After 6 months of researching constitutional documents, court cases, and academic journals, I have found evidence that both supports and counters my argument, stating that the lack of representation in Washington D.C. and the US Virgin Islands violates the true intent of the United States Constitution. On the topic of my findings regarding constitutional documents, I first looked at documents, written by some of the founding fathers regarding the issue. In the Federalist No. 43, James Madison addresses the federal district known as Washington D.C., and says “as a municipal legislature for local purposes, derived from their own suffrages, will of course be allowed them.” (The Federalist Papers, No. 51) James Madison is referencing the citizens residing in the federal district, and says …show more content…
that the intent is to allow the citizens to exercise their right to vote in local legislature. Currently D.C. residents can exercise their right to vote in such local legislature, but their vote doesn’t necessarily hold much weight. An example of this is the D.C. Marijuana Initiative. In this instance, D.C. citizens voted in favor for the legalization of medical marijuana, but the US Congress overruled the vote. Therefore, the citizens vote was undermined. In regards the US Constitution this issue clearly violates the Equal Protection Clause. Scholar James B. Raskin writes “just as it would be unconstitutional for states to strip citizens of their right to vote in congressional elections, it is unconstitutional for Congress to disenfranchise the citizens of Washington.” (Raskin, 46) Given the resident in DC have a US citizenship status, they are protected by the Equal Protection Clause, which states that rights cannot be “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” (U.S. Const. am. 14) This evidence shows that the lack of representation in Washington D.C. is in clear violation of the US Constitution. Along with constitutional documents, the courts played a major role in violation of the equal protection clause in Washington D.C. One of the most influential court cases that powerfully made this point was Bolling v. Sharpe. This court case embodied the decisions made in the historic court case Brown v. Board of Education. Bolling v. Sharpe struck down racial segregation in schools within Washington D.C. The reason Brown v. Board of Education did not fulfill racial integration in the school system is because congress resides over D.C., and the Equal Protection Clause only applied to states at the time, which did not invalidate racial segregation in the District’s schools. However, Bolling v. Sharpe fixed this issue by recognizing the Due Process Clause in the 5th Amendment. The Due Process Clause validated the Equal Protection clause in the case, as “the Court has continued to assume that Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause assimilates fundamental equal protection principles for the protection of Washingtonians.” (Raskin, 47) Other court cases assists in this argument like Gibson v. State, stating that “All citizens are equal before the law.” (162 U.S. 565 , 16 Sup. Ct. 904.) The courts have seemed to come to a common consensus of the issue, and agree that Washingtonians are protected by the Equal Protection Clause. In regards to the US Virgin Islands, the US Constitution mentions US territorial matters, which is what I base my evidence on. My finding within the US Constitution rejects my argument, stating that the lack of representation in the US Virgin Islands violates the true intent of the United States Constitution. The main evidence of this is in Article IV, Section 3 of the US Constitution, which states, “The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.” (U.S. Const. art. IV, § 3) This article essentially gives congress the authority to govern over the US Territories. I have found evidence for that fact the US Constitution had no intent of providing equal representation for residents living in territories, as the US hoped for “the exclusion from the American polity of the newly conquered peoples.” (Melendez, 114) However, as citizens of the United States, the Equal Protection Clause should still protects them, as the lack of representation violates the Constitution. However, there has been a lot of debate on the topic. Court cases, along with their decisions, clarify this debate to a further extent. The Insular Cases are the prevalent when on the topic about the status of US territories.
These cases took place in 1901 to determine the status of US territories acquired in the Spanish American War. Downes v. Bidwell is one of the most recognized cases that dealt with whether territories were subject to protections under the US Constitution. The ruling of the case ultimately stated that the Constitution does not necessarily apply to US territories, like the Virgin Islands. Along with the rest of the Insular Cases, courts have expressed that the protection of right stated in the US Constitution, does not necessarily extend to areas under US control. The Insular Cases have been seen as questionable in more modern years, but have not been overturned, as this has become a more political controversial topic. There is a clear violation of the Equal Protection Clause, however, since the constitution does not extend to the territories, this acts as a loophole, similar to that of Guantanamo Bay. There is insufficient evidence by the US Supreme Court on the specific issue pertaining to the US Virgin Island. These are the reasons my argument is rejected in the case of the Virgin
Islands. After analyzing these constitutional documents, I knew I had to travel to these places to see the conditions of these residents. Therefore, I first visited Washington D.C., and what I found is problematic. After a series of questions asked about the voting issue in DC, I have found that Washingtonians are very passionate about receiving their constitutional rights. “Since 1800, there have been numerous attempts to secure voting representation in Congress for the District of Columbia, employing a variety of legal and political approaches.” (Garg, 5) For more than 200 years residents have been fighting for their rights. This displays a community that has been adamant about this phenomenon, and it has become a cultural issue past on for years by Washingtonian families. The majority of interviews contained a similar response, and that was about the proposed bills throughout the years. As a collective entity, the residents of DC keep proposing bills to gain their voting rights, in hopes that one will pass. The main examples being, District of Columbia Voting Rights Restoration Act and District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act. There have been several reiterations of these act yearly, dating back to the early 2000s. These Acts give two options. First, DC residents could participate in Maryland elections. Second, Congress would increase House Membership by one, which will add a representative for DC. Both of these bills are a starting point for DC resident, which they desperately need, given their economic status. Many residents blame their economic turmoil on this phenomenon. Below is a poll of residents below the poverty line in DC. This table shows that in 1990 residents of DC double somes states for having the largest percent of persons below the poverty line. This is still a major problem in DC, and my interviews show that the residents blame their lack of representation. After my interviews in DC came to a close, I traveled to the US Virgin Islands, and found opposite view in comparison to Washingtonians. The residents of the Virgin Island are concerned about their representation, like any US citizen would be. One of the major topics during the interviews was the taxation issue. The tax problem in the Virgin Islands have be not been alleviated in the past 30 years like the residents hoped. For example, the Tax Reform of 1986 prevented tax loopholes within the Islands. Virgin Islands inhabitants would refuse to pay the amount of taxes continental U.S. citizens would. This shows that the residents do not believe they so be taxed the same as continental U.S. citizens. The major concern with the islanders does not come in the form of Representation arguments, but in the form of taxation arguments. The residents within the island have become accustomed to the island lifestyle, which contain isolation as a component. Therefore, residents do not take up the arms for representation to the extent of Washingtonians. However, like most people, the islanders do cherish their money, and are not happy with be taxed as much as citizens residing in the states. This was the main issue that I have found during the interviews in the Virgin Islands. Finally, after my interviews with all the residents, I sat down with some government officials on the topic. One of the most influential interviews I conducted was with the delegate for the District of Columbia, Eleanor Holmes Norton. One question that was asked during the interview had to do with the lack of support from fellow congress members, who usually urge Norton to yield her stance. Her response to this was “The District of Columbia has spent 206 years yielding to the people who would deny them the vote! I yield you no ground!” (Schwartzman, 2) Congresswoman Norton has always spoke passionately on this topic as she represents the residents of DC. Norton differed from the majority of interviews that I conducted, because others focused on the article in the Constitution preventing the federal district and territories from having proper representation. I have found that the majority of government officials have been on the opposite side of the debate.
The plaintiffs asserted three arguments against the statue; including that the statue was contradictory to the intent of the Vermont Constitution, the statue is void for ambiguity, and the statue denies plaintiffs equal protection of the laws.1 The plaintiffs based their argument that safety and liberty are natural, inherent, and unalienable rights guaranteed by Chapter 1, Article 1 of the Vermont Constitution.1 The article states “That all men are born equally free and independent, and have
For weeks convention delegates have been argued over representation in congress, Large States want it based on population. Small states want each states to have the same number of votes. representative s shall be apportioned according to population. The number of shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand, but each state shall have at least one representatives. This piece of evidence relates to the argument because they said that big states has more power than small states that is why big states only need one representative.
In Tim Seibles' poem, The Case, he reviews the problematic situations of how white people are naturally born with an unfair privilege. Throughout the poem, he goes into detail about how colored people become uncomfortable when they realize that their skin color is different. Not only does it affect them in an everyday aspect, but also in emotional ways as well. He starts off with stating how white people are beautiful and continues on with how people enjoy their presence. Then he transitions into how people of color actually feel when they encounter a white person. After, he ends with the accusation of the white people in today's world that are still racist and hateful towards people of color.
At the convention, the founders were debating about how many representatives in the Congress should each state allowed to have. For example, James Madison, who came from Virginia, one of the larger states, suggested that representation should be proportional to the state’s population (Hart et al. 109-110). Coming from a state with larger population had influenced Madison’s proposal, for he reasoned that since Virginia has a large population of people, so more representatives are needed to represent more people. However, the states with a smaller population disagreed with this proposal and came up with a proposal that would counter Madison’s proposal. Paterson, who came from New Jersey, one of those states with smaller population, proposed a plan in which equal number of people should be elected from each state for representation in the Congress (Hart et al. 109-110). It was evident to see how coming from a smaller state had affected Paterson’s proposal, for he feared
The opinion of the court was held by Justice Kennedy, in that the Colorado amendment was held unconstitutional on the basis that it violated the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment on the United States Constitution. Kennedy argued the amendment singles out a specific group in which, it would make it so only homosexuals cannot receive the protective rights that are available to anyone else. This idea makes homosexuals unequal to everyone else because they are not guaranteed the same protection that anyone else could get if they needed it. Furthermore, the amendment burdens the homosexual community by not allowing them to seek protection against discrimination though the use of legislation. Additionally, Kennedy claims “In and ordinary case, a law will be sustained if it can be said to advance a legitimate government interest…” (632) By this he means that a law will be considered valid as long as it has a ...
A unanimous Supreme Court decision overturned the Lovings convictions on June 12, 1967. The Supreme Court ruled that Virginia’s anti-miscegenation statute violated the Fourteenth Amendment, specifically the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause. Chief Justice Warren’s opinion stated that the Constitution provide citizens “the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.”
Under the Articles each state could send between 2 and 7 delegates to Congress. In the Constitution each state was allowed 2 members in the Senate and 1 representative per 30,000 people (this number has now increased greatly) in the House of Representatives. As I stated earlier each state wanted to be represented according to different factors. The states with bigger populations wanted representation to be based solely off of population. The states with smaller populations wanted there to be a fixed number of representatives per state, regardless of size or population.
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the U.S. Government in both cases. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment05/
Bush’s representation questioned that, Does recounts in Florida violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment to the United States Constitution? Because all the votes were being counted unevenly, with standards varying from county to county, where recounts in counties where he could have majority were not being conducted. Bush Argued the decision went against the Constitution stating “nor shall any State…. Deny to any person within the equal protection of the laws.”
Continuing the metaphor of faction as a disease, Madison labels “[a] republic” as “the cure for which we are seeking”. Madison notes that a republican government differs from pure democracy in that the delegation of the government is smaller and can thus achieve efficient action. Another contrast lies also in the extent to which a republic has influence over a “greater sphere of country”. The passing of public views “through the medium of a chosen body of citizens” allows for refinement of ideas due to the influence of elected officials’ wisdom and is “more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves”. To protect against the caprices of wicked men, the number of representatives of the people will be a quantity that stymies the influence of the few but is able to, as Madison states, “guard against the confusion of a multitude”. Madison then references his belief in the common sense and good will of men in that “the suffrages of the people” is likely to result in the election of men most deserving and fit for their roles as representatives and lawmakers. Madison presents an avowal that counters one of the Anti-Federalists’ major grievances: “[t]he federal Constitution forms a happy combination” with “the great and aggregate interests being referred to the national, the local and particular to the State legislatures”; Anti-Federalists feared that a stronger
Our founding father created a system of the checks and balance system where each branch has the same amount of power. Each branch has a specific task in which they are in charge of carrying out. In the issue of equal representation, it is the court's role to interpret the law of the land. However, regarding equal representation in
For some background, this case escalated to the Supreme Court since several groups of same-sex couples from different states, sued state agencies when their marriage was refused to be recognized. As it escalated through appeals, the plaintiffs argued that the states were violating the Equal Protection clause and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Equal Protection, according to the Constitution refers to the fact that, “any State [shall not] deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…” (23). The opposition of this case was that, 1) The Constitution does not address same-sex marriage as a policy, and 2) The sovereignty of states regarding the decision. Ultimately, and according to the Oyez project, the Court held that “[the Amendment] guarantees the right to marry as one of the fundamental liberties it protects, and that analysis applies to same-sex couples,” and therefore, same-sex marriage is a fundamental liberty.
In creating the Constitution, the states had several different reactions, including a rather defensive reaction, but also an understanding reaction. As a document that provided the laws of the land and the rights of its people. It directs its attention to the many problems in this country; it offered quite a challenge because the document lent itself to several views and interpretations, depending upon the individual reading it. It is clear that the founders’ perspectives as white, wealthy or elite class, American citizens would play a role in the creation and implementation of The Constitution.
Erik Peterson faced a number of challenging situations with Jeff Hardy, a high level employee with CelluComm, the parent company of GMCT. At first we see an awkward relationship with Jeff Hardy whom Peterson had been assigned to work under by Ric Jenkins, partly due to the lack of concrete relationship guidelines between the two (Sami, 2013). Hardy had very little operational experience, and Peterson felt that he was unable to receive constructive guidance from Hardy. As a subordinate to Hardy, Peterson should have instead attempted to resolve this problem early on as it was a critical relationship within the GMCT Company. Consulting Hardy by letting him know of his concerns would have been a more efficient and respectful manner in handling the situation. This relationship building would also have been integral in facing the Peterson-Hardy communication issues with respect to the local municipalities and fire department. Operant Learning Theory (Johns & Saks, 2014, p.54) suggests that as a result of this negative consequence Peterson should be able to improve his interpersonal skills specifically with superiors within the organization moving forward. As a subordinate to Hardy, Peterson should have instead attempted to resolve this problem early on as it was a critical relationship within the GMCT Company.
Constitutionally, the case at first appears to be a rather one-sided violation of the First Amendment as incorporated through the Fourteenth. The court, however, was of a different opinion: "...