Brilliant

I can't take credit for this. My friend, Steve, wrote this and has graciously allowed me to post it.

Dear Mr. President:

Recently, I had the displeasure of watching the U.S. House of Representatives debate the constitutionality of a bill that would give me and the 553,522 other residents of the nation's capital a single vote in the House. It became, for me, an unpleasant experience when I realized that nearly all Republicans were failing to respond to a potentially persuasive point several Democrats made: that extending to the people of the District of Columbia voting representation in the House is exactly as constitutional or unconstitutional as requiring them to pay income taxes.

A quick review of the Constitution reveals an inconsistency in the interpretation of the words "the several States": In the 16th Amendment, establishing the income tax, these words evidently apply to the District of Columbia and yet are said to exclude the District of Columbia in the opening section of Article I, Section 2, on membership in the House. This inconsistency is undeniable, and yet many Republicans choose to ignore it. You, yourself, have willfully defended a misinterpretation of the Constitution in explaining why you would not sign a bill granting the city representation. Perhaps if you had chosen to become a resident of the District of Columbia in 2001, rather than retain your Texas residency, you would see things differently.

It is not at all clear that our founding fathers, who were obviously staunch defenders of democracy, ever intended for the country they were framing to disenfranchise citizens based on an arbitrary geographic boundary. I do believe that the origin of this city's disenfranchisement was rooted in racist motives during the era of slavery. Sadly, the nation's treatment of residents of the nation's capital did not progress along with the end of slavery and the ushering in of civil rights. Under the current state of affairs, the people of Baghdad have better representation in their government than do the people of my city. I suppose you believe you should be commended for that.

Since your presidential limousines appear to be the first in some time not to sport license plates issued by the District of Columbia -- and, therefore, you may not be aware of what they say -- I will remind you of their stated battle cry: "Taxation Without Representation." If I were in charge of designing a new license plate for the District of Columbia, I would add to that a new meaning for the initials "D.C.": "Disenfranchised Citizens."

While it is nonsensical to suggest that the District of Columbia should be entitled to all of the rights of statehood, it is likewise nonsensical to suggest that income taxes are justly assessed upon the people of the District of Columbia under the same language that supposedly excludes them from having any voting representation in the House. If you are so sure you would veto a bill to create a vote for the city that has surrounded you since Jan. 20, 2001, then at least you can do the next best thing and have your Internal Revenue Service stop sending me and my fellow disenfranchised citizens federal tax forms every year. Short of that, I urge you not to pardon me next year should I choose not to file my federal income tax; I would rather see what the judicial system has to say about it.

Sincerely,

Mr. Stephen P. Sauer

Well written, Stephen.