“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.”
Professor Turley states: “we have resisted improvisational or ad hoc measures to achieve political ends.” Really? If that is true, then answer me this: why have we not more closely analyzed the yet unresolved constitutional “natural born Citizen” bona fides of Barack Obama and Kamala Harris? Or for that matter the same bona fides of Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio or Nikki Haley?
I’ll wait.
Or John McCain. McCain was born a Panamanian citizen, because Panama recognizes ius soli, and Panama retained sovereignty over the Canal Zone where he was born. Is a dual citizen eligible to become president? Has one ever?
@michaeldix2f64102fb2: Imagine how we improve the pool of presidential candidates by permanently barring every single child born to an American soldier serving their country with an assignment to an American base outside of CONUS! Better yet, include territories like Guam and the Virgin Islands in that prohibition!
Nothing could be more suspicious as a presidential candidate than a child born to an American soldier while that soldier was willing to serve tours on NATO and other bases in the UK, Germany, Italy, etc .
These are the people Lawrence O’Donnell just warned America about! If a military background prepares you for being a mass murderer, we sure as hell don’t want that contaminating the presidency!
Excluding these untrustworthy military kids born to a soldier parent abroad can only improve the chances for a better pure blood American to serve as president – like Joe Biden.
Old Airborne Dog
Yes, dual citizens are completely eligible for all offices. There is not one word in the constitution to imply otherwise. Ted Cruz renounced his Canadian citizenship for political reasons, not legal ones. And that means even if Barack 0bama had Indonesian citizenship (for which there is no evidence) it wouldn’t affect his eligibility.
The first few presidents were dual citizens, since the UK did not allow the renunciation of UK citizenship. That was the official grounds for the War of 1812.
And there is no “unresolved” question about the natural born citizen clause. It is crystal clear that both 0bama and Harris are natural born citizens. The idea that someone’s parents’ citizenship has anything to do with it has no basis in law whatsoever. It’s just a crank idea that nobody had even heard of until 0bama’s candidacy.
@ Anonymous coward/George: If that is true, then answer me this: why have we not more closely analyzed the yet unresolved constitutional “natural born Citizen” bona fides of Barack Obama and Kamala Harris?
Answer us this: any particular reason Democrat Kluxxers are obsessed with ensuring that no child born to an American soldier posted on a base located on soil outside of CONUS, where the other parent wasn’t an American citizen, must be prohibited from running for president after they grow up after returning to America?
Penalized with reduction to the status of second-class citizen for being the child born of an American citizen serving his country abroad – all because the other parent wasn’t also an American? No matter their skin color?
Yeah, I’ll wait as well. There’s some Plunkett level contempt, right there!
Old Airborne Dog
But what of someone born abroad to a US citizen who was not serving his country? Let’s say Ted Cruz, or George Romney. Are they natural born citizens? The current legal consensus is that they are, because they were citizens at birth. But unlike the nonsense theory that a NBC must be born to two US citizens, there is a decent case to be made that a NBC must be born under US jurisdiction, which means either within the USA or abroad to a US diplomat or the like, who is under US jurisdiction. So McCain would be eligible, but Cruz and Romney Sr. would not.
Give the territories their freedom and be done with it.
Hear hear…
“. . . new forms of representatives . . .” “. . . recognize other territories . . .” “. . . dividing blue states . . .”
It’d be simpler just to give D’s two votes.
Not out of power-lust. But to “preserve democracy.”
“After her election in 2015, Plaskett has often shown a certain disregard for constitutional principles and protections.”
She is just another loudmouthed black woman, who cares nothing for laws or norms. Like Letitia James, Fanny Willis, Whoopi Goldberg, Maxine Waters, millions of single moms in the hood, numerous Federal judges, the Butterfly McQueen on SCOTUS, etc.
About half the white folks in the country cheer on anything that comes out of these knuckleheads’ mouths, while castigating intelligent black people who do not tow the Democrat party line, in the worst possible way.
If you want to see the result of black women being in charge of things, simply drive thru the nearest hood. If you dare.
Plaskett is a Angry, Left Wing Radical DEM, trying to make a name for herself, like AOC, she does this all the time. She along with the other Radical DEMS will continue their ways. they did not learn any lessons from the election, and this is why the DEM Party will continue to lose until they change their leadership and go to the middle and throw these Radical DEMS out
I hope that they continue to lose. But that is not guaranteed, and probably a false hope. Seventy-five million people voted for Kamala Harris, someone who could barely utter a coherent sentence, and a person whose handlers had to keep her on a very tight leash, lest she detonate in public, like Biden did in the debate. Seventy-five million people voted for a party that openly advocates the sexual mutilation of children, and that openly lied to the public about the mental health of Joe Biden.
Sadly, the idiots like Dennis McIntyre, Gigi, and George, etc. are far from being the only idiots in the room. Seventy-five million. Unbelievable.
Term Limits and the end of 2 party rule would go along way in ending this madness
No. The idiots who voted her in would simply vote in another horrible black Democrat in her place.
“2 party rule” is not a thing codified anywhere in law. What is a thing is that other parties: bull moose, communist, libertarian, green do not have enough support to be viable. In other countries they become viable enough to be in third place in voting, sometimes even second place. But in America, they serve as spoilers who can tilt an election.
That’s how we got Bill Clinton – a third party candidate sucked off Republican votes and allowed Clinton to win. And let’s not forget how we got the first “progressive” authoritarian anti-Constitution racist Democrat president, Warren Wilson: Teddy Roosevelt running third party when he lost the GOP nomination.
Term limits would require passing a constitutional amendment. You might as well hope for a constitutional amendment to restore the Senate to what it was as a state check on federal government prior to Woodrow Wilson successfully pushing the 17th Amendment.
Old Airborne Dog
Senators represent their states EXACTLY as they did before the 17th amendment. The only difference is that now they represent the PEOPLE of their states, not the politicians. Which is as it should be.
Susan Wild (D-PA): “Do what you know is right and let the law catch up to you”. The Dem’s modus operandi.
IIRC as part of its joining the nation as a state Texas has the right to divide itself into 5 separate states. I don’t think that federal permission is required but not entirely sure about that. I’m am not aware of any other states with that built in ability to split
That is not true. First of all, it would be unconstitutional. Only Congress can create new states, and it can’t delegate that authority. Second, it’s moot because there are already five or more states in what was the Republic of Texas. (These were created by Congress, not by the Texas legislature, which had merely to consent to it.)
Why not just let the territories join the states closest to them ?
Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico become part of Florida, Guam whatever state its closest to and DC split between MD and VA..
As a citizen of the State of Virginia I say “thanks but no thanks”!
go to your room
No part of Virginia ever became part of DC, although the federal government is certainly colonizing it now. The residential part of DC should revert to Maryland.
No part of Virginia ever became part of DC,
Not true. DC was originally a square ten miles on a side, and included territory from both MD and VA. But VA got its part back.
Virginia already got its part of DC back. The current territory of DC should go back to Maryland, except for a small federal district containing just the immediate area around the Mall.
I only hope that enough Republicans realize that the greatest threat to this country is the American Leftist. The Leftists gave away our nuclear secrets in the 1940s and 50s and they have been undermining us ever since. In the 60s and 70s we had the radical terror groups. The Weather Underground, Black Panthers, some of whom are still floating around politics today. Now we have the Soros open borders crowd. If they aren’t taking bribes or propping up Hamas, they’re receiving medals.
I agree with Plaskett’s complaint to a very limited degree: I think that the current status of these territories should never have been allowed to become the long term norm. An area should be adopted as a territory for one of two reasons: temporary expediency of an urgent nature, e.g. in the conduct of a foreign war; or to allow a transition period in a process intended to incorporate the territory as a permanent State of the Union I do not think it to be in the long term interests of either the United States or those territories to maintain them in a kind of limbo status. To me, it seems pretty much a “sh1t or get off the pot” situation. I propose that legislation be passed and implemented that will identify those territories that are of long term strategic importance AND have sufficient cultural similarity to the U. S. to justify making them States, and give the remainder a specific time frame (5 – 10 years should be sufficient) to become independent nations. If a territory has long-term strategic value but fails the cultural test, we can negotiate military and/or trade agreements, as we do with numerous other independent nations around the world. After the categorization is done, we should move with all reasonable dispatch to assimilate any territories that have been determined to be desirable as States into the Union (assuming that any pass muster, a proposition of which I am highly skeptical). While we are at it, we might want to give Hawaii an opportunity to achieve independence, as most of the residents appear to have no enthusiasm for acknowledging the Constitution.
No. You ignore the reality of the world.
Number 6 is correct. If a member of congress desires a territory to be included in the constitutional voting process then they should go through the qualification process . This is parallel to the immigration difficulties. Procedure is just as important as substantive law. Placket is like so many who , notwithstanding her education, is merely being and undisciplined partisan and not informed ( or being informed and misrepresenting the law). I suggest that she read Zachary Taylor’s book on constitutional symmetry. It might give her a sense of balance and prompt her to shy away from making unsupported assertions. Watching representatives and candidates engage in desperate acts for short term gain evidences their lack of procedural discipline and accurate substantive interpretation. What was Plaskett’s first name. Was it Vallery?
The US has intercontinental missiles. There ain’t gunna be no more ground wars.
“After her election in 2015, Plaskett has often shown a certain disregard for constitutional principles and protections.”
That is as far as I got through this incredibly hypocritical JT post.
JT has no problem with trump attempting to stay in office after loosing an election, but has a problem with the “disregard for constitutional principals” of Plaskett?
By the way, staying in office after loosing an election is called an insurrection. I know how you hate to use that word for trump supporters, because it describes you so well. If the shoe fits, wear it. And for all through history you will have to wear the shoe that you supported an insurrectionist. I am pretty sure that fomenting an insurrection might just be one of the “constitutional principals” that JT is so concerned about.
Give me a break. Take the log out of your own eye before reaching for the speck in your neighbors. I know, another one of those sayings from your religious figure that you have completely thrown under the bus.
Yea, a weaponless “insurrection” to overthrow the greatest military power in the world… Oh wait, actually I stand corrected… there was one guy who had a couple of guns that he left in his truck, guess he forgot them, and some dude had a flag pole, and another was wearing a silly hat.
You make my point.
If I attempt to rob a bank with a fake gun made of soap, Can I get off?
Your point? That the flagpole looked like a rifle, as the soap bar looked like a handgun?
How about proving you aren’t a hypocrite because you don’t consider the day long assault on the White House carried out by Democrat street storm troopers to attempt to murder President Trump inside to be the first “insurrection”?
Or the rioting and pillaging in Washington DC carried out on the day of Trump’s first inauguration to prevent him from being inaugurated an even earlier insurrection?
How about the nationwide Election Campaign Season Mostly Peaceful Rioting, Pillaging, Looting, Arson And Murder to be an insurrection to bring down a presidency during the election campaign?
Not Republican = Not Insurrection? Please Believe Us; Nothing To See Here, Don’t Believe Your Lying Eyes™?
Old Airborne Dog
What does prior protests have to do with the insurrection of Jan 6? Trump lost the election, he had a multi prong plan to stay in office. Among the plans was a group of misfits assaulting congress to get them to declare trump the winner. All of that failed. It was an insurrection. Look up the definition.
Liar. There was never any plan to have “a group of misfits assaulting congress”. Among the plan was to have PEACEFUL PROTESTERS PERSUADE Congress to declare Trump the winner, in which case he would NOT have lost, and would be the lawful president elect. Biden would have lost the election, and any attempt to put HIM in office by force would have been an insurrection.
Here is a description of Jan from someone in the Capitol building…
“For my efforts doing my duty as a Capitol Police sergeant, I was beaten and struck by raging rioters all over my body with multiple weapons until I was covered in my own blood. My hand, foot and shoulder were wounded. I thought I was going to die and never make it home to see my wife and young son.”
And he was lying.
Anonymous, you set up a classic “straw man” argument when you assert that “JT has no problem with Trump trying to stay in office…” Really? If you think JT approved of Jan 6th, then you are in serious need of an education. Do try to get your facts straight before popping off.
“. . . you set up a classic “straw man” argument . . .”
It’s worse than that.
His comment is textbook ad hominem.
Basically, just lies with different versions, interconnected.
You are correct, of course. Note: 90% of leftists arguments are either ad hominems or straw men. They just can’t put together a cogent argument for most of their positions.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/05/opinion/jan-6-pardons.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare
“JT has no problem with trump . . .”
Even if true, how is that relevant to his *argument* in this post?
The insurrection is all on the demonic, destructive democrat side with false ballots as ammo. Obama—> fundamentally transform? Right, transformed in a hell pit. Hey! It’s so much better now, Barry, as people on subways are ignited and incinerated. That’s quite a transformation.
End of discussion about demon Plaskett. The demons have needs to eat your children.
Have a great day.
@Anonymous Democrat coward: By the way, staying in office after loosing an election is called an insurrection.
But weeks earlier towards the end of the election campaign there was a day long attempt to storm the White House. Carried out by Democrat street thugs and fascist storm troopers from Antifa and Black Liars & Marxists in an attempt to murder the president – THAT WASN’T AN “INSURRECTION”! Even though they seriously woulded many Secret Service and Capitol Police with actual weapons like Molotov cocktails during their assault on the White House.
Please Believe Us; Nothing To See Here, Don’t Believe Your Lying Eyes™? Is that it?
Convince us why you should have any credibility while you Anonymously flex and pose about having the credibility to comment on hypocrisy?
This is why you feckless Democrat cowards post your hypocritical crap and lies Anonymously.
And I for one hope that neither Democrats like Plunkett nor you don’t change one single thing with your demagoguery and lies between now and the midterms and then the next presidential election.
Don’t change a thing! In fact, run Vice President DEI Hire again as your candidate in the next presidential election! Or Hillary Clinton!
Old Airborne Dog
Right up there with AOC.
College grads .. says all you need to know about american collgee education.
Hey folks, please think before you comment. Don’t embarass yourself.
When has that ever stopped you?
One needs a brain to think.
“However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.” How prescient was our first President, in his farewell address to the Nation.
Would dividing current blue States actually be Constitutional? What about this from Article IV section 3:
New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state;
Which is why either West Virginia doesn’t exist, or the US acknowledged Virginia had left the Union.
You are a filthy liar. You have deliberately misquoted the constitution. What the constitution actually says is the exact opposite of your claim: “no new state shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state, nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.”
In every case where a state was formed by splitting another state (such as Maine) it was done with the consent of the existing state.
And yes, West Virginia was formed with the full consent of the legitimate Virginia legislature, which at that time sat in Wheeling. Once WV became a separate state, the legislature moved to Alexandria. Of course no consent was necessary from the rebels headquartered in Richmond.
The common theme among many of today’s children is an aversion to understanding either history or the meaning of words.
How this woman passed the Bar is unfathomable to me.
D E I
Not only is Plaskett a Constitutional illiterate, she is almost always a nasty one at that.
The Dems say Trump will end norms and be a fascist dictator as they try to give DELEGATES the right to vote on the floor, add two states, (both blue of course), add 5 Justices to the Court (all liberal of course) and end the filibuster (only when there is a liberal majority… of course)
One thing that was equally as abhorrent as this radical pontificating ignorantly from the well was the likes of Katherine Clark and Wasserman-Schultz, two AWFLS, giving her a standing ovation for her ignorance.
Hey Clark and Wasserman-Schultz, I have bad news for you, it isn’t 2020 and we are no longer in the insanely radical post St George Floyd worshipping at the feet of BLM and ANTIFA. You were able to let that cancer metastasize as a way to get rid of Trump in 2020, but BLM, DEI, ANTIFA and Defund the Police got you all put into minority positions in DC and we aren’t going back.
PS. If you think I am wrong about the radical time being over just go ask Congressman Bowman and Congresswoman Cori Bush!!!!
The Left (as compared to the Liberals, distinctly different) hates the Constitution when if f ails to deliver the desired political result.
It’s frightening to see how the Democrats march in lockstep to violate the Constitution. The entire Democratic party ought to be tried for treason.
Treason? You sound just like Plaskett and as ignornat.