DescentBB

Posted: **Sat Feb 28, 2009 7:59 am**

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/D/ ... SECTION=US

Have any of you heard of this? What's wrong with it?

Posted: **Sat Feb 28, 2009 8:39 am**

\"I don't trust Congress to do all the right things they should be doing,\" Douglas Sutcliffe, a sales manager for the Shakespeare Theatre Company, said this week as he took a smoke break on Capitol Hill. \"I'm from the Show-me state of Missouri. I'll believe it when I see it.\"

Has D.C. even petitioned for statehood?

Posted: **Sat Feb 28, 2009 10:02 am**

What’s wrong with it? It’s un-constitutional. And whats worse is to appease Republicans they want to give an extra seat to Utah, which should of gotten one anyway.

Posted: **Sat Feb 28, 2009 10:36 am**

Because on the merit of allowing that they will insist DC gets a senator as well and DC will always be a democrat constituency so it's an automatic extra vote for the democrat party in both houses in perpetuity!

Posted: **Sat Feb 28, 2009 10:46 am**

Well I'd be willing to bet, if this ★■◆● flys, Puerto Rico BETTER get a vote, and while we're at it, The Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, etc.

Posted: **Sat Feb 28, 2009 10:48 am**

I've got a better idea. Let's just give California back to Mexico.

Posted: **Sun Mar 01, 2009 7:48 pm**

AlphaDoG wrote:Well I'd be willing to bet, if this ***** flys, Puerto Rico BETTER get a vote, and while we're at it, The Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, etc.

D.C. residents pay full federal taxes. Puerto Ricans pay some federal taxes, such as social security taxes, but this is just so that they can be entitled to social security benefits. The governing idea here is "no taxation without representation." Perhaps if Puerto Rico payed full federal taxes then you would have a case. But as it is, you don't.

This is actually a fairly popular idea. I'm surprised to see so many against it in this thread. But I suppose that this board is conservatively dominated.

Posted: **Sun Mar 01, 2009 8:08 pm**

Jeff250 wrote: I'm surprised to see so many against it in this thread. But I suppose that this board is conservatively dominated.

Surprises me as well. The original reason for the exclusion of DC as a state was that it would have too great an advantage since the government was based there. This made a lot of sense in the 18th century. It doesn't really have much meaning now. I can email my rep or senator in a heartbeat from virtually anywhere in the country. I can send them snail mail that arrives in only a few days. I can fax them. I can even call them on the phone. I can watch what is happening in the government on the news or Cspan.

If all of that was not enough, if it were REALLY important, I could drive or fly to DC with a LOT less trouble and expense than someone could have in 1789.

So yes, someone living in DC would have a SLIGHT advantage in dealing with the government I suppose, but not much. It's a rule that made sense then, but doesn't really make much sense now.

Posted: **Sun Mar 01, 2009 8:11 pm**

Maybe your looking at it wrong, instead of looking at the taxes as an excuse for getting representation, maybe not having representation should be an excuse for not paying taxes instead.

Posted: **Sun Mar 01, 2009 9:12 pm**

I agree with Jeff and Kilarin. They pay taxes, they should be represented.

Posted: **Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:38 pm**

Kilarin didn’t say anything about taxes.

And Jeff, if being against something because it’s un-constitutional is an inherently conservative concept, well so be it…nothing to be ashamed of.

Kilarin, I have never heard that reason why D.C. is not a state.

Copy & Pasted…

The Political History of the District As most of us learned in grade school, the District was created in 1790 from ten square miles of land ceded to the federal government by Maryland and Virginia. The purpose of the District is stated in Federalist No. 43. The Framers of the Constitution believed that the federal government needed to have control over the seat of government over the place where it was to conduct its business so that it would not find itself beholden to a particular state government for its day-to-day needs. The states, after all, are (or at least were then) independent sovereigns jealously guarding their political power against federal intrusion from Washington.

.................

This is one of my favorite reads on the subject:

Which part of Article I, Section 2 do proponents of the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2009 not comprehend? The Constitution of the United States clearly states that “the House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states.” The Constitution created D.C. as the federal “seat of government” – not as a state. Therefore, D.C. cannot have a voting Member of the U.S. House of Representatives. Proponents are correct that the Constitution gives Congress the right to make all laws for the District. But that clearly does not permit Congress to substitute its will for that of the whole people to rewrite the Constitution. So, until the Constitution is amended to make D.C. a state, creating a voting representative for it as if it were a state would be “the most premeditatedly unconstitutional act by Congress in decades,\" in the words of George Washington Law School professor Jonathan Turley. (also C & Pd)

Posted: **Mon Mar 02, 2009 1:11 am**

Article I Section 2 wrote:Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union...

I'm not a Constitutional lawyer, but I would think that if they are good for the one then they are good for the other.

Posted: **Mon Mar 02, 2009 3:27 am**

It's a sneaky trick to give the democrats another seat. But, uh-oh, might I be getting a little racist?? God knows that everything said against the left nowadays is now racist.

You Californians can give *us* one of your seats, seeing as how ya'll can't keep your privatizing little fingers out of my beautiful state...

go home.

Posted: **Mon Mar 02, 2009 2:46 pm**

I was hoping for more nonpartisan analysis. You should be able to decide whether D.C. should get a vote or not in congress without knowing the predominant ideology of their constituency.

Posted: **Mon Mar 02, 2009 5:13 pm**

Well, the timing of this proposal is what makes it seem like partisan position-grabbing to me.

In my mind, the biggest issue seems to be that this request just seems out of order... DC (and any other non-state, for that matter) should petition for statehood. The rest would just follow.

Posted: **Mon Mar 02, 2009 5:15 pm**

Jeff250 wrote:I was hoping for more nonpartisan analysis. You should be able to decide whether D.C. should get a vote or not in congress without knowing the predominant ideology of their constituency.

Well regardless of the ideology they aren't a state and the capital was moved from Philly to a district created specifically to be a non-state and by that design they purposely were not given a senator or congressman. The President and all the congressman who work and live there are the representatives for the district and already pander quite effectively to the desires of the constituents living there...as was predicted by the people that decided they wouldn't need their own congressman.

Do you really think for one minute the District is left out of it's share of pork!?!? It's share of highway funds, education funds, federal parks and recreation or military protection?!?! It's share of anything the Feds spend on the states?!?! Hell even the Mayor is given the right to smoke crack with whores and get re-elected! The District doesn't need anymore political clout...it has too much already!

If you want them to get the extra Rep. then change the constitution.

If anyone thinks the people who will ram this down our throats like they did the trillion dollar anything-but-stimulus-bill really care about taxation without representation then they need to step away from the bong and come down from that high!
This is about getting a filibuster proof senate and if there was any chance it could give the republicans an extra vote those same people would instead be screaming bloody murder against the idea and that is something we should all consider.
Considering the way they have completely run away with the spending in only the first 30 days do you really want them to have absolutely no checks or balances?!?

Posted: **Mon Mar 02, 2009 7:10 pm**

AlphaDoG wrote: Has D.C. even petitioned for statehood?

Foil wrote:DC (and any other non-state, for that matter) should petition for statehood. The rest would just follow.

Posted: **Mon Mar 02, 2009 8:16 pm**

Will wrote:Do you really think for one minute the District is left out of it's share of pork!?!?

No, nor do I need to. The right to elect who makes your laws has nothing to do with how much pork you get.

Will wrote:If you want them to get the extra Rep. then change the constitution.

Then if you want them to be federally taxed, change the Constitution. If you want congress to be able to regulate (interstate) commerce in D.C., change the Constitution. Etc. We already treat them like a state in many ways that are at odds with the Constitution.

Will wrote:This is about getting a filibuster proof senate and if there was any chance it could give the republicans an extra vote those same people would instead be screaming bloody murder against the idea and that is something we should all consider.
Considering the way they have completely run away with the spending in only the first 30 days do you really want them to have absolutely no checks or balances?!?

Yes, I suppose that it might be interesting on some level to discuss what the motivations of the various politicians who do and do not support the idea might be. Politics as usual, I'm sure. But it's orthogonal to the issue of whether or not D.C. citizens should really have the right to vote. The Democrats could be big Mr. McMeaniePants and only proposing D.C. voting rights to get an extra vote in the house, but that doesn't mean that D.C. shouldn't get that vote. Or (more unlikely) they could be acting altruistically in proposing to give D.C. voting rights, but that doesn't mean that D.C. should get the vote.

So no, I don't think that things like the Democrats screaming bloody murder if the roles were reversed is something that anyone should consider when deciding whether D.C. should really have voting rights.

Posted: **Mon Mar 02, 2009 8:24 pm**

Do you live in D.C.? It's looking like D.C. may NOT be the place to live in the next few years. People are pissed off about what goes on there, despite the talk that comes during the election season, the people who make a career there have lately (meaning the last 60 years) NOT listened to their constituents.

Posted: **Mon Mar 02, 2009 8:27 pm**

Jeff250 wrote: So no, I don't think that things like the Democrats screaming bloody murder if the roles were reversed is something that anyone should consider when deciding whether D.C. should really have voting rights.

Perhaps we should then consider the proper way for those people to GET representation. I.E. Petition for statehood.

Posted: **Mon Mar 02, 2009 9:42 pm**

Spidey wrote:Kilarin, I have never heard that reason why D.C. is not a state.

I think information you presented, (based on Federalist No. 43) presents a much more accurate and complete view than my babble. And a much stronger objection to statehood. Not giving in on the point that taxation should require representation, BUT, the argument that the federal government should not be "beholden" or subject to a state government has a definite point.

Jeff250 wrote:I was hoping for more nonpartisan analysis. You should be able to decide whether D.C. should get a vote or not in congress without knowing the predominant ideology of their constituency.

I agree. The right or wrong of this issue has NOTHING to do with whether it will bring more democrats or republicans to the house. I'm certain that is involved the motivations of those bringing this up, but it really shouldn't affect our decision.

Posted: **Mon Mar 02, 2009 9:47 pm**

Kilarin wrote: I agree. The right or wrong of this issue has NOTHING to do with whether it will bring more democrats or republicans to the house. I'm certain that is involved the motivations of those bringing this up, but it really shouldn't affect our decision.

This has nothing to do with whether or not a democrat, or republican holds a seat within a district that contains D.C. It has everything to do with the constitution, and "STATES" rights.

Posted: **Tue Mar 03, 2009 2:06 am**

this bill is full of fail:

S.160 wrote: SEC. 8. JUDICIAL REVIEW.

(a) Special Rules for Actions Brought on Constitutional Grounds- If any action is brought to challenge the constitutionality of any provision of this Act or any amendment made by this Act, the following rules shall apply:

(1) The action shall be filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and shall be heard by a 3-judge court convened pursuant to section 2284 of title 28, United States Code.

(2) A copy of the complaint shall be delivered promptly to the Clerk of the House of Representatives and the Secretary of the Senate.

(3) A final decision in the action shall be reviewable only by appeal directly to the Supreme Court of the United States. Such appeal shall be taken by the filing of a notice of appeal within 10 days, and the filing of a jurisdictional statement within 30 days, of the entry of the final decision.

(4) It shall be the duty of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and the Supreme Court of the United States to advance on the docket and to expedite to the greatest possible extent the disposition of the action and appeal.

(b) Intervention by Members of Congress-

(1) IN GENERAL- In any action in which the constitutionality of any provision of this Act or any amendment made by this Act is challenged (including an action described in subsection (a)), any member of the House of Representatives (including a Delegate or Resident Commissioner to the Congress) or the Senate shall have the right to intervene or file legal pleadings or briefs either in support of or opposition to the position of a party to the case regarding the constitutionality of the provision or amendment.

(2) COURT EFFICIENCY- To avoid duplication of efforts and reduce the burdens placed on the parties to the action, the court in any action described in paragraph (1) may make such orders as it considers necessary, including orders to require intervenors taking similar positions to file joint papers or to be represented by a single attorney at oral argument.

(c) Challenge by Members of Congress- Any Member of Congress may bring an action, subject to the special rules described in subsection (a), to challenge the constitutionality of any provision of this Act or any amendment made by this Act.

there is nothing here that actually works, besides increasing the number of congressmen. The above bit of the bill tells me the authors know its gonna get killed in court.

lame.

there are ways of making this work without a consitutional amendment, but that requires the consent of one of the states.

Posted: **Tue Mar 03, 2009 2:06 pm**

How about this - amend the constitution to give DC votes just like other states? The constitution cannot be interpreted to give DC a vote, so the only choice would be to amend it...

Posted: **Tue Mar 03, 2009 4:20 pm**

or deed much of the land that comprises DC back to maryland, which donated it to begin with.

both methods are not easy.

the second title of the bill is a joke too.

DescentBB

DC gets vote in House?

DC gets vote in House?

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re: