The last time the junior senator from Arizona was mentioned on SFTC, it was for being one of the dolts who appeared live on TV from the Republican National Convention, unable to pronounce the word pundit properly.
This time, Jon Kyl rates a post because he's one of the federal legislators bold enough to explain why residents of Washington, D.C., still don't have a representative in Congress. Which is strange, because I'm pretty sure those people live in the United States. Washington is part of the U.S., right?
Kyl says D.C. doesn't get a vote in the House, because, well, because of the Constitution. As he explained to the New York Times: “Only states may be represented in the House of Representatives. Not territories, not districts or other federal possessions.” (I think he also added: "Nanny-nanny boo-boo.")
Nice job reading the exact words of the document, jackass. Also, a convenient way to prevent a group of citizens - a group that, if Joe Lieberman's math is correct, is larger than the population of four states - from having a say in federal government. But who's counting?
Now, if only there were a way to, I don't know, add language to the Constitution, or make certain changes to the original document - like if we wanted to give women the right to vote, or end slavery.
I can't help but think Washingtonians are somewhat to blame. I mean, D.C. is, like, sooooo close to where all of those government buildings are. You'd think these people would bump in to a lawmaker now and then. Maybe they could bring it up in conversation.
On the other hand, I think it's kind of cool, kind of ballsy, that the District protests its lack of representation right on its license plates. Where other states have "Live free or die" or "America's dairyland" across the bottom of their plates, D.C. went with this. Very subtle.
I guess if these people really cared about being represented, they could just move a few miles into Maryland or Virginia. Or even West Virginia, which according to their license plates, is "Wild, wonderful."