If you live in DC you surely know that Congress is trying to create a statute allowing the District a real vote in the House of Representatives. (Our current "Delegate" may feel free to vote on issues, but his vote cannot be the deciding one. I.e., it's not a real vote.)

If you don't live near DC, maybe you haven't heard this news. Maybe you don't even realize that DC residents, unlike other U.S. citizens, and unlike the citizens of any other capital of a democracy in the world, do not have a real vote in our Congress.

That needs to change and, hopefully, it's about to. But there is opposition.

Who could possibly oppose giving all U.S. citizens fair representation in Congress? Well, people who seem to forget that "no taxation without representation" was a major reason the original American colonies fought for their independence from England.

Instead they focus on the part of the Constitution that says only "the several states" are entitled to this privilege -- I mean, right -- of representation in Congress. George Will said last Thursday in "The Seat Congress Can't Offer":

Article I, Section 2 says the House shall be composed of members chosen "by the people of the several states."

Until the nation's flag has 51 stars -- at which point the District will have two senators -- the city should not have a full member of the House.

Fine. That is a sound technical argument. But -- if you can ignore the fact that that Will completely glosses over how deeply, plainly wrong this situation is, and that he fails to suggest any possible ways of righting it; that he seems to think that by citing a technicality the issue is resolved; that he makes it sound like District residents somehow deserve their disenfranchisement -- you will find he uses a double standard to define the rights (and responsibilities) of the "several states."

Michael J. West, of the District, took him to task in a letter to the editor on Wednesday. I've put the full letter here; my emphases added:

George F. Will is right. The Constitution clearly reserves congressional representation to "the several states," and the District isn't a state within the meaning of Article I, Section 2.

Of course, that article and section also limits Congress's taxation power to "the several states." And the 16th Amendment gives Congress the power to levy federal income taxes only in "the several states."

I assume Mr. Will supports lifting the federal income tax obligation from D.C. residents, given that it is unconstitutional. If not, I'd like him to explain why "the several states" is defined to include the District so selectively.

The federal government can't have it both ways. If the District is not a state, its people should be exempt from federal income taxes. If District residents are not exempt, the constitutional provision concerning the "several states" should be applied consistently, and we should have full representation.

Well? I'd like to hear an answer to that from these people who seem to think the Constitution is somehow more sacred than the rights of the citizens it was written to protect.