These ten states have populations smaller than the District of Columbia. Yet, each has two Senators and at least one voting Representative in Congress-the District of Columbia has none. All pay less Federal taxes than do District of Columbia residents.

But the District's concern in taxes, education, energy policy, environmental concerns, health care and other issues certainly is no less than theirs or any other jurisdiction in the United States. No reading of the Constitution suggests that the men who wrote it foresaw the District growing so large or intended to disenfranchise so many.

The amendment for full voter representation will affirm the basic rights of Washingtonians to be equal partners in a government we all cherish.

Members of Congress should remember the cries of early American Revolutionaries when they exclaimed that taxation without representation is tyranny. Citizens of the District are subjected to all federal taxes. District resident paid $664 per capita in federal taxes in 1976, $77 above the national average. Citizens residing in Puerto Rico and territorial areas of the Virgin Island, Guam and American Somoa are not directly subject to federal taxation, but are the beneficiary of many federal programs. District residents receive less revenues and services from the federal government than they contribute to the federal treasury. This injustice goes on while the District's residents are not represented in the Congress.

Both the Democratic and Republican party platforms have called for full voting rights in the Senate and House for citizens of the District of Columbia. The Carter Administration as well, has called for full voting rights. I believe, along with both major political parties and the President, that the American citizens living in the District of Columbia have an inherent right to be represented.

The right of District representation in the Congress can be seen as a logical extension of suffrage in history. First, from landowning white males to non-landowning white males, then to the freed black man and then women, and recently, eighteen year olds. The time certainly has come for the Congress to enact legislation to allow the citizens of the District of Columbia to also be represented.

The proposed resolution, H.J. Res. 565, would not make the District the 51st state, but it would recognize the unique status of the District of Columbia while at the same time provide for the rights of American citizens. I call upon this committee and the Congress to correct an early mistake of our Founding Fathers and end the tyranny of taxation without full representation.

FULL CITIZENSHIP FOR THE NATION'S CAPITAL ADOPTED BY THE INTERNATIONAL EXECUTIVE BOARD OF THE NEWSPAPER GUILD MEETING IN WASHINGTON, D.C., APRIL 24-28, 1978

Full voting representation in Congress for the District of Columbia is an idea whose time has not just come-it has been kept waiting past all justification. Ten states with populations smaller than the District's are represented by their full complement of senators and representatives. There is no trace of equity in denying those who live at the seat of the nation's democracy the right to participate in the democratic process.

The House of Representatives, in recognition of this fundamental principle of justice, approved full citizenship for the District in March. It now remains for the Senate to take similar action and send the necessary constitutional amendment on its way through the ratification process.

Action is needed urgently at this session, lest the fruits of years of effort be lost and the amendment be forced into a perilous course through a new House next session. Such an eventuality is unthinkable.

The International Executive Board of The Newspaper Guild urges senators to act with resolution and dispatch on the constitutional amendment as adopted by the House in order to subject the amendment and the possibility of its final approval to as few stresses as possible. Floor action at the current session is imperative if the prospects of full citizenship are to open up for the 750,000 citizens who still do not enjoy them.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF J. HARVIE WILLIAMS, SECRETARY, AMERICAN GOOD GOVERNMENT SOCIETY

THE CONSTITUTION NOW PROVIDES REPRESENTATION FOR MEMBERS OF ITS MORE PERFECT UNION OF PEOPLE-NO AMENDMENT IS NEEDED! ONLY RECOGNITION!

No change in the Constitution is needed to re-establish representation in Congress of Members of the Union who are resident in the District of Columbia, in my studied and considered view.

What is needed is simple recognition of the profound errors made when the People of the District were excluded from the apportionment of Representatives (and representative Electors of the President) following the Second Census in 1800. Correction of these errors may be made at any time in a Joint Resolution of Congress, approved by the President.

And, the President and Congress, for the next Census and apportionment thereon, should require that the inhabitants of the District of Columbia be included with those of Maryland for the purpose of representation in the Houses of Congress, and in the election of a President. This should not be even a low hurdle for those who understand the federal division of sovereign powers between the government of the Union and those of the States, by the People themselves who established the Constitution of the United States.

This view, though contrary to the received wisdom of more than a hundred and seventy five years, is based on the nature of the Union of People, and its structure as formed by the Constitution.

A further premise is that old errors, no matter how firmly imbedded in custom and practice, can be corrected by older truth, though newly discovered.

The United States formally begins with the Declaration of Independence from the King of Great Britain, and declares a political philosophy which came to fruition in the Constitution of the United States. That philosophy holds as self-evident:

"That all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness-That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

At its end the Declaration repeats the words of the Resolution adopted two days earlier: "That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States."

Passing over the formation of Constitutions by the several States, and the Articles of Confederation by the States together, finally approved by Maryland on March 1, 1781, we come to the federal Constitution which begins:

"We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, . . do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Clearly the People who composed the several States formed the new national Union, more perfect than earlier ones formed by the States, and did "ordain (a near sacred word) and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." (emphasis added.) This Constitution was not a compact between the States, as was the Confederation. It was the act of the sovereign People who composed the States; and was "for" the States as such because it drastically changed their own Constitutions; and was "for" the People because the sovereign Powers they granted to the Government of the Union operated directly on them as Members of that Union. The new Union was a national State-the State of the Union-composed of the People who created it, with a representative Government of its own, in which the People of the Union were equally represented, and the States which they also composed were equally represented in the Congress and in the election of a President. That is the structure of the Union, and the structure of its representative Government.

The federal system of government was described some thirty years later in these words by Chief Justice John Marshall:

20-2870-78 - 20

"In America, the powers of sovereignty are divided between the government of the Union, and those of the States. They are each sovereign, with respect to the objects committed to it, and neither is sovereign with respect to the objects committed to the other."

This division of sovereign Powers by the People is "the federal system of Government," the term used by James Madison at the beginning of his Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787, which framed the Constitution.

The first Article of the Constitution begins:

"All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

"The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

"No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen." Vital in my view is James Madison's explanation of this provision. Speaking of the House of Representatives in The Federalist No. 52, Madison wrote:

"The first view to be taken of this part of the government relates to the qualifications of the electors and the elected. Those of the former are to be the same with those of the electors of the most numerous branch of the State Legislature. The definition of the right of suffrage is very justly regarded as a fundamental article of republican government. It was incumbent on the Convention therefore to define and establish this right in the Constitution. To have left it open for the occasional regulation of the Congress, would have been improper for the reason just mentioned. To have submitted to the legislative discretion of the States, would have been improper for the same reason; and for the additional reason, that it would have rendered too dependent on the State Governments, that branch of the Federal Government, which ought to be dependent on the people alone."

The first Article continues:

"Representatives... shall be apportioned among the several States... according to their respective Numbers . . . The actual enumeration shall be made within three Years of the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at least one Representative. (Emphasis added.)

Clearly, Representatives are apportioned to the people of the Union, "one for every" constituency of X-thousand People of the Union within each State. They are not apportioned to the States as bodies politic according to their populations, but to the people of the Union within the boundaries of the States.

The First Census was taken in 1790, and the apportionment of Representatives (and representative Electors) was made in 1792. The first Bill drew a veto from President Washington, his first. The use of major fractions of the population within the States, to establish the number of representative constituencies, was begun at this time. In some States (mostly Northern) this created constituencies smaller than the minimum of thirty thousand. The Bill was vetoed. A new one was enacted. We now come to the Eighth Section of the first Article, which enumerates the legislative powers granted to Congress:

"The Congress shall have Power . . . To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by the Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of Government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; ...

This provision permits Congress to accept nothing more than the cession of a State's legislative power over a small fragment of its territory. For then Congress will possess exclusive legislative authority over that territory. The cession and the acceptance go only to what the State possesses after the Constitutional grant by ratification. This remaining legislative power in the State does not reach Members of the Union in their relations with the Government of the Union. Its cession to Congress does not touch Members of the Union. Conceiving it otherwise, as was the case in the apportionment of Representatives in Congress (and representative Electors of the President) after the Second Census in 1800, is the gross error perpetrated on the people of the District of Columbia.

In today's situation (which excludes Virginia) the Maryland Legislature had nothing to cede that affected the Members of the State of the Union; and the Congress had no authority to accept anything that changed the Constitutional status of the Members of the State of the Union, of which it was only the legislative organ. Who will admit, or pretend that legislative acts can change Constitutions? The premise of the proposed amendment of the Constitution, and of the ancient errors inflicted on the people of the District of Columbia, is exactly such an admission and pretension.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF WILLIAM A. ALBAUGH, CANDIDATE FOR THE REPUBLICAN NOMINATION FOR CONGRESS FROM THE FIFTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

In contrast to all the witnesses permitted to testify before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution in the hearing on Senate Joint Resolution 65, I begin with a totally different assumption that the District of Columbia is now just one of many Federal enclaves located in the State of Maryland.

Constitution Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 provides that Congress shall have the power to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over all Federal enclaves. Nationalizing the State, county and city governments within a territory which is being transformed into a Federal enclave by cession does not change the boundary of the State making the cession.

When the question of restoring full Maryland voting rights to the resident citizens of the Federal enclave known as "NIH" (the National Institute of Health in Bethesda, Maryland) arose in Evans v. Cornman, 398 U.S. 419 (1970), the United States Supreme Court ordered the State of Maryland to either produce the law that removed this Federal enclave from the State of Maryland or restore full voting rights to the resident citizens. The voting rights were restored forthwith.

Aside from the obvious point that any law which removes land from the State of Maryland upsets the existing Maryland congressional redistricting laws and is itself an unconstitutional redistricting law if it fails to transfer the removed land to another State where resident citizens are guaranteed full and equal voting representation in Congress, both the Cession Act (1 Stat. 130, Ch. 28, July 16, 1790) and the Organic Act (2 Stat. 103, Ch. 15, February 27, 1801) provide specifically that the land ceded by the State of Maryland to the United States shall remain under the force of the existing laws of Maryland. As of February 27, 1801 the Maryland congressional redistricting laws specified that the ceded land was part of the second and third congressional election districts of Maryland.

When the Constitutional Amendment XXIII was adopted on March 29, 1961 it was assumed by the majority of the people and Congress that the District of Columbia had been legally removed from the State of Maryland. I submit this assumption was incorrect for the simple reason that nobody can produce the law that removed the District of Columbia from the State of Maryland. However, did the Twenty-third Constitutional Amendment accidently remove the District of Columbia from the State of Maryland and for the first time provide a legal basis for the argument that claims the District of Columbia has been removed? I say no. The amendment is written in a way that does not in itself redefine the boundary of any State. If Congress wishes to move the seat of Government of the United States to Boston or Indianapolis, there is nothing in the amendment to prevent such a move and there is nothing in the amendment which would upset the State boundaries of the States involved. However, the amendment becomes inoperative whenever the seat of government is located within a State. The amendment provides that the number of electors of President and Vice President allotted to the seat of government district shall be in addition to those appointed by the States. If the district constituting the seat of government is in a State, it is logically impossible to assign it any electors in addition to those assigned to its home State.

Therefore, I respectfully submit that the District of Columbia has not been removed from the State of Maryland. The people who think it has been removed by law should hold their judgment on this point in abeyance until the experts can at least produce a law that might support this position.

There is no reason that the citizens of the District of Columbia cannot be treated just like the citizens of any other Federal enclave established by cession of land from the State of Maryland and guaranteed full Maryland voting rights at all levels of government.

The constitutional guarantees protecting equal rights, privileges, immunities, and a Republican form of government are all tied to State citizenship. It is right and proper that the citizens of the seat of government district should be State citizens and that they should always have the full protection of the courts and Congress in

guaranteeing that specifically that they have full and equal voting representation in both Houses of Congress.

If one accepts my basic assumption that the District of Columbia is now a Federal enclave in the State of Maryland, one is forced to protest the malapportionment of both Congress and the Maryland State Legislature which have unconstitutionally excluded the citizens of the District of Columbia from the State of Maryland. Two Maryland congressional seats which rightfully belong to the population of the District of Columbia have been stolen and given to other States which obviously do not have the interest of District of Columbia citizens at heart.

On the other hand, if my basic assumption is wrong and there is in fact a law that honestly and constitutionally has removed the District of Columbia from the State of Maryland, I would still violently oppose Senate Joint Resolution 65. The whole Constitution is interrelated and the idea of "State" status is constantly reoccurring. I think it would be a terrible idea to produce a new non-State entity by constitutional amendment. Under the present system we already have Federal enclave status co-existing beautifully with State status in every case with the exception of the District of Columbia. If you wish to avoid a whole lot of built-in problems, you will make the District of Columbia a State or a part of a State. If District of Columbia citizens are not now State citizens, I think they should be made State citizens by the quickest possible means.

Hon.BIRCH BAYH,

WASHINGTON, D.C., April 28, 1978.

Chairman, Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR CHAIRMAN BAYH: As the enclosures, attachments, and accompanying statement of mines would indicate, I am, perusual, since about 10 years ago, participating in the PUSH and hearings in the evolution to gain representation in Congress for the District of Columbia, and other similarly-situated deprived of and denied rightful voting, voice, and representation in a national legislature of the "greatest democracy on earth," the USA!

On this occasion, I want to take into account all political "realities," and REALPOLITIK, and in the following ways:

1. By now COMPROMISING, and now supporting a Constitutional Amendment providing for ONE United States Senator for the District of Columbia, and as many U. S. Representatives as the District of Columbia and other Territories, Zones [Panama Canal Zone until the end of Year 2000], Districts, and Commonwealths of the United States have populations. And I quickly utter that I am, too, as before, supporting U.S. Senate representation for the others, as with the District of Columbia too!

2. By urging that a Petition be filed, if necessary, to bring the Amendment out of the full Committee, if a tie vote results, or not results, in presenting the Amendment to the floor under normal procedures, etc.

Accordingly, I submit the accompanying statement of mines, with all of the attaching Appendices, etc., as my "Surrogate U. S. Senator [D.D.C.]" participation in your hearings and publications.

Thanking you ahead of time for your assistance and and any response you care to make, I am

Sincerely yours,

Enclosures:

LEONARD S. BROWN, Jr., Esq.
U.S. Senator [D-D.C.]

STATEMENT OF LEONARD S. BROWN, JR., ESQUIRE, “SURROGATE UNITED STATES SENATOR [D-D.C.]," IN SUPPORT Of Passage of A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT GRANTING "ONE" UNITED STATES SENATOR FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, OTHER U.S. TERRITORIES, Zones (Panama Canal Zone UNTIL YEAR 2000), COMMONWEALTHS; COMMONWEALTHS, AND POSSESSIONS, TRUST TERRITORIES, AND DISTRICTS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ETC., and as MANY CONGRESSMEN AS POPULATIONS DICTATE

Chairman Birch Bayh, and other members of the Subcommittee On Constitutional Amendments, Committee On The Judiciary, United States Senate, 95th Congress, 1st Session, I wish again to participate in the PUSH and every Session_evolution moves for full, voting representations in both houses of Congress for the District of