An extreme example of the kinds of choices we often face in the political process can be found in the 1979 novel and 1982 movie Sophie’s Choice. In any just society, parents aren’t asked which of their children they want to live, and in a just system of government, we’re not given conflicting choices between which parts of the constitution we want to keep, and which we will allow to wither.
There are a lot of people who don’t like the D.C. Voting Rights Act, or any of the politicians who will no doubt vote for its passage. It is a violation of their oath to uphold the constitution if they vote for the bill, many will say. This is not something I disagree with. I think giving D.C. representation in Congress legislatively is unconstitutional on its face, as is the compromise granting Utah an extra seat in Congress. If I were a Congressman, taking my oath seriously, I don’t think I could vote for it even with the pro-gun amendment. I do hope NRA will only grade the vote on the amendment, rather than on final passage, in that case.
But we are faced with a political Sophie’s choice with the D.C. Voting Rights Act. Republicans do not have the votes to defeat the bill outright, so the constitution is going to be offended no matter what we do. This is an inevitable consequence of losing the 2008 elections. Our choice is between watching the D.C. Voting Rights Act pass without amendment, or attaching an amendment that at least enhances and preserves some part of the constitutional order. It is not a perfect choice, but I would argue that given that choice, our responsibility is to preserve what we can of the constitution.