A Stitch in Haste

The good folks at Catallarchy beat me to blogging about a curious question:

Why does Puerto Rico have an Olympic team?

Last time I checked, Puerto Rico was part of the United States -- specifically, it has "commonwealth status."

Same thing for American Samoa ("protectorate status"), and apparently (website is very old) for the Northern Marianas Islands ("commonwealth status"), which also have teams.

What's next -- the Guantanamo Detainee Olympic Team?

SIDEBAR: A little googling uncovered something interesting: I knew that Puerto Ricans are United States citizens, but it turns out American Samoans are not -- instead they're United States "nationals," which is somehow different.

Of course, as for the Olympics, the whole Puerto Rico thing is a publicity maneuver (think "basketball"), as is the whole ridiculous sham of allowing professionals to play at all.

But this is as good a time as any to revisit the whole loopy Puerto Rico situation. I always find it amazing how loudly (and I'm in NYC, so I mean loudly), Puerto Ricans walk the walk when it comes to questions of pride and culture, and even of independence from the U.S., but they never seem to walk the walk whenever there's a referendum on the matter in the homeland (the last such referendum was in 1998).

I guess being a recipient of unspeakably massive amounts of mainland tax dollars, not to mention the ability to issue tax-advantaged municipal bonds, has its addictions advantages.

UPDATE: Outside the Beltway has some info on the IOC's reasoning. I'm not impressed.
And I apologize for overlooking Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

I blogged back in 2004 about the ludicrous practice by the Olympicrats of giving Puerto Rico its own Olympic team. My position on Puerto Rico is simple: they perpetually huff-and-puff about independence, or statehood, or whatever, yet whenever it's actually put to a vote, they chose — surprise — the status quo. Amazing what some tax breaks can do to one's principles. In any event, the Puerto Rican agitators do not deserve to be taken seriously — so I don't.

Oh, and I don't take the Olympicrats — or those who would collaborate with them — seriously either.

In any case, we now have a humorous opportunity to see whether the Olympicrats will take the absurdity of granting nation-state status to "disenfranchised" American citizens to its illogical conclusion:

I did a little looking around and found out that not only does Puerto Rico have a team, but so does Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands - all part of the United States.

The wheels started turning in my head. I knew that Puerto Rico, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, while parts of the United States, each only have one, non-voting delegate in the U.S. House of Representatives. The District of Columbia also only has one, non-voting delegate in the U.S. House. However, unlike those other American territories DC lacks its own Olympic committee.

That is until now. Together with some friends and co-workers who live in the District we've started a movement — we are seeking official recognition for the "District of Columbia Olympic Committee (DCOC)."

The "capitolists" (get it?) intend to participate in only one Olympic sport:

The first team we put together is the curling team. We figured that it was the only sport that really fit our collective athletic ability, plus there's usually beer at the end of the games. ... It's a lot like bocci, but on ice and it has been an Olympic sport since since 1998.

Okay, humor aside — the subject of (voting) congressional representation for residents of the District of Columbia?

It's quite simple really: too bad, so sad. You don't like it? Then either move or amend the Constitution.

The question of "one person, one vote" came up during the Alito confirmation hearings. It's an important constitutional principle. But so is the concept that the District of Columbia is not a state and therefore is simply not entitled to (voting) congressional representation.

If it needs to be said, then let's say it: The Senate stinks. North Dakota gets the same number of Senate seats that California gets? That makes no sense anymore.

But it's what the Constitution calls for. Don't like it? Amend it. It wouldn't be the first time.

And this really needs to be said, so let's say it (again): the Electoral College stinks. I've been saying that almost since my very first blogpost.

But it's what the Constitution calls for. Don't like it? Amend it. It wouldn't be the first time.

So okay, fine, disenfranchisement of D.C. residents stinks. Point conceded.

But it's what the Constitution calls for. Don't like it? Amend it. It wouldn't be the first time.

And good luck with that whole curling thing.

(Via Hammer of Truth.) More thoughts at Debate Link, Moderate Voice.

POST SCRIPT: On a completely unrelated subject, I would advise the would-be "capitolist curlers" to be careful about tossing around the world "Olympic" too flippantly. The Olympicrats don't like it — just ask the gays.

Gregorio Igartúa de la Rosa needs a new hobby.

His old hobby was suing — and suing, and suing, and then suing again — to try to circumvent the Constitution's plain dictate that only residents of bona fide states (and, since 1961, the District of Columbia) get to participate in the vote for Electoral College process of selecting the president and vice president.

But now the Supreme Court has denied certiorari to the last of Igartúa de la Rosa's appeals and the issue is (one would hope) dead, dead, dead — as it should have been from the outset. Igartúa de la Rosa has been clogging the courts with this nonsense since (at least) 1994. There have been (at least) eight judicial decisions or actions in this matter, every single one siding against Igartúa de la Rosa's asinine claim.

Why is it so hard for some people to accept that, sometimes at least, the Constitution says what it means and means what it says?

I'm not a blind supporter of the Electoral College. And I have no problem with Puerto Ricans wanting to vote for president. But let them attain the vote the old-fashioned way: either by amending the Constitution or by what one would think is the obvious path of least resistance: simply petitioning to become a state.

Wanting to have your cake and eat it too is not "seeking to correct an historical injustice and denial of due process."

It's just whining.

Oh, silly me, they don't hate the Constitution, they just love the District of Columbia:

The Utah legislature will meet in special session on Monday to debate a redistricting map adding a fourth congressional seat to the state's delegation as part of a deal to give the District of Columbia its first voting representative in Congress.
...
But that may not be enough to satisfy conservative critics opposed to giving the District a voting seat in Congress, which some lawmakers insist can only happen if Utah also gets a fourth seat in the House. The bill (HR 5388) would increase the size of the House to 437 members to accommodate both desires.

The tit-for-tat bill is likely going nowhere in Congress, but let's assume it did. Would it be constitutional?

Not even close:

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States[.]

No Person shall be a Representative ... who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

Only states get to send voting representatives to the House. End of discussion. How on earth is this a difficult concept — especially to those who are actually in Congress? It boggles the mind.

For the record, I have no problem whatsoever with the abstract concept of full representation for residents of the District. But it requires a constitutional amendment — either to alter the Article I composition of the House or by making the District a full State. We amended the Constitution for the sake of D.C. residents before; we can do it again. This is a difficult concept — how?

UPDATE: Congress quite properly scraps the legislation.

To review: I accept the premise that it is fundamentally unfair for residents of the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and other non-states to have no voting representation in Congress. However, the Constitution says what it says and must be obeyed — that is simply not negotiable.

Unless, of course, you're a partisan politician:

The House gave D.C. Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton the right yesterday to vote on amendments to bills on the House floor, a privilege that legislators acknowledged is largely symbolic.
...
The measure allows Norton and representatives from Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa and the Virgin Islands to vote in the Committee of the Whole, where amendments to legislation are considered.

But it comes with an important caveat: If the delegates' votes provide the margin of victory, their votes are thrown out and representatives revote without them.

I find it fascinating that Norton considers this a defeat ("heartbreaking," she says) that may deflect calls for full (i.e., unconstitutional) representation in the House. That's crocodile tears — she and the Democratic leadership want this issue in the limelight as much as possible. It's not hard to envision all the future press conferences and floor speeches: "Half an injustice is still an injustice!" etc.

It's quite simple really: We amended the Constitution once before to partially enfranchise the District; we can amend it again to fully enfranchise it — either by expressly altering the composition of the House, the Senate or both, or by simply making the District a bona fide state.

More:

House Republicans filed suit in U.S. District Court in 1993, citing a violation of the Constitution. But Judge Harold H. Greene ruled in favor of Norton and the other delegates, saying their votes posed no constitutional problems because they were "symbolic" and therefore "meaningless." That decision was upheld on appeal.

That's a very myopic, superficial view of how voting works. Game theory and the mathematics of strategic voting (not to mention the corrupting nature of political power) tell us that "meaningless" votes can easily turn meaningful, especially when revotes are at stake. Consider the examples of voting in committee versus voting on the floor, voting to end a filibuster but then voting against the bill being filibustered, or voting for a bill but voting against overriding its veto by the president.

The more votes taken, the more wheeling and dealing can occur. As we are seeing at this very moment, some of the most important votes in Congress are supposedly "symbolic." All the more reason that a (constitutional) all-or-other approach to District enfranchisement must be taken.

---

As for Puerto Rico and the other territories, they are even less deserving of sympathy. Every time the commonwealth takes a vote for change (i.e., statehood or independence), they reject it and opt for the status quo. They're not fools — they know which side their passports (and tax returns) are buttered on.