{"database": "press", "table": "releases", "rows": [["https://norton.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/norton-releases-clinton-impeachment-transcript-calls-for-dc-statehood", "Norton Releases Clinton Impeachment Transcript, Calls for D.C. Statehood", "2019-12-18", "2019", "2019-12", "Democrat", "House", "DC", "Eleanor Norton", "N000147", "norton.house.gov", null, null, "legacy", "WASHINGTON, D.C.  Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) released the transcript of her House floor speech 20 years ago during impeachment for President Bill Clinton, calling on the House to recognize the right of District of Columbia residents to vote on that matter. Norton says that her comments on the Trump and Clinton impeachments both ring true today. The 23rd Amendment gives 700,000 District residents, who pay the highest federal taxes per capita, the right to vote for the President and Vice President. It follows logically that D.C. residents should have a vote on removing a president.\nNorton's 1998 remarks can be found here and below.\nMs. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, most Americans do not know and most people\nin the world are unaware that the residents of the Nation's Capitol do not have\nany representation in the Senate and cannot vote on this floor.\n\n But the Constitution of the United States, in its 23rd amendment,\ndoes give to the residents of the District the right to vote for\nPresident and Vice President of the United States. The same\nConstitution that gives the District the right to vote for President\nmust recognize the right of District residents to representation for a\nvote on removal of the President.\n\n I have submitted a narrowly-tailored resolution, along with a legal\nmemorandum, for a narrowly-tailored right. I am not here asking for the\ndelegate vote in the Committee of the Whole at this time. I am not\nasking for a House vote. I am asking to vote only on impeachment, in\norder to perfect the rights of District residents under the 23rd\namendment. The House has abundant authority to grant me this right at\nthis time.\n\n Clause 2 of the 23rd amendment gives the House the power to enforce\nthe amendment through legislation. My resolution is that legislation.\nThe District clause, as this body so often reminds us, gives Members\nfull authority over the District of Columbia, and the impeachment\nclause gives Members unilateral authority, or the sole power of\nimpeachment.\n\n The 23rd amendment explicitly treats the District as a State for\npurposes of electing the President and the Vice President.\n\n I ask for this right in the name of half a million people, the only\nAmericans who pay Federal income taxes who do not have full\nrepresentation in the Congress. They are a third per capita in Federal\nincome taxes. Their one right that is explicitly mentioned in the\nConstitution is the right to vote for President and Vice President.\n\n The decision to expel a President from office is as important as the\ndecision to elect the President to office. Indeed, the decision to\nexpel him is more momentous. There are no partial rights in the\nConstitution. It is unconstitutional and irrational to interpret the\n23rd amendment to afford a vote for President, but no vote on whether\nto impeach a President.\n\n Let this process begin on a high note of fairness. In the name of the\nhalf million American citizens who happen to live in the Nation's\nCapital, I ask for the vote in these impeachment proceedings, Mr.\nSpeaker.\n\n Mr. Speaker, today I introduce a resolution affording the District of\nColumbia Delegate a vote in impeachment proceedings. The House is fully\nempowered to enact my resolution under Article I, Sec. 2, clause 5 of\nthe Constitution (stating that the ``House of Representatives . . .\nshall have the sole Power of Impeachment''); the Twenty-Third Amendment\naffording the people of the District of Columbia the right to vote for\nPresident of the United States; and Article I, Sec. 8, clause 17 of the\nConstitution affording Congress plenary power over the District of\nColumbia.\n\n I am seeking to protect the constitutional right of District\nresidents to vote for President by securing a vote in the impeachment\nproceedings only. My resolution is narrowly tailored and would not be a\ngrant of voting privileges to the Delegate in other proceedings of the\nHouse.\n\n American citizens living in the District of Columbia participated in\nthe last two presidential elections by choosing as their electors three\ncitizens pledged to President Clinton. Unless Congress acts to remedy\nthe situation under the Twenty-Third Amendment, the District population\nwill be the only community of American citizens who participated in the\nPresidential elections of 1992 and 1996 who will have no vote at all on\nimpeachment or conviction.\n\n This constitutional asymmetry not only violates the rights of more\nthan half a million voters; it is unnecessary. Congress has sufficient\nauthority under the District Clause and under the enforcement clause of\nthe Twenty-Third Amendment to grant the District of Columbia Delegate\nto the House of Representatives a vote in the House impeachment process\non the House floor. The Supreme Court has liberally construed\nenforcement clauses in all of the suffrage amendments to vindicate the\nbroad and central constitutional purpose of securing equal voting and\nparticipation rights for all Americans.\n\n The Twenty-Third Amendment put the District of Columbia essentially\non the same level as the states for purposes of presidential elections.\n\n The purpose of Twenty-Third Amendment was to give Congress the power\nto provide the residents of the District an equal role in selecting the\nPresident and the Vice-President. The Amendment allows District\nresidents to participate in presidential elections on an equal footing\nwith the states.\n\n Today, this right can be fully vindicated only by reading the Twenty-\nThird Amendment to permit Congress to grant the District of Columbia\nDelegate a vote on the Resolution Impeaching William Jefferson Clinton,\nPresident of the United States. Otherwise, the political will and\nsovereignty of residents of the District of Columbia in the selection\nof the president will be lost in violation of the Twenty-Third\nAmendment.\n\n The legislative history of the Twenty-Third Amendment does not\ncontradict this conclusion. Apparently because impeachment has been so\nrare, there was no discussion of this problem at the time. This is the\nfirst occasion that articles of presidential impeachment will go to the\nfloor of the House since the Twenty-Third Amendment was added to the\nConstitution in 1961. This is a case of first impression.\n\n The Twenty-Third Amendment is part of our Constitution's progressive\ninclusion of all ``the governed'' in the processes of government. The\nFifteenth Amendment secured the right of African-Americans to vote. The\nNineteenth Amendment extended the right to vote to women. The Twenty-\nFourth Amendment abolished the poll tax. The Twenty-Sixth Amendment\ngave the right to vote to 18-year olds. All of these suffrage\namendments have been interpreted liberally to secure the inclusion of\nonce disenfrachised Americans. As the Supreme Court stated in Reynolds\nv. Sims in 1964: ``history has seen a continuing expansion of the scope\nof the right of suffrage in this country. The right to vote freely for\nthe candidate of one's choice is of the essence of a democratic\nsociety, and any restrictions on that right strike at the heart of\nrepresentative government.'' 337 U.S. 533 (1964)\n\n This reasoning applies equally to the Twenty-Third Amendment and\nAmerican citizens who happen to live in the nation's capital.\n\n The case for the Delegate's vote on impeachment would be harder put\nif such participation had to be self-executing. But section 2 provides\nthat, ``the Congress shall have power to enforce this article by\nappropriate legislation.'' Since Congress is given the instrumental\nrole in activating and enforcing the Twenty-Third Amendment, it may\ninterpret that amendment to give the Delegate the right to cast her\nvote along with the representatives of all the other states that\nparticipated in the presidential electoral college.\n\n The Supreme Court has clearly treated impeachment as a political\nquestion solely within legislative competence and control. In Nixon v.\nUnited States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993), the Court rejected an impeached\njudge's attack on Senate Impeachment Rule XI, under which the presiding\nofficer appoints a committee of Senators to ``receive evidence and take\ntestimony.'' The Court found that this process of delegating to a\ncommittee was wholly within the Senate's powers because the Senate has\n``the sole power to try all Impeachments.'' Article I, Section 3,\nClause 6. The Court found that the ``common sense meaning of the word\n`sole' is that the Senate alone shall have authority to determine\nwhether an individual should be acquitted or convicted. . . . If the\ncourts may review actions of the Senate in order to determine whether\nthat body `tried' an impeached official, it is difficult to see how the\nSenate would be `functioning . . . independently and without assistance\nor interference.' ''\n\n Just as the Senate has the ``sole power'' to shape and control the\ntrial process, the House of Representatives has the ``sole power of\nImpeachment'' in the first instance. Article I, Section 2, Clause 5. As\nthe Nixon Court itself pointed out in discussing the nonreviewability\nof the Senate trail, ``the word `sole' appears only one other time in\nthe Constitution--with respect to the House of Representatives' sole\nPower of Impeachment.'' Thus, like the Senate, the House of\nRepresentatives is free to structure the impeachment proceeding\nconsistent with its own judgment of constitutional requirements.\n\n The Delegate's participation on the impeachment articles can thus be\naccomplished by way of a House rule. Article 1, Section 5 of the\nConstitution generally makes ``Each House'' both ``the Judge of the\nElections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members'' and the sole\nbody to ``determine the Rules of its proceedings.'' As precedent, the\nHouse unilaterally granted the Delegate from the District of Columbia\nand other Delegates full power to vote in Committee of the Whole\ndeliberations, a decision upheld against constitutional attack in\nMichel v. Anderson. This case, too, presents little constitutional\ndifficulty because the House is not acting in its bicameral legislative\ncapacity but rather in its unilateral capacity to ``have the sole power\nof Impeachment'' under Article 1, Section 2. Thus, the House must be\nable to design and enforce its own rules for conducting the impeachment\nprocess.\n\n The Supreme Court has recognized an extremely broad degree of\ninterpretive powers under congressional enforcement clauses found in\nthe Constitution's suffrage amendments. In Katzenbach versus Morgan it\nupheld the power of Congress, under Section 5 of the Fourteenth\nAmendment, to override a New York law and grant the right to vote to all persons who had completed the sixth grade in Puerto Rican schools regardless of their inability to read or write English. The Court rejected the argument that Congress' powers under the enforcement clause were limited only to what\nthe Fourteenth Amendment itself required, stating rather that: ``It is\nthe power of Congress which has been enlarged. Congress is authorized\nto enforce the prohibitions by appropriate legislation. Some\nlegislation is contemplated to make the amendments fully effective.''\n\n The Court emphasized that Congress was acting to protect voting\nrights and expressed reluctance to interfere with congressional\njudgement in this field. The Court said: ``It was well within\ncongressional authority to say that this need of the Puerto Rican\nminority for the vote warranted federal intrusion upon any state\ninterests served by the English literacy requirement. It was for\nCongress, as the branch that made this judgement, to assess and weigh\nthe various conflicting considerations . . .''\n\n The Court concluded that any legislation enacted under the\nenforcement clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was permissible so long\nas the enactment `` `is plainly adapted to [the] end' '' of enforcing\nEqual Protection and ``is not prohibited by but is consistent with `the\nletter and spirit of the Constitution','' regardless of whether Equal\nProtection itself dictates such a result.\n\n Elsewhere, the Court has also found that enforcement clauses give the\nCongress the power to act to vindicate voting interests even where a\nparticular statutory result is not constitutionally required. In South\nCarolina versus Katzenbach, the Court upheld Congress' power under\nSection 2 of the Fifteenth Amendment to enact the Voting Rights Act of\n1965, which included a ban on literacy tests, the requirement that new\nvoting rules must be precleared, and the use of federal voting\nexaminers. The Court stated that ``Congress has full remedial powers to\neffectuate the constitutional prohibition against racial discrimination\nin voting.'' These powers are defined in these terms: ``Whatever\nlegislation is appropriate, that is, adapted to carry out the objects\nthe [Reconstruction] amendments have in view, whatever tends to enforce\nsubmission to the prohibitions they contain, and to secure to all\npersons the enjoyment of perfect equality of civil rights and the equal\nprotection of the laws against State denial or invasion, if not\nprohibited, is brought within the domain of congressional power.''\n\n In Oregon versus Mitchell, the Court unanimously upheld the Voting\nRights Act Amendments of 1970, which banned literacy tests for five\nyears. Using a mere rationality test, the court found that Congress\ncould rationally have found that these measures were needed to attack\nthe perpetuation of racial discrimination. In City of Rome versus\nUnited States, the Court upheld Congress' Section 2 power to ban\nelectoral changes that are discriminatory in effect intentional\ndiscrimination in voting. Thus, the Court found that Congress'\nenforcement authority under Section 2 went beyond the strict\nrequirements of Section 1. The Court stated that it ``is clear . . .\nthat under Section 2 of the Fifteenth Amendment Congress may prohibit\npractices that in and of themselves do not violate Section 1 of the\nAmendment, so long as the prohibitions attacking racial discrimination\nin voting are `appropriate.' ''\n\n Because the Twenty-Third Amendment is an attempt to bring voting\nrights to a historically disenfranchised population, its enforcement\nclause should be read in a very broad way consistent with the Court's\ndeference to congressional enforcement of suffrage rights. It is also\nrelevant that the District Clause, contained in Article 1, Section 8,\nClause 17 of the Constitution, provides that Congress shall exercise\n``exclusive Legislation in all cases whatsoever over ``the District.''\nThis ``plenary power'' has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to\ngive Congress complete authority over the District. There is thus ample\nconstitutional basis for Congress having the final authority to define\nthe meaning of the Twenty-third amendment, given that this is a\n``case'' involving the District. The courts, at any rate, would, in all\nlikelihood, treat this matter as a political question solely within the\nlegislative competence, as impeachment is clearly a political question,\nas determined by the Supreme Court in Nixon versus United States, 506\nU.S. 224 (1993).\n###", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"]], "columns": ["url", "title", "date", "year", "month", "party", "chamber", "state", "member_name", "bioguide_id", "domain", "scraper", "source", "date_source", "text", "has_text", "collected_at", "updated_at"], "primary_keys": ["url"], "primary_key_values": ["https://norton.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/norton-releases-clinton-impeachment-transcript-calls-for-dc-statehood"], "units": {}, "query_ms": 0.9425501339137554, "source": "dwillis/congress-press", "source_url": "https://github.com/dwillis/congress-press", "license": "MIT", "license_url": "https://github.com/dwillis/congress-press/blob/main/LICENSE"}