D.C. Voting Amendment - Merged Threads

Doesn't this bill actually add 2 representatives to the House, 1 for DC and 1 for the next state in line to increase it's representation based on census growth (Utah, most likely)? Thought I read that somewhere.

On balance wouldn't likely shift the balance of power in the house since the Utah rep would likely be Republican.

Doesn't make it constitutional though..........
 
Giving reps to DC does seem unconstitutional. With that said, if they pass this and the big O signs it, I suspect the Supreme Court would toss that part of the law onto the scrap heap of history. That would leave the gun part standing. Food for thought.
 
Not to mention that D.C. is a pretty good source of inane, indefensible federal firearms laws and now that we are working to broaden Heller, the last thing we want to do is help D.C. be more reasonable. In fact, the more outrageous and obstructionist they become, the better it is for us in the long run.
Click to expand...

Good point.

DC makes an easy target for court challenges to expand and further define the right to bear arms at leadt until incorporation is decided.
 
Article II, Section 1, clause 2:
No Person shall be a Representative who shall not ... when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

Article III, Section 1, clause 2:
No person shall be a Senator who shall not ... when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

Any way you try to read this, the Constitution requires a Representative or a Senator to be a resident of the State from which he was chosen. Any change to this requires a Constitutional Amendment. Mere legislation cannot make D.C. a State. Mere legislation cannot give a Constitutionally defined Federal Enclave representation within the Congress.
 
The DC Voting Rights Act must have been huge for the Democrats.

The Senate agreed to the following amendments:
S.Amdt. 573 - Fairness Doctrine Prohibited
S.Amdt. 575 - 2nd Amendment Enforcement Act (DC)

They also rejected the following amendments:
S.Amdt. 582 - .50 BMG Sniper Rifle (NFA classification)
S.Amdt. 583 - Foreign Convictions (firearms disability)
S.Amdt. 586 - Misdemeanor Sex Offense Against Minor (firearms disability)
S.Amdt. 589 - AG Firearms Authority re: Terrorists
S.Amdt. 590 - Gun Show Loophole Closing

I think it is particularly important to be familiar with the proposed amendments that were rejected. They represent the "canned" legislation that has not been filed as a separate bill, but are held in waiting to attach to another bill as an amendment. As such, I think they are more dangerous than the separate bill proposals.
 
The District already has a recognized and seated member of Congress. This will only give her voting rights in the House. Something Eleanor has been fighting for for years. I had to listen to Eleanor Holmes Norton for years while living in the District. To think she may actually have a vote to go with her voice is alarming. It should be noted that she was rated the 19th most influential and 16th in legislative power during her stint with the 110th Congress. She did that with no vote.

This bill fell three votes short of the 60 in the senate last year. I wonder what has changed? The gun laws being scrapped???

I hold no promise for the DC District Court to use the Constitution in its ruling of the bill should it become law. So the Supreme Court will have to be the ones to deny millions of their voice in government. Jessie and Al will be out on the front lines for this one.
 
Any way you try to read this, the Constitution requires a Representative or a Senator to be a resident of the State from which he was chosen.
Click to expand...

I haven't seen this as an issue yet. Have they already picked a rep if this goes through?:confused:
 
In S.Amdt. 585, Senator Kyl proposed a substitution for the Voting Rights Act that would have given the District (except for a core of federal buildings around the Mall) back to Maryland.
 
I haven't seen this as an issue yet. Have they already picked a rep if this goes through?
Click to expand...

I imagine it would still be Norton. Not that it's relevant, as it will never happen.

There is simply no way whatsoever that this can be Constitutional. Here's hoping the Supreme Court honors this simple fact.


I can say that I doubt that when D.C. was established it was predicted that it would become more populous than some states (well, one for now). I think at some point something will need to be done regarding this, because having a half a million people paying federal taxes with no representation in Congress is probably more reprehensible to me than completely ignoring the text of the Constitution.

Still, this is not the way. Amend, or figure something else out, but this is no good at all.

A better solution would probably be to give D.C. residents voting rights in Maryland or Virginia (probably Maryland). Let them vote in federal elections through a proxy state, leave the rest as-is.

Of course, this kinda screws them in the Electoral College, but absent an amendment it seems like the best solution that actually recognizes the existence of the Constitution.

EDIT: Then again, this would probably require the consent of Maryland. Which is unlikely.
 
The fact that residents of DC have NO representation at the national level is pretty scabrous.
Click to expand...
The founding fathers didn't want people to spend a lifetime in politics. They didn't want "politician" to be a job. DC shouldn't get a vote b/c no one worth a damn should be sticking around long enough to need one.

Azhred beat me to the punch, but I can't believe more peopl;e don't feel this way.
 
The founding fathers didn't want people to spend a lifetime in politics. They didn't want "politician" to be a job. DC shouldn't get a vote b/c no one worth a damn should be sticking around long enough to need one.

Azhred beat me to the punch, but I can't believe more peopl;e don't feel this way.
Click to expand...

This would make sense if a city full of non-politicians hadn't sprung up there.

Basically they should have made the district smaller. Oops.
 
having a half a million people paying federal taxes with no representation in Congress is probably more reprehensible to me than completely ignoring the text of the Constitution
Click to expand...

Senator Coburn proposed S.Amdt. 581 to eliminate federal income taxation for permanent residents of the District. No taxation - no representation.
 
That's another perfectly reasonable alternative, I suppose. Though really I think finding a way to give them voting representation is preferable.
 
The specific intent of the consitution was to have the national capital distinct from any state and not a state itself. When the constitution was written the capital was never considered a permanent place for people to live. It was inteded as the seat of government and nothing more. It was a place for the federal government to conduct it's business and not be dependent upon a state government for it's safety and security. It was probably assumed that those who worked or did business in the district would live and vote in a state.

Why don't we just shrink the size of the district? It was done in the past when Alexandria was given back to Virginia.
 
I don't get it. Some of you seem to think it reprehensible that those who choose to live in a federal enclave, receive no federal representation. Why?

Because the people that live there are ignorant or illiterate? Those are both curable conditions. Even assuming the schools there are as bad as I've heard (or even worse), the finest public library in the nation is located in D.C. So that can't be the reason.

Instead of ranting and raving about this, if you cared, really cared, you would be working for a Constitutional Amendment... I doubt such would pass, but there you are.

Sorry. I have no sympathy at all for the self-inflicted plight of these people. They live where they live out of either choice or sloth. If they wanted representation, they would move.
 
Still Unconstitutional

It should go to SCOTUS.

Getting another House member for Utah means what? They actually will have 437 members total, that doesn't make any sense.

What about with the Obama Admin having control (some, or alot?) of the Census Bureau, so that Utah House seat could magically go away.
Why would they need to even be involved in that at all unless they were going to lie about something in the numbers.
 
What about with the Obama Admin having control (some, or alot?) of the Census Bureau, so that Utah House seat could magically go away.
Click to expand...

^^^ Here is wisdom and forethought.

Too bad you're not a Senator...:rolleyes: All of ours (well, at least 61) are stupid or deliberately intent on gerrymandering themselves a permanent incumbency.
 
Firearm Provision Blows Up D.C. Voting Rights Bill

For the second time in as many weeks, the House has had to postpone action on a major bill important to Democratic leaders.

The House Democratic leadership Tuesday decided to delay a plan to grant a seat in the House to the District of Columbia. Since it is not a state, Washington, D.C., does not get a vote in Congress.

The Senate approved a similar bill to give the District voting representation. And approval in the House seemed all but assured. But an amendment attached to the Senate version of the legislation by Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., created problems in the House.

Ensign's amendment would give Washington residents better access to firearms. The Supreme Court last year ruled that the District's 32-year-old ban on firearms was unconstitutional.

Passing the District of Columbia legislation was supposed to be easy in the House compared to the Senate. But the National Rifle Association signaled it could make a procedural vote on the issue a test case for lawmakers' Second Amendment voting records.

Nearly every piece of legislation that comes to the House floor must receive what's called a "rule." The rule establishes the guidelines for how lawmakers will handle the measure on the floor. Everything from time allotments to amendments are contained in the rule.

However, the Democratic leadership faced a potential revolt from moderate and conservative Democrats on the vote to approve the rule if the leadership failed to include Ensign's firearms provision.

The House cannot debate a bill if the procedural vote on the rule fails.

So this conundrum forced the Democrats to punt on representation for the District of Columbia for now.

This episode mirrors a scenario two years ago when Republicans forced Democrats to yank a similar bill for Washington, D.C. off the floor when they attempted to make pro-Second Amendment lawmakers to either vote for the legislation or against gun rights.

Last week House Democrats had to postpone a vote on a bill designed to ease the nation's housing crisis. Democrats intended to approve a plan that would grant bankruptcy judges the right to lower mortgage rates and interest payments for struggling homeowners. Concerns about whether there were enough Democrats to support the plan made the leadership delay a vote on that plan until later this week.
Click to expand...

It appears that some Democrats are concerned about their Second Amendment voting records.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top