DC fake statehood is Constitutionally inconvenient

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OWM4ZmI4Njg3MTk2MzFkNGQ4ODc5OTc0MTIwMzQ2YTI=

The Washington Post reports this morning that Holder has overruled OLC's objective, well-reasoned, constitutionally rooted opinion that the controversial D.C. voting-rights bill pending in Congress is unconstitutional. OLC's conclusion, if accepted by the attorney general, as is customary, would likely have doomed passage of the measure, which is strongly favored by President Obama and Democrats. 

The bill would give the District of Columbia representation in Congress, specifically, one member of the House of Representatives — and, that accomplished, the way would be paved to add two Senate seats down the line. As the District is small and heavily Democrat, this would pull the Congress deeper into Democrat control. But the problem is that the Constitution clearly forbids the scheme. It expressly provides, in Article I, Section 2, "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States." (Emphasis added.) The District of Columbia is not a State. It is thus ineligible for representation in the House. (By the way, Art. I, Sec. 3, similarly provides that senators shall come "from each State, elected by the people thereof.")

As NR's editors have observed (and as Matt Franck has recounted at NRO's Bench Memos — see this post, which cites to several of his others), the point of creating a non-state district as the seat of the national government was precisely to avoid one state's having too much influence over that government. Times may have changed — the national government is far more consequential now than it was then — but the Constitution hasn't.