Wednesday, April 8, 2009

"Grounded in Law, not Politics"

Claims Eric Holder in defense of his opinion find the D.C. Voting Rights bill Constitutional.

The proponent's argument appears to be a "history provides a gloss" argument:
"Supporters note that courts have often treated the District as if it were a state, addressing, for example, questions of whether D.C. residents are subject to laws governing federal taxation, interstate commerce and the right to a jury trial." -Washington Post

I find this argument extremely weak. This is an argument that admits that this bill is unconstitutional, but because the District has been treated like a State in these circumstances, it is a State and the bill can not be found unconstitutional. Past treatment of the District as a State is not a strong argument, because it does not erase the fact that the district is a federal territory. Treating it as a State does not make it a State. This seems pretty clear cut.

If they do hold that the District is equal to a State in this arena, will the NRA be able to use Heller as holding applicable to States? That may be the only good that would come of it.

No comments: