OCR Text |
Show Tl Dcily Utai. Chronic, Thursday, October 19, 1979 Page Five dayaiidlar D.C. denied rights over color question, party affiliation It has been more than a year since Congress voted to adopt a constitutional amendment which would provide full voting rights for the District of Columbia. Since then, only six states have approved the amendment. That is a far cry from the s constitutional requisite of ratification by of the states (38) before the proposal can become the 27th amendment. What once appeared to be a rising tide of momentum in favor of bestowing citizenship and its badges upon the residents of the district has receded, sadly, to a distant juncture of despair. Once filled with hope that they might soon vote for two senators and one representative to Congress and finally have a participating voice in government, district three-fourth- residents are now doubtful that the goal will ever be achieved. The amendment's fate hangs in limbo, and that status can be aptly described as morally and legally reprehensible. What accounts for this tragic state of affairs? To be sure, it is not the arguments of the amendment's opponents. Most of their arguments can be pared to a. single point: District residents should be denied the right to vote because of the representatives they might send to office liberal, urban, black Democrats. Clearly, it ought to be immoral to deny people the right to vote on the basis of how they might cast their ballots. In a debate this summer, James J. Kilpatrick, a nationally-syndicate- d columnist and a staunch opponent of the amendment, sought to cast aside the moral issue involved and focus attention only on the political issues. As if that could be done! In winking at the moral issue, Kilpatrick stated that conservative Republicans were not ever going to give liberal Democrats two senators. Period. End of discussion. The opponents' argument is not only immoral, it is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court made this clear some years ago in a case involving Texas discrimination against residents serving in armed forces. The Court held that, "Fencing out from the franchise a sector of the population because of the way it may vote is constitutionally impermissible. The exercise of rights so vital to the maintenance of democratic institutions. ..cannot constitutionally be obliterated because of a fear of the political views of a particular group of bona fide residents." Opponents of the amendment are hard put to fashion plausible arguments in their behalf. About the only other argument that is used much is that the district is unworthy of representation in Congress because it is some sort of enigmatic political entity. Senators Garn and Hatch have tried to find footing on this marshy ground. Hatch, in the debate last year, argued that the amendment would violate a provision in Article V of the Constitution which says that no state "shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate." In essence, Hatch was arguing that if the district was given two senators it would deprive states of equal suffrage in the Senate. This view is at variance with the Supreme Court's interpretation of this provision. The court has held that this provision applies to states in their relations with other states. Thus, for example, a state is entitled to two senators; a denial of a Senate seat to a state would violate the provision in Article V. Even if it were the case that the proposed amendment would violate the meaning of Article V, the Constitution can be amended. That much is guaranteed in another part of Article V, and as such is known as the "amending clause." The people are able to change the Constitution anytime and in any way they wish. The presence of the federal government in Washington cannot obscure the existence of a vibrant and indigenous culture, which has long been settled and is largely distinct from federal activity. Only about one-thir- d of the district residents work for the federal government. There are more federal employees living in Maryland, Texas and California; and in Arlington County, Va., a neighbor of Washington, of the residents work for the federal more than one-thir- d government. In many respects, Washington has all the attributes of a state. It has a population of more than 700,000. There are seven states with a smaller population. It pays the second highest per capita income tax in the United States. It sent more young men to die in Vietnam than most states. Yet Washington, populated with citizens who are the same beneficiaries of society's accomplishments and victims of more than their share of society's ills, still cannot vote for senators and representatives like all other citizens. Nothing less than representation in the federal government is at stake. The grievance the district residents have is the same that abused colonists posed to King George III "taxation without representation." In part, the colonists went to war with England over that malevolent prac tice. Few Americans disagree with the Founding Fathers' position on that point. The residents of the district are asking nothing more from their fellow citizens than the full right of participation and citizenship in this country and especially the fundamental right to elect those who govern. To deny the extension of this fundamental right to a considerable sector of our population violates this nation's basic ideals.The Utah legislature will have the opportunity to ratify the amendment next year. Will it tolerate this travesty by not ratifying the amendment by voting in a way which belies constitutionalism, sympathy and reason? Who, in the legislature, will pick up the gauntlet? dannyquintana MX missile system worst mistake since Vietnam do not wish to seem overdramatic,but I can only conclude from the information that is that the available to me as Secretary-GeneraMembers of the United Nations have perhaps ten years left in which to subordinate their ancient quarrels and to launch a global partnership to curb the arms race, to improve the human environment, to defuse the population explosion, and to supply the required momentum to development efforts. If such a global partnership is not forged within the next decade, then I very much fear that the problems I have mentioned will have reached such staggering proportions that they will be beyond our capacity to control. l, -- U. Thant, 1969 The worst threat to the future of mankind is the possibility ..of nuclejwWi,l?v nothing short of a miracle has prevented a holocaust during these last 30 years, nations are pushing their luck. This race to oblivion is taking a new and dangerous turn. The United States and the Soviet Union are working on counterforce weapons, that is, weapons that will give each nation a nuclear war-winnin- g capability, as if such a war were in fact winnable. President Carter's decision to go ahead with the deployment of the MXmissilesystem will be the worst mistake made by any president since the Vietnam war. There are some very good reasons why this system should not be build. The MX will not make the nation more secure; dollars do not equate directly with defense. The United States has spent almost $2trillion since World War II, .vet the nation is less secure now than at any time in its history. Gap Crazy Disraeli once said, "there are lies, damn lies and statistics." In 1955, the Pentagon looked into the void and saw a bomber gap. In 1961 it found a missile gap, in 1969 it found an antimissile gap. None of these gaps were real, but the money spent to counter these imaginary threats was very real. We are on the edge of bankruptcy; we can no longer afford massive conflicts of interest on defense spending. The MX is too expensive. The reported cost of $33 billion is a low estimate; other estimates range from $50 to $90 billion. The money could be. better spent in other areas, namely energy research and mass transit. Better yet, why spend the ,mqqe,y(t all? Give thek taxpayers a break, less government spending means less inflation. The excuse given for building the MX is that our land-base- d missileswill be vulnerable to a Soviet first strike in the next decade. While this may or may not be true, some less expensive steps can be taken to counter this future threat. An ABM site could be built to protect our ICBM's, we could build more cruise missiles and expand our bombe r fleet or build more submarines. All arc ( he aper and less dangerous than the MX. Outside of sheer cost, the best argument for not building the MX is that a capability on the part of the United Slates runs completely counter to the present policy of detei ranee. In a crisis situation the Soviets would be fa ed with the hoic e of using their continued on page six war-winni- |