And now Voinovich comes out in favor of the D.C. "voting rights" bill
June 13, 2007 11:28 AM
From National Review's Bench Memos blog:
Via e-mail (nothing yet on his website), Senator George Voinovich's office has released a statement declaring the Ohio Republican's support for the D.C. "voting rights" bill, which would give the District of Columbia a seat in the House of Representatives (but none in the Senate), and an additional House seat to Utah as well. Voinovich is ranking member of the Senate subcommittee with D.C. affairs in its portfolio, so I suppose this announcement is intended to make some waves—though I haven't noticed that the senator ordinarily carries many other Republicans along in his wake.
Voinovich acknowledges that opposition to the bill on constitutional grounds shouldn't be "dismiss[ed] . . . without serious study," but his statement provides nothing more than his unexplained conclusion that "the District Clause grants Congress the ability" to pass this bill. He's referring to Article I, section 8, clause 17, which provides Congress power to "exervcise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever" over the District where the nation's capital is located.
For a detailed explaination of why this is patently unconstitutional, read Bench Memos, which does not even bother to mention the politically obvious reason for opposing this bill: It gives the Democrats one "free" seat in Congress. This is on top of Voinovich's asinine statement on Monday about Alberto Gonzales (i.e. the President should fire him, but the Senate shouldn't say so).
And he still hasn't issued a statement explaining what his position on immigration actually is, even though at the end of the day he ended up supporting the President's awful bill.
Does Voinovich have anything going for him?