How is the DC Voting Rights Act not completely unconstitutional?

[tritsofme]

I read a few http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/04/a-presidential-push-for-dc-voting-rights.html">articles this morning about a bill being debated in Congress that would for the first time give DC residents a full voting member in the House of Representatives. What has shocked me is that none of these articles even brush against the very likely possibility that such a bill would be ruled unconstitutional.

While I think supporters of this bill have their hearts in the right place, the proper way to see that DC residents have their representation in Congress is through a constitutional amendment.

Congress lacks the power to grant voting rights in the House to a non-state entity such as the District of Columbia.

Article I Section 2:

"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 States 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 to 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.

Section 2 of the 14th Amendment:

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.

DC is not a state, and Congress cannot pass a law pretending that it is. Why did we go through all the trouble of passing the 23rd amendment if it could have been accomplished through an act of Congress?

Is there anyone that really thinks this bill would not be immediately struck down by the Roberts Court? I don't understand why President Obama and Congressional Democrats would spend time on this futile measure, when a real solution would be to push for a constitutional amendment for a permanent fix. Or better yet, Congress should grant DC's request for statehood.

[Warren Stupidity]

1. It is not completely unconstitutional because it has not been ruled on

and there are conflicting statements in the constitution, and partially conflicting rulings from the USSC.

However it is probably unconstitutional, which even the advocates of the legislative approach admit.