“This body and this nation has [sic] a territories and a colonies problem.” Those words from Del. Stacey Plaskett echoed in the House chamber this week as the delegate interrupted the election of the House speaker to demand a vote for herself and the representatives of other non-states. The problem, however, is not with the House but with Plaskett and other members in demanding the violation of Article I of the Constitution.
After her election in 2015, Plaskett has often shown a certain disregard for constitutional principles and protections. Despite being a lawyer, Plaskett has insisted in Congress that hate speech is not constitutionally protected, a demonstrably false assertion. Where there is overwhelming evidence of a censorship system that a court called “Orwellian,” Plaskett has repeatedly denied the evidence presented before her committee. When a journalist testified on the evidence of that censorship system, Plaskett suggested his possible arrest. (Plaskett suggested that respected journalist Matt Taibbi had committed perjury due to an error that he made, not in testimony but in a tweet that he later corrected).
However, ignoring the free speech or free press values pales in comparison to what Plaskett was suggesting this week in nullifying critical language in Article I.
Article I, Section 2, states:
“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 in the States Legislature.”
The ability to vote in the House is expressly limited to the elected representatives of “the several states.”
Nevertheless, as the vote was being taken on the eventual election of Speaker Mike Johnson (R., La.), Plaskett rose to demand recognition and to know why she was not allowed to vote:
“I note that the names of representatives from American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and the District of Columbia were not called, representing, collectively, 4 million Americans. Mr. Speaker, collectively, the largest per capita of veterans in this country.”
The presiding member asked a rather poignant question in response: “Does the gentlelady have a problem?”
The answer was decidedly “yes.”
Plaskett responded, “I asked why they were not called. I asked why they were not called from the parliamentarian, please.”
The response was obvious:
“Delegates-elect and the resident commissioner-elect are not qualified to vote/ Representatives-elect are the only individuals qualified to vote in the election of the speaker. As provided in Section 36 of the House rules and manual, the speaker is elected by a majority of the members-elect voting by surname.”
Plaskett then declared “This body and this nation has a territory and a colonies problem. What was supposed to be temporary has now, effectively, become permanent. We must do something about this.”
As Plaskett’s mike was cut off, she objected “But I have a voice!” as Democrats gave her a standing ovation. The media joined in the adoration, including the Atlantic which referred to her as “Congresswoman Plaskett” rather than a delegate.
There is no question that the Virgin Islands has a high percentage of veterans for its population (which stands at only 104,000). It is also a cherished part of our country, but it is not a state.
Plaskett was demanding a floor vote for herself and delegates from American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and D.C..
These delegates are currently allowed to vote only in committees. The House is permitted to grant such authority since these delegates are not actually voting on the final language or adoption of legislation.
What Democrats were supporting was to allow votes on the House floor, which would have collapsed the bright-line rule that has governed the body for decades. It would also have effectively removed the language referencing “states” from Article I, Section 2, without a constitutional amendment.
This is why Plaskett’s “problem” goes further than simply the selection of the Speaker.
The Democrats have long argued that delegates should be allowed to vote as full members, starting with the D.C. delegate. I have written previously on that issue in academic publications. See, e.g., Jonathan Turley, Too Clever By Half: The Partial Representation of the District of Columbia in the House of Representatives, 76 George Washington University Law Review 305-374 (2008). I also testified at the prior congressional hearings (here and here and here) and written columns (here and here) on why I considered the bill to be flagrantly unconstitutional.
It is neither pleasant nor popular to raise such constitutional objections. I received heat after one Senate hearing in which Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton told the senators that, if they were going to vote against this bill, “do not blame the Framers blame Jonathan Turley.” However, the problem has always been the curious constitutional status of these districts and territories.
The language of the Constitution is clear and unambiguous. Absent an amendment to the Constitution, only states may vote on the floor of the United States House of Representatives.
The problem is not, as claimed by Del. Plaskett, with “colonies.” The Virgin Islands is not a “colony.” It can, at any time, move to become an independent nation. Otherwise, the American people would have to vote for this tiny island to be a state. Either way, citizens will choose the status of the island.
The Democrats giving Plaskett a standing ovation would have presumably added half a dozen new votes for non-states. The call would likely then be for the addition of some representation in the Senate. That would certainly give the Democrats control of the House, but it would allow a fluid definition of what constitutes a representative — a definition that could be manipulated in the future by the majority to maintain their control of the House.
The vote for speaker illustrates the problem. Short a couple of votes, the Democrats were demanding the recognition of new forms of representatives to elect Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D., N.Y.). (It is not clear if it would have made the difference given the party division of these six members).
Presumably, a future house could then remove the votes to achieve the same advantage. It could also recognize other territories to increase voting margins. (Notably, some liberal professors have also suggested dividing blue states to simply multiply Democratic votes in the Senate. That would be constitutional if it is allowed by Congress).
The call to create new forms of voting members on the House floor is consistent with the ad hoc measures in other areas. For example, despite opposition from the public, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) and others have pushed to simply pack the Court with a majority of liberal justices to support their agenda.
The public’s opposition to court packing has not deterred the Democrats. In the same way, unable to secure a majority of citizens to support D.C. statehood, the Democrats previously sought to create a voting member without a constitutional amendment or change in status.
This week, they would have accomplished that result not just for D.C. but other non-states, including the Northern Mariana Islands, a commonwealth covering only 180 miles with a population of less than 50,000.
We have the oldest and most stable constitutional system in the world precisely because we have resisted improvisational or ad hoc measures to achieve political ends. The Constitution is a common article of faith that transcends our passing or petty divisions. These demands for constructive constitutional amendments are the voices of the faithless.
To paraphrase Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, “the fault dear [delegate] lies not in our [states] but in ourselves.”
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”
DEI shows up again.
The House of Reps should set up a committee whose purpose is to find out, first-hand, from the residents of the US Virgin Islands whether they would rather be a Nation? As Turley points out, they have that right, or the right to remain a territory of the US of A — united STATES. Who elected this misinformed delegate?
Right and as a State , taxes and then the breaks on industry which is only tourism. Nothing you can’t get in Florida. Give it to Florida and get rid of her. It’s one of those, you can’t make a silk purse out of a pig’s ear.
Let’s move on. The only reason there’s any industry in Puerto Rico are the tax breaks. Want to see a bunch of unemployed Puerto Ricans? Send them Newsom.
* She is pitiful as is the entire government and its bureaucrats. Look at these messes trying to read and understand laws of the USA.
Someone must get serious about this. Intelligent people just aren’t willing to serve anymore. It is an honest to God mess with stupid people. Ammendment to 2 reps per State. No more delegates at all representing places that were never meant for statehood. These territories would starve to death if they weren’t territories.
Trudeau is just leaving. In your world anyway. What the hell is going on. Some cold blooded murderer shoots and kills a CEO. your young people think it’s wonderful. Your children are ill. Mangione murdered a person in cold blood with forethought.
May the heavens have pity. Dantes inferno? Obama will be upside down frozen in an ice cap. I may pray for him and maybe not.
Merchan? How is that Hamlet?
Adieu.
Earlier the same day this woman had sworn an oath to support the constitution, and just a short time later brazenly violated that oath by calling for the House to violate the constitution. If I were a House member I would immediately have moved for her expulsion, and insisted that a simple majority could expel her, not the two thirds required to expel an actual member.
Remember Ashli Babbitt
– January 6, 2021
Despite being a lawyer. . . What I wonder is how is it that more than I just realize how did far too many of these so called lawyers they get their Bar license? You can’t display this level of intelligence yet claim yourself to be a lawyer!
Anon– “how did far too many of these so called lawyers they get their Bar license? ”
Look at her picture.
She’s an alien and she can claim the identity of lawyer, black, female. Democrats can do that. It’s fluid and pan lawyer.
What I see in Plaskett is ignorance , and outright distain for the constitution. But that shoe also fits Democrats in general.
* Did Madam delegate Plaskett hammer home these territories and it’s peoples should PAY State and Federal INCOME TAXES. That must be the reason she’s so adamant! You go girl…
* These territories were never intended to become States. They are free to leave. After the Spanish American War these territories were ceded by Spain. Whats Plaskett’s point? PR receives billions of dollars from the US. There’s nothing in it for the US and an increase in social programs would add billions. Corporations not paying income tax now would leave and job losses.
It’s like symbiosis. There’s nothing in it for the American people except a few corporations as a tax haven and added welfare payouts is in the billions 50-75 billion including hurricane clean ups. Puerto Rico and others are symbiotic as parasitic.
None of these territories were considered statehood material. Any numbers cited are by corporations.
Perhaps Plaskett wants increased payments in SSI etc and kick backs? She’s not on the level.
Dems applauded 😂
“Despite being a lawyer”
how does someone like this pass the Bar?
* She’s a member of AA.
Trump pitched a fit on Truth Social over the fact that flags would likely be flying at half-staff across the country when he is set to be sworn into office on Jan. 20.
It’s a sign from god.
It is a sign from a sick pack of lefty media slobs, a corrupt old guard, and an out of control IC.
Why gramma what big ears you have.
Why gramma, what big teeth you have…
Call the lumberjack….
I spent 12 years in the US military and I don’t recall ever meeting a single person from the Virgin Islands.
Your point being…?
The usa has bases maybe? Protection from communism maybe? They can leave any time they want unlike states and don’t pay taxes now. How does she have a JD?
Point? He vacayed in Miami.
There’s not a lot of them but there is a high percentage per person.
Puerto Rico | What will debt to GDP be in 2024?
Answer: 123 percent
The average GDP for fiscal year 2024 was $28.83 T, which was less than the U.S. debt of $35.46 T. This resulted in a Debt to GDP Ratio of 123 percent.
Generally, a higher Debt to GDP ratio indicates a government will have greater difficulty in repaying its debt.
FOMB warns Puerto Rico bonds could be worthless
By: Tom Sanzillo ~ February 06, 2024
https://ieefa.org/resources/fomb-warns-puerto-rico-bonds-could-be-worthless
US TERRITORIES Public Debt Outlook – 2023 Update (PDF)
https://www.gao.gov/assets/830/827340.pdf
Ah yes , WITH PROPER DEPLOYMENT OF FEDERAL RESOURCES….dump them and their creditors.
Big ol’ cash cow…
Cut the territories aka tax havens and they can go their merry way. 6 fewer nut jobs. Ammendment number in house to two reps per State. Even 200 nut jobs … break up the corruption in that way of a body who thinks they’re 👑. No one needs 500 reps. If they actually dud honest work it would be a different matter.
George mcinliar and gigigoogoo, you’ve won. You can have it.
In other news, Chat GPT reveals the modus operandi of Democrat Del. Stacey Plaskett and Democrats in general. It’s amazing how honest Chat GPT can be if you ask the right questions, and find/replace key words thereafter
Hypocritical Democrats are those who publicly advocate for certain values, policies, or behaviors while privately acting in ways that contradict those principles. This inconsistency can manifest in various forms and can undermine public trust. Here are some common characteristics and examples of hypocritical behavior among Democrats:
1. **Policy Inconsistency**: Democrats may champion policies aimed at social justice, environmental protection, or economic equality while personally benefiting from systems that perpetuate inequality or environmental harm. For example, a Democrat like Bill Gates advocating for climate change owns private airplanes and burns fossil fuel to cheat on his ex-wife, Melinda.
2. **Moral Double Standards**: Some Democrats may publicly promote family values or ethical behavior while engaging in personal conduct that contradicts those values, such as infidelity, corruption, or unethical business practices.
3. **Selective Advocacy**: A Democrat might advocate for certain issues only when it is politically advantageous, ignoring those same issues when they are not in the spotlight or when they conflict with their interests. For instance, Democrat Del. Stacey Plaskett allegedly supports diversity, equity and inclusion but couldn’t give a rat’s ass about the people of the US Virgin Islands
4. **Campaign Promises vs. Actions**: Many Democrats make promises during campaigns to address specific issues, such as poverty or education reform, but fail to follow through once elected. Democrat Del. Stacey Plaskett is prima facie evidence of a duplicitous politician
5. **Use of Privilege**: Hypocritical Democrats may advocate for policies that benefit the general public while using their own privilege to avoid the consequences of those policies. For example, Democrat Del. Stacey Plaskett support tax increases for the wealthy while utilizing loopholes to minimize their own tax burden. Besides vacationing in the US Virgin Islands rocks for someone as butt ugly as Stacey
6. **Public vs. Private Statements**: Some Democrats may make statements in public that are at odds with their private beliefs or actions. This can include downplaying issues like systemic racism or climate change in private conversations while publicly supporting initiatives to address them.
7. **Exploitation of Issues**: Democrats may exploit social issues for political gain, such as using a tragedy to push a specific agenda while failing to address the root causes of the problem. Democrat Del. Stacey Plaskett habitually grandstands on the US House floor to seek the attention she desperately needs
8. **Lack of Accountability**: Hypocritical Democrats often evade accountability for their actions, using their position to deflect criticism or avoid scrutiny. This can create a culture of impunity where they feel free to act contrary to their stated beliefs without facing consequences. Democrat Debbie W. Schulz did just that when applauding like a trained seal for hypocrite Democrat Del. Stacey Plaskett
In summary, hypocritical Democrats are characterized by a disconnect between their public personas and private actions. This inconsistency can take many forms, from policy contradictions to moral double standards, and can significantly impact public trust and the political landscape. But for Democrat Del. Stacey Plaskett, she’s all about “sho me the money!”