For a "Professor of Constitutional Law", President Obama seems fairly comfortable ignoring the provisions of the Constitution in order to further his agenda. It began subtly as he has attempted to unconstitutionally sieze control of the census. Controlling the census could give the White House control of how the numbers are "compiled", and potentially give them control of apportionment of Congressional seats. Should President Obama continue down this path, he will surely be challenged through the courts.
Now, he and the Democrats are attempting to enhance their majority by granting a voting Congressional seat to the District of Columbia. Article I section 2 of the Constitution states:
Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states…
Maybe the President is just trying to reach that magic number of 57 states, but more likely he is trying to ensure a permanent Democrat vote in Congress.
The Washington Times calls the move a disgrace:
The United States Constitution was trashed last week when the Senate voted to give a voting seat in the House of Representatives to the District of Columbia and the State of Utah. Why Utah? Hey, it's a Republican state and Democrats, who will have a lock on D.C. voters for generations, needed GOP support.
The Constitution, which in the very first article states plainly that only states may elect representatives, is likely to be further trashed this week when the House approves this ill-advised measure, which was loaded with irrelevant amendments regarding D.C. gun laws and a ban on reinstating the so-called Fairness Doctrine to lure or repel support, depending on one's view. It will be up to a conference committee to sort out the chaff from the shaft…
…When Congress wanted D.C. residents to have a vote for President and Vice President, they appropriately passed and forwarded to the states for ratification a constitutional amendment – which the states ratified as the 23rd Amendment in 1961. When Congress in 1978 wanted to give D.C. a vote in the House, it appropriately passed the D.C. Voting Rights Amendment and asked the states to ratify it – which they did not do. That's the proper constitutional procedure…
…Let's assume this becomes law. In what we hope is the unlikely event that the Supreme Court allows this deviation from the entire history of how Congress and courts have viewed the Constitution, it won't take a New York second for Democrats in Washington (i.e., 92.9 percent of the voters, based on the last presidential election) and in Congress to cry crocodile tears that D.C. is still not getting fair representation because voters aren't represented by senators. Can two new Democrats be far behind in the Senate? No.
What will be next on their agenda?