|
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Lois E. Adams, et al, Plaintiffs,
versus Civil Action No: 98-1665 (LFO, MBG, CKK)
William Jefferson Clinton, et al, Defendants
Clifford Alexander, et al, Plaintiffs,
versus Civil Action No: 98-2187 (LFO, MBG, CKK)
William Daley, et al, Defendants
STATEMENT OF TWENTY CITIZENS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,
PLAINTIFFS IN ADAMS V. CLINTON, OF MATERIAL FACTS
AS TO WHICH THERE IS NO GENUINE DISPUTE
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Pursuant to Local Rule 108(h), and in support of their
Motion for Summary Judgment, the Plaintiffs assert that there is
no genuine dispute as to the following material facts of this
case:
1. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1331,
1343(a)(3), 2201, and 2202.
2. Each Plaintiff is a private citizen suing in her or his
personal capacity.
3. Each Plaintiff is a competent adult over the age of
eighteen years of age.
4. Each Plaintiff is a citizen of the United States.
5. Each Plaintiff is a permanent resident and domiciliary
of the District of Columbia.
6. Each Plaintiff is a qualified voter in the District of
Columbia.
7. Defendant William Jefferson Clinton in his official
capacity as The President of the United States is responsible for
ratifying, approving, implementing, and enforcing Acts,
Resolutions, or mandates of Congress, including those pertaining
uniquely to the District of Columbia, which means pertaining to
the place of residence and work of the Plaintiffs and affecting
the lives and rights of the Plaintiffs.
8. Defendant William Jefferson Clinton in his official
capacity as The President of the United States is also charged to
transmit to Congress the results of each decennial census of the
population of the United States, specifying the number of
Representatives in the United States House of Representatives to
be apportioned to each State, as a portion of the whole number of
Representatives defined by Congress and insofar as Congressional
legislation provides for numbers to any State in excess of the
minimum number specified in the Second Section of Article One of
the Constitution, which number is one.
9. Defendant Robin H. Carle in her official capacity as
the Clerk of the United States House of Representatives is
charged to certify to the chief executive of each State the
number of Representatives apportioned to the State, as a portion
of the whole number of Representatives defined by Congress and
insofar as Congressional legislation provides for numbers to any
State in excess of the minimum number specified in the Second
Section of Article One of the Constitution, which number is one.
10. Defendant Robin H. Carle in her official capacity as
the Clerk of the United States House of Representatives is also
charged to keep a roll of all Representatives and
Representatives-elect, comprised of those persons, and those
persons only, who are elected in accordance with the laws of the
United States, specifically in accordance with the apportionments
to the States previously certified by the Clerk.
11. Defendant Wilson Livingood in his official capacity as
the Sergeant at Arms of the United States House of
Representatives is charged to admit to the Hall of the House of
Representatives only those Representatives upon the Clerk's Roll
(and certain other staff and assistants) and to bar all other
persons from admission during the sessions of the House.
12. Defendant District of Columbia Financial Responsibility
and Management Assistance Authority (popularly referred to as the
"Control Board") is an entity created by an Act of the Congress
of the United States but is defined in the Act creating it as an
entity of the government of the District of Columbia; it is
comprised of five individuals appointed by the President of the
United States.
13. By a series of acts taken between 1788 and 1791, the
States of Maryland and Virginia ceded to Congress exclusive
jurisdiction over an area amounting to 100 square miles
straddling the Potomac River.
14. In 1791, Congress accepted the cessions and assumed
exclusive jurisdiction over the area, since known as the District
of Columbia and designated as the location of the permanent seat
of the government of the United States.
15. From 1791 until 1801, despite the exclusive
jurisdiction and plenary power of Congress over the District of
Columbia, the residents of the District enjoyed all rights and
privileges as citizens of Maryland and Virginia, respectively
according to whether they lived north-east or south-west of the
Potomac River, and of the United States.
16. Specifically, from 1791 until 1801, despite the
exclusive jurisdiction and plenary power of Congress over the
District of Columbia, the residents of the District of Columbia
retained general rights to vote for state and national offices
and to participate in the governments of their respective states and in the
government of the United States, on
the same terms and to the same degree as all other citizens of
the respective states of Maryland and Virginia.
17. Specifically, from 1791 until 1801, despite the
exclusive jurisdiction and plenary power of Congress over the
District of Columbia, the residents of the District were
apportioned to congressional districts and were apportioned to
districts for statewide legislative offices in Maryland and
Virginia, respectively.
18. In 1801, Congress passed acts which were taken to have
the effect of terminating all rights of State citizenship for all
residents of the District of Columbia.
19. In 1846, Congress reduced the size of the physical
territory of the District of Columbia and retroceded to Virginia
all that part of the original District of Columbia which lay
south-west of the high tide line on the south-west shore of the
Potomac River.
20. Retrocession of this area of the District of Columbia
to Virginia had been specifically requested by the residents of
the area beforehand and was ratified by them by popular vote, in
order to be effective.
21. In 1871, Congress erected a form of government, loosely
modeled on the governments erected previously for the continental
"territories," to perform various functions for the entire
remaining District of Columbia.
22. In 1874, Congress terminated this "territorial
government" and replaced it with a "temporary" government of
three commissioners appointed by the President of the United
States.
23. In 1878, Congress made the "temporary" 1874 commission
form of government permanent.
24. In 1895, Congress eliminated all remaining independent
local governments and jurisdictional distinctions within the
District of Columbia and placed all aspects of administration or
governance of the entire District of Columbia, at all levels,
under the rule of the appointed commissioners.
25. In 1973, Congress replaced the 1874 commission form of
government with a government comprised of an elected Mayor and
Council, supported by administrative agencies and offices (the
so-called "home rule government").
26. When Congress created the home rule government,
Congress retained for itself the power to alter or abolish the
local government of the District at will, retained the power to
veto the laws passed by the home rule government, retained the
power to impose any law on the District which Congress sees fit,
retained the power to veto or amend the District's local
governmental budget, retained the power to control the local
courts (the Superior Court of the District of Columbia and the
District of Columbia Court of Appeals), retained in federal hands
the power to determine who will be judges in those courts,
retained in federal hands (delegated to the United States
Attorney for the District of Columbia) the power to control
prosecution of all serious misdemeanors and felonies, imposed
certain fiscal burdens on the home rule government, and deprived
the home rule government of the power to tax the income realized
in the District by non-residents, among other things.
27. In 1995, Congress placed the home rule government under
the supervision of Defendant Financial Responsibility and
Management Assistance Authority (known locally as the "Control
Board") and divested the home rule government of certain
governmental functions.
28. In 1997, Congress divested the home rule government of
almost all governmental functions remaining under control of the
home rule government and placed them under the Control Board,
leaving the home rule government with no actual power over almost
all of the services, agencies, offices, and functions of local
government in the District of Columbia.
29. Congress has also delegated to the Defendant Financial
Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority (Control
Board) the responsibility of making recommendations to Congress
what form of government Congress might or should impose over the
District of Columbia, which means over the Plaintiffs, in the
future.
30. Today, the Plaintiffs are not apportioned to
congressional districts, they do not vote for any member of
Congress, they do not vote for any member of any state
government, they do not govern the jurisdiction of their
residences themselves, they are not insulated from intrusions of
Congressional power in matters properly within the exclusive
competence of state governments by virtue of the Tenth Amendment
to the Constitution, but they are subjected to whatever laws
Congress chooses to impose and they are taxed by Congress to pay
for these actions.
31. Since at least 1801, when the citizens of the District
of Columbia first lost their political and civil rights, the
citizens of the District, including these Plaintiffs, have
repeatedly and in various ways petitioned the government of the
United States and its officers and divisions for redress of these
and other grievances.
32. Despite their repeated and various petitions and pleas,
the citizens of the District of Columbia live under more
pervasive, plenary power of Congress today than did their
forebears in 1801, suffering even less freedom and democratic
participation in autonomous local governments today than was the
case in 1801.
33. Since the Constitution was ratified, the Congress of
the United States, by legislation, has acquired and defined
territories which would become States, has admitted new States,
has partitioned existing single States into two States, and has
ceded to States sufficient jurisdiction over places called
"federal enclaves," thereby increasing the populations of the
States for the purposes of apportionment in the United States
Congress.
34. Since the Constitution was ratified, the Congress of
the United States, by legislation, has repeatedly defined, set,
increased, and reset the number of Representatives comprising the
United States House of Representatives in order to guarantee to
the citizens of the United States representation in the United
States House of Representatives under and in conformity with the
terms of Section Two of Article One, Section Four of Article
Four, and the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States
Constitution.
35. The District of Columbia, presently, is neither a
sovereign State nor a part of a sovereign State.
36. The entire area of the District of Columbia or the
entire area of the District of Columbia other than the area
defined in the United States Code and in the District of Columbia
Code as the "National Capital Service Area" could, as matters of
law and fact, be admitted to the United States as a sovereign
State or could be unified with an existing sovereign State.
37. The Plaintiffs are entitled to all the rights in and
protections of the Constitution, including the right to the equal
protection of the law, also referred to as the right to equal
treatment under the law.
38. Congress exercises plenary powers over places called
"federal enclaves," which powers are identical in every way and
degree to the plenary power Congress exercises over the District
of Columbia.
39. Since the birth of the nation, Congress has assumed
powers of legislation over more than five thousand federal
enclaves of varying size throughout the United States.
40. According to the most recent count, over one million
citizens of the United States reside within these federal
enclaves today.
41. By definition, virtually everyone living in a federal
enclave holds or held some job with the federal government,
exercises or exercised some role in the operations of the federal
government, or is married to or is the child of someone who is or
was directly involved with the federal government.
42. By definition, virtually all of the physical area of
each federal enclave is devoted to and, directly or indirectly,
used for the operations of the federal government.
43. For the first century and a half of the nation's life,
almost all residents of the federal enclaves were subjected to
the same denials of their rights as are suffered by the
Plaintiffs.
44. Specifically, the residents of the federal enclaves
were not apportioned to congressional districts, they did not
vote for any member of Congress, they did not vote for any member
of any state government, and they were excluded from all benefits
of citizenship in a state, yet they were taxed by Congress to pay
for these and other actions.
45. At the time the residents of the federal enclaves were
subjected to these conditions, many hundreds of thousands of
citizens of the United States resided within the enclaves where
these conditions obtained.
46. Congress then took affirmative steps to attenuate if
not terminate its exclusive jurisdiction or plenary power over
all federal enclaves where any person resides.
47. Today, as a direct result of the steps Congress took,
the citizens of every federal enclave are members of the
political communities of the various states in which the federal
enclaves are located.
48. Today, as a direct result of the steps Congress took,
the citizens of every federal enclave are apportioned
representation in Congress, resulting in the participation of the
citizens who reside in the federal enclaves in all acts of
Congress, through elected representatives.
49. Today, as a direct result of the steps Congress took,
the citizens of every federal enclave are apportioned
representation in state governments, resulting in the
participation of the citizens who reside in the federal enclaves
in all acts of their state governments, through representatives
elected by them.
50. Congress took these actions, in part, specifically, to
insure that the fundamental rights of the citizens of the
enclaves to participate in all relevant political processes, to
be represented in their governments under the terms of the
Constitution of the United States and under the terms of the
Constitutions of the various States, and to have full state and
federal citizenship would be respected and fulfilled.
51. The actions which Congress took out of respect for the
fundamental rights of the residents of the federal enclaves were
taken to bring about a specific status which the residents of the
federal enclaves had stated, specifically, that they wanted.
52. In no federal enclave has Congress imposed a unique,
non-republican form of government.
53. In no federal enclave does Congress prevent the
residents from electing representatives to the Congress of the
United States.
54. In no federal enclave does Congress rule the lives of
the residents directly and intimately, without the possibility of
the intervening umbrella of State governments to exercise all
non-federal governmental powers.
55. In no federal enclave does Congress fence the residents
out of all other rights of State and national citizenship.
56. Congress retroceded the former portion of the District
of Columbia lying south-west of the Potomac River to the State of
Virginia for most of the same reasons that Congress took steps to insure that the
citizens of the federal enclaves would be
treated as full citizens of the States adjacent to or within
which the federal enclaves are located.
57. Since 1846, the former part of the District of Columbia
south-west of the Potomac River has been fully integrated into
the political fabric of the State of Virginia.
58. Today, representation in Congress is apportioned to the
citizens of that former part of the District of Columbia on the
same basis as it is apportioned to all citizens who live within
the federal enclaves, which is the same basis on which it is
apportioned to all citizens of the United States other than those
who reside within the District of Columbia.
59. Congress has not imposed on the former portion of the
District of Columbia lying south-west of the Potomac River any of
the depredations which it imposes on the remaining portion of the
District of Columbia lying north-east of the Potomac River.
60. No federal interest inheres in the place of residence
of any Plaintiff, such that the federal government has any
reason, much less a compelling reason, to deprive any Plaintiff
of any rights, much less any fundamental rights, or to treat any
Plaintiff differently than it has treated the residents of the
federal enclaves or the former portion of the District of
Columbia lying south-west of the Potomac River, or to treat any
Plaintiff differently than it treated the residents of the entire
District of Columbia from 1791 until 1801.
61. No federal interest inheres in the person of any
Plaintiff, such that the federal government has any reason, much
less a compelling reason, to deprive any Plaintiff of any rights,
much less any fundamental rights, or to treat any Plaintiff
differently than it has treated the residents of the federal
enclaves or of the former portion of the District of Columbia
lying south-west of the Potomac River, or to treat any Plaintiff
differently than it treated the residents of the entire District
of Columbia from 1791 until 1801.
62. No governmental purpose whatsoever is served by
excluding any Plaintiff from participation in the government of
the United States through elected representatives.
63. No governmental purpose whatsoever is served by
subjecting any Plaintiff to unfettered governmental control by
the Congress of the United States.
64. No governmental purpose whatsoever is served by denying
any Plaintiff the benefits of a state government insulated from
Congressional interference in matters properly within the
exclusive competence of state governments as evidenced by the
Tenth Amendment to the Constitution.
65. It is within the power of Congress and Defendants
Clinton, Carle, and Lovingood to treat the Plaintiffs in a manner
identical to that manner with which these Defendants treat the
citizens of the federal enclaves and the citizens of the former
portion of the District of Columbia south-west of the Potomac
River.
66. Despite the fact that there is no reason whatsoever,
much less any compelling reason, to treat the Plaintiffs any
differently from the treatment accorded to all residents of the
federal enclaves, the Plaintiffs' fundamental political and civil
rights are denied, while the rights of the residents of the
former federal enclaves are respected and they are treated as
citizens of states and of the nation.
67. Despite the fact that there is no reason whatsoever,
much less any compelling reason, to treat the Plaintiffs any
differently from the treatment accorded to all residents of the
former portion of the District of Columbia lying south-west of
the Potomac River and now in the State of Virginia, the
Plaintiffs' fundamental political and civil rights are denied,
while the rights of the residents of the former portion of the
District of Columbia lying south-west of the Potomac River and
now in the State of Virginia are respected and they are treated
as citizens of the State of Virginia and of the nation.
68. Despite the fact that there is no reason whatsoever,
much less any compelling reason, to treat the Plaintiffs any
differently from the treatment accorded to all other citizens of
the United States, the Congress of the United States has fenced
the residents of the District of Columbia out of all
apportionments for representation in a congressional district or
districts, although Congress has taken steps to include in
congressional apportionments all formerly excluded citizens of
the federal enclaves and all formerly excluded citizens of the
former portion of the District of Columbia south-west of the
Potomac River.
69. These actions of Congress violate the Plaintiffs'
rights to the equal protection of the laws under the Due Process
Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United
States.
70. Specifically, the Congress of the United States, with
the assistance of Defendant William Jefferson Clinton in his
official capacity as the President of the United States, has
imposed the Defendant District of Columbia Financial
Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority upon the
District of Columbia, burdening the Plaintiffs, yet the Congress
and the Defendant have not imposed a similar agent or
instrumentality upon any federal enclave or upon the former part
of the District of Columbia lying south-west of the Potomac
River, which actions of the Congress and all the Defendants
violate the Plaintiffs' rights to the equal protection of the
laws under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the
Constitution of the United States of America.
71. Specifically, Defendant District of Columbia Financial
Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority is directed
solely at the citizens of the District of Columbia, which
includes the Plaintiffs, and is not directed at any resident of
any federal enclave, preventing the Plaintiffs from electing
representatives to Congress having full powers and rights under
the Constitution, preventing them from enjoying the benefits of
citizenship in a state, and trenching on other fundamental
constitutional rights, which actions of the Defendant violate the
Plaintiffs' rights to the equal protection of the laws under the
Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of
the United States of America.
72. Defendant William Jefferson Clinton in his official
capacity as the President of the United States has ratified,
approved, implemented, and enforced Acts, Mandates, and
resolutions of Congress which are directed solely at the citizens
of the District of Columbia, which includes the Plaintiffs, and
which are not directed at any resident of any federal enclave,
preventing the Plaintiffs from electing representatives to
Congress having full powers and rights under the Constitution,
preventing them from enjoying the benefits of citizenship in a
state, and trenching on other fundamental constitutional rights.
73. These actions of Defendant William Jefferson Clinton in
his official capacity as President of the United States violate
the Plaintiffs' rights to the equal protection of the laws under
the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution
of the United States of America.
74. Specifically, the President of the United States
(presently Defendant William Jefferson Clinton in his official
capacity as President) has transmitted to Congress the results of
decennial censuses of the population of the United States,
specifying therewith the numbers of Representatives to be
apportioned to each State.
75. Specifically, the President's calculations have
accounted for and included the entire populations of all federal
enclaves and of the former portion of the District of Columbia
lying south-west of the Potomac River.
76. Specifically, such inclusions are for the purpose of
apportionment of representation in the United States House of
Representatives, under the terms of Article One and Amendment
Fourteen of the Constitution of the United States, to the
citizens of the federal enclaves and to the citizens of former
portion of the District of Columbia south-west of the Potomac
River.
77. Specifically, the President's calculations have not
accounted for and included the population of the District of
Columbia for the purpose of apportionment, under the terms of
Article One and Amendment Fourteen of the Constitution of the
United States, of representation in the United States House of
Representatives.
78. Specifically, these actions of the President of the
United States (presently, Defendant William Jefferson Clinton in
his official capacity as President) violate the Plaintiffs'
rights to the equal protection of the laws under the Due Process
Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United
States.
79. Specifically, the Clerk of the United States House of
Representatives (presently Defendant Robin H. Carle in her
official capacity as the Clerk) has certified to the chief
executive of each State the number of Representatives apportioned
to the State, which apportionments have included the populations
of all federal enclaves and of the former portion of the District
of Columbia south-west of the Potomac River.
80. Specifically, the apportionments certified by the Clerk
have not accounted for and included the population of the
District of Columbia and no representation under the terms of
Article One and Amendment Fourteen of the Constitution of the
United States has been apportioned to the District of Columbia in
the Defendant's certifications.
81. Specifically, the Clerk of the United States House of
Representatives (presently, Defendant Robin H. Carle in her
official capacity as Clerk) has enrolled Representatives whose
credentials show that they were elected in accordance with the
laws of the United States, specifically in accordance with the
apportionments to the States previously certified by the
Defendant.
82. Specifically, the Clerk's Rolls include representatives
elected from congressional districts which include the
populations of all federal enclaves and from the congressional
district including the former portion of the District of Columbia
south-west of the Potomac River.
83. Specifically, the Clerk's enrollments have not included
representatives of the citizens of the District of Columbia,
serving under the terms of Article One and Amendment Fourteen of
the Constitution of the United States or otherwise.
84. Specifically, these actions of the Clerk of the United
States House of Representatives (presently, Defendant Robin H.
Carle in her official capacity as the Clerk) violate the
Plaintiffs' rights to the equal protection of the laws under the
Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of
the United States of America.
85. Specifically, the Sergeant at Arms of the United States
House of Representatives (presently, Defendant Wilson Livingood
in his official capacity as the Sergeant at Arms) has admitted to
the Hall of the House for sessions of the House Representatives
on the Rolls of the Clerk of the United States House of
Representatives.
86. Specifically, the Sergeant At Arms has enforced Rolls
which have included Representatives elected from congressional
districts which include the populations of all federal enclaves
and from the congressional district including the former portion
of the District of Columbia south-west of the Potomac River, but
which Rolls have not included representatives of the District of
Columbia under the terms of Article One and Amendment Fourteen of
the Constitution of the United States.
87. Specifically, these actions of the Sergeant at Arms of
the United States House of Representatives (presently, Defendant
Wilson Livingood in his official capacity as the Sergeant at
Arms) violate the Plaintiffs' rights to the equal protection of
the laws under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to
the Constitution of the United States of America.
88. The Plaintiffs are entitled to all the rights and
privileges in and protections of the Constitution, including the
right to republican forms of government and including the
privilege of relying upon the obligation of all members of the
federal government to guarantee to them republican forms of
government.
89. The Plaintiffs are entitled to other fundamental rights
and privileges to participate in the political process, to be
represented in government, to vote, to run for office, to have
full state and federal citizenship, which rights and privileges
are also inferred under the right to enjoy republican forms of
government and under the privilege of relying upon the obligation
of all members of the federal government to guarantee to them
republican forms of government.
90. The Plaintiffs are entitled to the right to a state
government insulated from Congressional interference in matters
properly within the exclusive competence of state governments
generally, as evidenced by the Tenth Amendment to the
Constitution, which right is inferred under the right to enjoy
republican forms of government and under the privilege of relying
upon the obligation of all members of the federal government to
guarantee to them republican forms of government.
91. The home rule government (comprised of the Council of
the District of Columbia, the Mayor of the District of Columbia,
and the various administrative departments) does not constitute a
republican form of government, because every action of the home
rule government is subject to absolute review and veto by the
Congress of the United States itself or by Defendant District of
Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance
Authority acting as an administrative agent or instrumentality
for the Congress of the United States of America and because the
home rule government was created by an act of Congress and not by
an autonomous act of the citizens of the District of Columbia and
because the Congress of the United States holds the exclusive
power to alter or abolish the home rule government at any time.
92. The Congress of the United States, when it exercises
any power of government over or concerning the District of
Columbia, is not a republican form of government, because the
Congress of the United States is not elected by the citizens of
the District of Columbia.
93. The Defendant District of Columbia Financial
Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority is not a
republican form of government because it was not elected by the
citizens of the District of Columbia, because it is not subject
to their control, and because it was created by the Congress of
the United States and is subject always to the power and control
of the Congress of the United States.
94. Defendants William Jefferson Clinton in his official
capacity as the President of the United States, Robin H. Carle in
her official capacity as the Clerk of the United States House of
Representatives, and Wilson Livingood in his official capacity as
the Sergeant at Arms of the United States House of
Representatives are all officers and agents of the government of
the United States, since their powers arises directly from the
Constitution of the United States or from Acts of Congress under
powers presumed to arise directly from the Constitution.
95. Defendant District of Columbia Financial Responsibility
and Management Assistance Authority is an agent or
instrumentality of the federal government, since it was created
by an Act of Congress under powers purported to arise from the
Constitution of the United States and all power it exercises
follows only from Acts of Congress.
96. Therefore, all Defendants are obligated to guarantee to
the Plaintiffs republican forms of government.
97. It is within the powers of the Congress and Defendants
Clinton, Carle, Lovingood, and District of Columbia Financial
Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority to take steps
to guarantee republican forms of government to the Plaintiffs.
98. All Defendants, however, in their various offices and
through their enforcement of or compliance with various Acts,
Resolutions, or mandates of Congress and by acts of their own in
their official capacities, actively prevent institution of any
republican form of government specifically for or over the
District of Columbia.
99. A republican form of government specifically for or
over the District of Columbia would be a government elected by
the citizens of the District of Columbia, including by the
Plaintiffs, as the citizens of a state or as the citizens of a
portion of a state.
100. All Defendants, in their various offices and through
their enforcement of or compliance with various Acts,
Resolutions, or mandates of Congress and by acts of their own in
their official capacities, actively prevent participation of the
citizens of the District of Columbia, including the Plaintiffs,
in the Congress of the United States by elected representatives,
serving under the terms of Article One and Amendment Fourteen of
the Constitution of the United States.
101. The Plaintiffs could participate in the Congress of the
United States by elected representatives, serving under the terms
of Article One and Amendment Fourteen of the Constitution of the
United States, if the District of Columbia was a State or was a
part of a State.
102. If the Plaintiffs participated in the Congress of the
United States by elected representatives, the Congress of the
United States would be, in relation to the District of Columbia,
republican form of government.
103. These actions of the Defendants and of Congress,
generally, violate the Plaintiffs' rights to republican forms of
government under the first Clause of the fourth Section of
Article Four of the Constitution of the United States of America.
104. These actions of the Defendants and of Congress,
generally, violate the Plaintiffs' privilege of relying upon the
obligation of all members of the federal government to guarantee
to them republican forms of government.
105. The Congress of the United States, with the assistance
and efforts of the Defendants, has not apportioned representation
in Congress to the citizens of the District of Columbia.
106. The Congress of the United States, with the assistance
and efforts of the Defendants and others, could apportion to the
citizens of the District of Columbia, including the Plaintiffs,
representation in the Congress of the United States under the
terms of Article One and Amendment Fourteen of the Constitution
of the United States if the District of Columbia was a sovereign
State or a part of a sovereign State.
107. These actions of the Defendants and of Congress violate
the Plaintiffs' rights to republican forms of government under
the first Clause of the fourth Section of Article Four of the
Constitution of the United States of America.
108. These actions of the Defendants and of Congress violate
the Plaintiffs' privilege of relying upon the obligation of all
members of the federal government to guarantee to them republican
forms of government.
109. The Congress of the United States, with the assistance
and efforts of the Defendants, has prevented the Plaintiffs from
enjoying the benefits of a state government, insulated from
Congressional interference in matters of local concern by virtue
of the enumerations of power in Section 8 of Article I of the
Constitution and as evidenced by the Tenth Amendment to the
Constitution.
110. These actions of Congress and of the Defendants violate
the Plaintiffs' rights to republican forms of government under
the first Clause of the fourth Section of Article Four of the
Constitution of the United States of America.
111. These actions of Congress and of the Defendants violate
the Plaintiffs' privilege of relying upon the obligation of all
members of the federal government to guarantee to them republican
forms of government.
112. Specifically, Defendant William Jefferson Clinton in
his official capacity as the President of the United States has
ratified, approved, implemented, and enforced Acts, Mandates, and
resolutions of Congress, which are antithetical to the principles
of a republican form of government and all of which acts directly
oppose and prevent the Plaintiffs from enjoying republican forms
of government.
113. Specifically, the President of the United States
(presently, Defendant William Jefferson Clinton in his official
capacity as President) has transmitted to the Congress the
results of decennial censuses of the population of the United
States, including the numbers of Representatives to be
apportioned to each State, which apportionments have not included
apportionments of representation to the District of Columbia
under the terms of Section Two of Article One, Section Four of
Article Four, and the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States
Constitution.
114. Specifically, the Clerk of the United States House of
Representatives (presently, Defendant Robin H. Carle in her
official capacity as Clerk) has certified to the chief executive
of each State the number of Representatives apportioned to the
State, which apportionments have not included apportionments of
representation to the District of Columbia under the terms of
Section Two of Article One, Section Four of Article Four, and the
Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
115. Specifically, the Clerk of the United States House of
Representatives (presently, Defendant Robin H. Carle in her
official capacity as Clerk) has enrolled Representatives whose
credentials show that they were elected in accordance with the
laws of the United States, but the Defendant's Rolls have not
included representatives of the District of Columbia under the
terms of Section Two of Article One, Section Four of Article
Four, and the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States
Constitution.
116. Specifically, the Sergeant at Arms of the United States
House of Representatives (presently, Defendant Wilson Livingood
in his official capacity as Sergeant at Arms) has admitted
Representatives on the Rolls of Defendant Robin H. Carle in her
official capacity as the Clerk of the United States House of
Representatives, which Rolls have not included representatives of
the District of Columbia under the terms of Section Two of
Article One, Section Four of Article Four, and the Fourteenth
Amendment of the United States Constitution.
117. These specific actions of the Defendants violate the
Plaintiffs' rights to republican forms of government under the
first Clause of the fourth Section of Article Four of the
Constitution of the United States of America.
118. These specific actions of the Defendants violate the
Plaintiffs' privilege of relying upon the obligation of all
members of the federal government to guarantee to them republican
forms of government.
Respectfully submitted
George S. LaRoche
|