslayer247
reply to post by greencmp

 

Correct, DC is not a state and I never claimed as such.

I'm trying to point out the hypocrisy of how DC is structured compared to the historical reasons for declaring independence from the British Empire.

It is a reasonable, though arguably ineffective, guard against the ability of political entities to be able to vote on their own policies.

I sympathize with any individual citizen within the city who laments the lack of representation and voting rights and would encourage them to migrate to a legitimate region of the US.

I also must say that they have the right to exercise their right to secession. Wouldn't that be awesome, the headlines would read "Washington, D.C. secedes from the union, country is ecstatic."

You do realize there are basically two DCs, right? The fact government bureaucrats who are making a killing off our tax dollars, and the other half who don't make enough to owe taxes in any case but make whatever living they get off our tax dollars. DC is basically the two tiered society they want to rest of our country to devolve into.

SLAYER69




DC, Our nations largest ghetto.

Ever been?

Yes, about a year and a half ago. We landed at midnight and got our rental car, but the GPS on my phone was freaking out and we had no idea where we were, or going.

My GF lived in DC for several years, so I called her up:

Me: "Hi hon, we made it to DC but I think we're lost."

Her: "Get off on the next exit. What's the road your on now called?"

Me: "Um...lemme see, OK -- It's Dr. Martin Luther King Blvd"

Her: "WHAT?! OK...DO NOT GET OUT OF THE CAR!"

Me: "Well, we're pulling up to this hotel and there's a door guy..."

Her: "NO! Do NOT get out of that car!"

We made it safe to the hotel in Arlington, and even walked around at 1am looking for a place to eat. We didn't get messed with. Now about 20 years ago I was in DC and I thought it was the dirtiest, foul city I've ever seen. So. Many. Homeless.

I didn't notice the homeless or all the garbage everywhere this last time. Perhaps DC has cleaned itself up?

The entire premise behind having the "District of Columbia" is, has been and will always be a valid one. That no one state can make claim to being the seat of power of these great United States..

That has not changed...

Question for the OP: While there are tons of people that call DC "home", many are transient and retain residence elsewhere. That being said, when one moves to DC for a job or other reason, do they not also accept the Constitutional situation as it is? I don't imagine the individuals living in the "Inner City" care one whit about the issues you raise and the others.. Well they can always move..

It has been this way since the founding of DC and now people are not satisfied?

MystikMushroom
Her: "WHAT?! OK...DO NOT GET OUT OF THE CAR!"

Words of wisdom

reply to post by sheepslayer247


There were NO illegal drugs back then.

Prohibition of ANY drug is TYRANNY. ALL those that enforce drug laws are TYRANTS!

The Patriots fought for the Articles of Confederation. The King's agents slipped the Constitution in and 'let the games begin'.

Hmm, that word Confederate popped up again later under the leadership of Jefferson Davis, coincedence? and they were addresing states rights. NOT SLAVERY//