When the left-wing media wants something, the Constitution apparently becomes irrelevant. Take the latest attempt by Congress to give congressional representation to the District of Columbia, which fell three votes short of moving to a full Senate vote Tuesday.
Check the establishment media, and you'll have no trouble finding stories decrying the plight of the taxed, but unrepresented, citizens of the District and touting the importance of giving these poor (mostly Democratic) souls representation. Finding stories raising the question of whether or not it's constitutional to do so is another matter.
Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution says that members of the House shall be chosen by the people of the states (not districts), but you'd be hard pressed to find left-wing media reports questioning the constitutionality of giving the District representation without first passing a constitutional amendment.
Worse yet, it seems that some members of Congress are so unaccustomed to being questioned by the media about the constitutionality of their push to give the District representation that they haven't even bothered to look into it before casting their votes.
Take Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), who voted for the representation plan. When asked whether she supported voting rights for the District, Sen. Snowe said "yes."
But, when asked by Cybercast News Service about the Constitution's Article 1, Section 2, Sen. Snowe said, "Well, I don't know, I don't know what the arguments have been, and I haven't heard from both sides. I think this is a fair and equitable resolution." (Hear audio of Snowe).
Here's a senator saying that she's going to vote for the plan - even though she doesn't know if it's constitutional and hasn't bothered to research both sides of the issue or hear the arguments pro or con. How, then, did she come to the conclusion that the measure is a "fair and equitable resolution" worth voting for?
When Cybercast News Service continued to press her for an answer about Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution, and asked whether providing House representation for D.C. would require a constitutional amendment, Snowe said, "I don't believe it does." Again, what's she basing this on if she hasn't done her homework?
The mainstream media never seems to miss a chance to cite the Constitution when it suits their left-wing agenda, so where are they now when the shoe's on the other foot?
