“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.”
There are several sides to the matter aside from the mechanics of the Constitutional process. The United States ‘Territories and Commonwealths’ (American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and the District of Columbia)
Re. per Wikipeida’s definition*:
Territories of the United States are sub-national administrative divisions and dependent territories overseen by the federal government of the United States. The American territories differ from the U.S. states and Indian reservations in that they are not sovereign entities.[note 2] In contrast, each state has a sovereignty separate from that of the federal government and each federally recognized Native American tribe possesses limited tribal sovereignty as a “dependent sovereign nation”.[2] Territories are classified by incorporation and whether they have an “organized” government established by an organic act passed by the Congress.[3] American territories are under American sovereignty and may be treated as part of the U.S. proper in some ways and not others (i.e., territories belong to, but are not considered part of the U.S.).[4] Unincorporated territories in particular are not considered to be integral parts of the U.S.,[5] and the U.S. Constitution applies only partially in those territories.
Amongst the group there are Tax implications that effect their ‘Haven-ness’ directly related to their economic viability ** (without which they can’t compete, whither & die), therein lies the problem(s).
Severally these Territories want to ‘have their cake and eat it to’. In effect, these Territories want the full benefits of Statehood participation sans the responsibilities of the current 50 States.
Now I’m going to push the argument further, in a direction that maybe contrary to Some.
These Economic Free-Loaders (the ‘Territories and Commonwealths’) are not unlike some of Our own lower 48 States. Bidens’ Delaware (it’s the Delaware way) and others have proven that with out a Financial Loop-Hole (Corporate Tax Haven) in their respective Contractual [K] structure with the U.S. , they are not economically viable to compete within the 50 Untied States collective. (They can’t pull Their weight). So why would we want to conjoin the Territories and Commonwealths as States? -Not-
I”ll digress, .. Trump wants to buy Greenland (akin to the Alaskan Purchase) as it has a potential to become an Economically Viable State. For that matter if Trump would purchase Cuba and Panama these to would also contribute to the Economic viability of the 50 United States.
In respect to a few deadbeat States and the Territories and Commonwealths, They could not compete with the aforementioned ‘acquisitions’. Even collectively as Deadbeats. – The Bottom Line $$$ –
Del. Stacey Plaskett argument does not hold water because the ‘Viability’ of the proposed Statehood is not there. (e.g.: I don’t BUY it – $$$). They have had the time to Economically develop, and since had not panned out to be viable. By her own words ‘it’s about time’, well yes time has come and gone and they haven’t proven themselves economically (strategically from a Military perspective perhaps yes, but at what cost to the U.S.)
By Her calculus the entire Caribbean chain should be eligible for Statehood.
With Budget Deficits running in the Trillion$, perhaps We should De-List them, then purchase: Greenland, Panama, and Cuba.
References:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territories_of_the_United_States
IRS (PDF – READ THIS)
It is important to understand the differences between Puerto Rico vs the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI).
https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/teb3_lesson4.pdf
** IMO: I don’t consider flipping Real Estate and the subsequent related Financial Banking activities as included in GDP.
It should not be applied in any of the State calculations as well (as a contribution to GDP) – via GAAP and GASB standards). That’s part of the problem, … by accounting inclusive of a Fiat economy.
I have watched several House Committee meetings where Representative Plaskett has been a participant. She is never civil, her vitriol a constant and the personification of all that makes the average sane political observer want to vomit. In a word , to borrow a thought from that Christmas favorite …’ She’s a mean one’ … Mr. Grinch … and unfortunately with no apparent redeemable qualities.
She’s lived a miserable life and you gotta pay! My God, some lives people have lived are in the outer limits. I’d call upon the mercy of God but can’t bring myself to utter his name. It’d be blasphemous.
Ammendment to 100 reps tops, 2 from each State and cut these territories loose. Get rid of Plaskett and her ilk.
Just another intellectual powerhouse…
J
Thanks to Democrats, Mexico already votes in California. Thanks to Hunter, Beijing already blackmails the Whitehouse.
The same Party that launders money in Ukraine and takes bribes from Beijing wants non-states to vote in our government. Surprised?
And who ever said that pimping your crack-addicted son out on Air Force Two wasn’t profitable ??? It worked like a champ !!!
It sure did.
China has been working away while Americans were looking in their pants trying to decide on which bathroom to use. China has opened industry in the western hemisphere.
All the territories listed should be cut loose and become their own nations. They contribute nothing to the GDP and GNP but cost States a bundle in welfare. DC is absurd as the crack capitol.
It’s doubtful Plaskett is an actual lawyer. Ask her a few questions …phoney. The applause? Demonic in its will to destroy. Plaskett is one of “those” Christ found in a cemetary–>legion.
Truth hurts Sinator Warren.
She is a genuine lawyer. She was a prosecutor and in private practice, as well as a lawyer for a congressional committee and then for the DOJ (this was back when she identified as a Republican).
All the territories listed should be cut loose and become their own nations. They contribute nothing to the GDP and GNP but cost States a bundle in welfare. DC is absurd as the crack capitol.
It’s doubtful Plaskett is an actual lawyer. Ask her a few questions …phoney. The applause? Demonic in its will to destroy. Plaskett is one of “those” Christ found in a cemetary–>legion.
Truth hurts Sinator Warren.
🤔 posted 2 x. Must be me and me…will the real me please stand.
Mr Turley, Article 1, Section 2 makes abundantly clear that only the States (50) can have Representatives in our House of Representatives. Your premise that Plaskett has any ability to be involved in our House of Representatives is simply ridiculous and does not adhere clear language of Article 1, Section 2.
Our Constitution does not allow anyone outside of the many States to be apart of our House or Senate.
Article 1 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 State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.”
The House nor the Senate have Constitutional authority to add anyone beyond what the Constitution clearly relegates as permissible.
Plaskett is a unconstitutional ranking member on these committees;
* House Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government
*House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
*Subcommittee on National Intelligence Enterprise ( Ranking Member)
*Subcommittee on Defense Intelligence and Overhead Architecture
Congresswoman Stacey Plaskett as she is referred to must be removed from the House immediately. The House rules cannot subvert the Constitution.
We have seen this subversion before from Democrats, under Pelosi’s leadership. Pelosi allowed proxy voting in direct violation of Article 1, Section 5;
“ Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.”
Our Constitution does not provide the subversion of it clear requirements due to a phony pandemic. Every law passed by the House in this time period that became law is not Constitutional and holds zero authority.
Mr Turley, the adherence to the first amendment free speech, right that you champion can never be achieved as long as members of our Representative government refuse to adhere to every part of the constitution. As a matter of fact, it is a mandate attached to their service in The peoples representative government.
Article VI could not be any more straightforward in its terms.
Article VI;
“ This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution;”
The refusal of the three branches of government, both Federal and State to meet their mandated requirements clearly imposed by this Constitution has created the dilemma we face today. Most certainly the unconstitutional actions of the Federal and State governments have lead to the Deprivation Of Rights Under Color Of Law, 18 USC 242. An argument could easily be made that there is a dangerous Conspiracy Against Rights, 18 USC 241 by our Federal and State Governments.
Adherence to strict language of our Constitution as mandated in Article VI Is the only way we can correct the governments of the United States.
Your premise that Plaskett has any ability to be involved in our House of Representatives is simply ridiculous
You are 100% wrong. Territorial delegates have been an official part of the House of Representatives since the 1790s, and have been officially entrenched in law since the 1810s. There is nothing even slightly unconstitutional about them serving on committees, with or without the right to vote, entirely as the House decides. The constitution has NOTHING to say about congressional committees.
Also the constitution says not one word about congressmen having to be physically present in order to vote. Not one word. So how can proxy voting be unconstitutional? If the House allows it it’s constitutional.
While you might label it anti-constitutionalism, thereby and therefore anti-American, I label it “tribalism.” What Democrats propose, often with POC as pawns, is a cultural re-primitivism. And ultimately an end to civility as we know it, together with the prosperity it has spawned.
The territory “problem” will get much, much bigger when Canada and Greenland are acquired.
The US will not acquire Canada. If we do acquire Greenland from Denmark, it should be on an agenda for it to become a State within a limited time span. It is currently self-governing, which should make the process somewhat easier. My expectation is that if we a acquire it and it becomes the US gateway to mineral resources in the Arctic, there will be substantial migration of US citizens there to fill jobs, which should help make it culturally similar enough to function as a State.
Canada is buying US farmland, son.
There is an easy solution to this colonies conundrum.
1-downgrade Delaware to a City and give it to Maryland
2-give DC to Maryland
3-downgrade Rhode Island to a territory and give it to Connecticut and call it Connecticut Road
4-Make Puerto Rico a state
5-Combine Guam and Northern Marianas into 1 territory then make it a state
6-Make the US Virgin Islands a county and give it to Florida
You still have 50 states, Likely no change in Senate Political Party division, and you don’t even have to change the Flag.
Be careful what you wish for, you might get it but not the way you want.
Your plan would require the consent of the RI, CT, DE, MD, and FL legislatures.
Plaskett is a superb argument for never letting the Virgin Islands become a state.
The average IQ in this country is already too low.
Plaskett is a superb argument for never letting the Virgin Islands become a state.
She’s a superb example of Democrat Washington DC lawyers having contempt for both the American justice system and the Constitution.
Plunkett was raised in NYC; her father was a city cop, her mother worked in the New York justice system.
Plunkett only moved to the Virgin Islands after law school and moving to Washington DC to work for later FBI Director James Comey, when he was then the Deputy Attorney General whose corrupt Special Counsel she watched take out Scooter Libby as a Democrat consolation prize when they failed to take out Vice President Cheney.
I doubt an argument can be made that Plunkett can be considered representative of the Virgin Islands as a product of that territory. She can con that electorate just as well as Kamala Harris did with voters in California and then America in the last election.
What she IS representative of is Democrat lawyers in Washington DC who make their corrupt living in politics. Educated at Georgetown, her constitutional law professor was Jamie Raskin – now Democrat Congressman Raskin.
The list of those Washington DC Democrat lawyers making their living off politics is like looking at a Rogue’s Gallery.
None of them are any more concerned with Constitutional restrictions on what they do than you worry about whether or not there will be tampon dispensers in the men’s bathroom.
Old Airborne Dog
Old Airborne,
Great post! I knew nothing about her other than that she is an idiot. Seems she is also a stooge.
I doubt an argument can be made that Plunkett can be considered representative of the Virgin Islands as a product of that territory.
Why should she be “a product of that territory”? How many other members of congress were born in their districts? That has never been a requirement.
Pot calling the kettle black? Since everyone is appalled at cherry-picking the U.S. Constitution, here’s the parts we also ignore.
The Constitution also outlaws the “Bush Preemption Doctrine”. It outlaws longterm suspension of Habeas corpus and only legal during anarchy or mass chaos events (temporary). It outlaws standing armies. It requires Congress to fund post offices and post roads. It makes treaties federal law. It outlaws false imprisonment. It requires a grand jury to indict or punish anyone. It requires a formal declaration of war.
We probably should have enacted constitutional-amendments for things like standing armies, but nobody follows the U.S. Constitution completely.
The Constitution also outlaws the “Bush Preemption Doctrine”.
No, it doesn’t.
It outlaws longterm suspension of Habeas corpus
And there has been no such thing.
It outlaws standing armies.
No, it doesn’t.
It requires Congress to fund post offices and post roads.
No, it doesn’t.
It makes treaties federal law.
This is true, and nobody disputes it. What is your point?
It outlaws false imprisonment.
Again, nobody disputes this.
It requires a grand jury to indict or punish anyone.
Only for capital or otherwise infamous crimes, not for ordinary felonies, let alone misdemeanors. And it doesn’t apply to the states.
It requires a formal declaration of war.
No, it doesn’t. (All of our recent wars have been formally declared by congress, in the form of an “authorization for the use of military force”. But nothing in the constitution requires this.)
We probably should have enacted constitutional-amendments for things like standing armies,
Why? Nothing in the constitution forbids them. All it says is that they can’t have appropriations for longer than two years.
The Stacey Plasketts of the US are not new. Several decades ago they called them ‘carpetbaggers’. Confused? What else would you call an individual that was born and bred in NYC, worked for the DOJ and UNH then switched from being in the GOP to the Democratic Party when Obama was elected?
And now ‘ol Stacey, a transplanted NYCer to the Virgin Islands, is working as the Virgin Island DELEGATE in the U.S. House of Representatives demanding the same status as the constitutionally defined Reps. This is what happens when government types don’t follow the Constitution and ‘change their minds at the last minute (of convenience)’. As Gomer Pyle said: ‘Surprise, surprise, surprise’.
Nothing requires a congressman to be born in his district. From the very first congress there have always been many members who were not born in their districts. The name “carpetbagger” is just a stupid Democrat slur from the post-civil-war era. The people of a state and of a district are entitled to elect anyone they like to represent them, limited only by the very few constraints in the constitution.
The constitution requires only that a representative be a resident of the same state (not of his actual district) on the day he is elected. So it is 100% in order and acceptable for someone to move from Maine to Miami on the first Monday in November, and be elected the next day as a representative from the Florida panhandle. If the voters in the district don’t like it they don’t have to vote for him. If they vote for him then it’s nobody else’s business.
the greatest karma of the century will be tomorrow, when veep Harris must declare that Trump won. Libs are sore losers, always have been.
What would happen if Kamala resigned before that happened? Or if Sleepy Joe resigned and Kamala became 47 for a few days, giving her a chance to pardon all of her besties including Joe and every Democrat in the nation? Why not?
If she had done that then Chuck Grassley would chair the meeting at which the votes were counted. That is all.
The president of the senate is not required to make any kind of announcement at the counting of the votes. She could have remained silent and let the tellers announce the count. Congress does not vote on the results; its only role is to stand silent witness to the count.
Plaskett doesn’t have a problem as much as the anti constitutionalist Democrats do. They used this ignorant fool as a not so useful idiot. Note how many of them applauded as she made an utter fool of herself.
Don’t voluntarily give Plunkett the excuse that she is merely an ignorant fool. She’s all in on Democrat police state fascism and contempt for the American justice system and Constitution.
Worked for James Comey when he first rotated out of the FBI to be the Deputy Attorney General as he appointed a Special Counsel to hopefully take out VP Cheney, taking out Scooter Libby as a consolation prize instead. Everybody involved in that fraudulent investigation already knew that it was a Colin Powell bureaucrat who had exposed the name of CIA employee Valery Plume (?). The man was upfront about being the one who did that, inadvertently.
Plunkett was perfectly happy with being a part of that corrupt and fraudulent prosecution of an innocent man, Scooter Libby, when they couldn’t find anything to take out VP Gore. Helping to send that innocent man to jail was how she made her bones as a police state fascist Democrat.
Plunket went on to be equally happy as Pelosi’s Democrat impeachment manager when they impeached Trump a SECOND time, AFTER he had left office.
For Democrats, Plunkett is so useful specifically because she ISN’T an idiot. She has the necessary contempt for law and the Constitution and a proven ability to grift her way around those restrictions to get things done.
Old Airborne Dog
Plaskett has a big mouth. Literally and figuratively. She should put it to better use.
so are Republicans going to PUNISH her or any democrats?
some people are DEI Dumb! She is one!
Great entertainment, a good laugh, and thanks Plaskett, you’ll help Republican keep and perhaps expand seats in the next election. Let’s save her replies/behavor for election ads next round, please. In the end, the people vote for common sense.
Because the word “state” appears in Article I, it must be that that Plaskett and every fool who applauded her and canonized her do not understand plain English. A grade school education was wasted on her – let alone a few years in law school. Folks like this are from the same tree as those who cannot define “woman.”
…AND SHE HAS A LAW DEGREE! LORD HELP!!!
If ANY lesson has been learned from the past 4 years, the Democratic Party will push the limits on ANY paragraph, sentence, word or comma contained withing ANY law or regulation. How do you deal with that? Careful wording in the original document and ETERNAL vigilance….that is the going price for liberty.