It certainly is for one.

Eleanor Holmes Norton, the nonvoting D.C. delegate to the House who aspires to be its voting representative, has made clear that she regards questions of constitutionality as irrelevant and that she thinks members of the House and Senate do, too. "I don't think members are in the least bit affected in their votes on the question of its constitutionality," she said just last week. "People vote their politics in the House and in the Senate."

Tell me, Eleanor, on what other points do you find the Constitution irrelevant? There is plenty of good legal argumentation against the constitutionality of the DC Representation bill, and not much in its favor. Indeed, the Attorney General had to reject the best legal advice of the top lawyers in the Justice Department in order to get an opinion from another part of the Justice Department that said, in effect, “well, we can defend it if we have to.” What other parts of the Constitution will the jettison if it suits their politics?