Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

D.C. Voting Rights Passed by Senate Committee
Washington Post ^ | Wednesday, February 11, 2009; 11:02 AM

Posted on 02/11/2009 8:58:36 AM PST by Perdogg

A Senate committee approved a bill today that would give the District its first full seat in the House of Representatives, setting up a crucial vote by the full chamber sometime in coming months.

The Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee passed the legislation 11 to 1 at its first business meeting in the new Congress. The lone "no" vote was cast by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), the 2008 Republican presidential nominee.

It's not clear when the legislation will reach the Senate floor for what is likely to be the key vote on the measure. In 2007, a similar bill died in the Senate after falling three votes short of the 60 needed to head off a filibuster. But proponents believe they are now in better shape thanks to Democratic gains in the last election.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Government; Politics/Elections; US: District of Columbia
KEYWORDS: 111th; butmccainisarino; constitution; dc; houseofrep; separationofpowers; shadowgovernment; usconstitution
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 141-155 next last
To: Perdogg

They will lose seats due to population losses in the next census. They’re so desperate to hold on to power, they’ll destroy the nation to do it.


61 posted on 02/11/2009 9:55:18 AM PST by 1010RD (First Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

WOuldn’t this require a constitutional ammendment? I don’t think Congress can do this.


62 posted on 02/11/2009 9:56:57 AM PST by HamiltonJay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SueRae
This is another piece of Rahm’s grand plan

This was all planned before the election even took place! Now we know why all the Clintonistas were rehired! They have practice at ignoring laws, rules, the Constitution, etc. Lots of practice!

63 posted on 02/11/2009 10:04:13 AM PST by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: FatherofFive
He assured us in the first election he was

Do you have a link to either a transcript or video that backs up this claim? All I remember is Rush assuring us that he was more "conservative" than Gore. Hell... Stalin was more conservative than Gore. I have NEVER heard Rush try to assure us that Bush was "a" Conservative.

Feel free to provide the evidence to educate me and prove me wrong.

Thanks.

64 posted on 02/11/2009 10:06:53 AM PST by The Anti-One (So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg
"I wonder how those "conservatives" who stayed home in 2006 and 2008 feel now"

No frikin kidding! I knew the Rats would drive socialism, but the depth, breadth, and speed is incomprehensible! Just WOW!!!!

Remember Bill O on fox saying Obamunism would govern as a centrist and if he started pushing a far left socialist agenda - he'd be all over him? Yeah right - go get him Bill (I'm watching out for the folks) you big bleeping bleep bleep bleep!!!

65 posted on 02/11/2009 10:08:40 AM PST by uncommonsense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: TommyDale

A constitutional amendment was drawn up on this very subject in 1978, to give the District of Columbia congressional representation. It was ratified by far less than the 38 states required. It was passed by 2/3 of each house of Congress, but not enough states ratified it.

This is absurd. Back in 1978, people realized and accepted that a constitutional amendment was needed to accomplish what they are trying to do. But now, in 2009, the Obamaniacs figure that their Dem. majorities in Congress are enough.

How can this be? If it required an amendment in 1978, it still requires an amendment now, because the legal status of D.C. has not changed since then.


66 posted on 02/11/2009 10:12:29 AM PST by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: meandog

————Wonder why they even picked her?—————

Because they knew McCain couldn’t win. They thought her addition would be enough to appease the conservative base and get them on board. But when the results came in on the 4th and McCain lost, they had no further use of her.

That’s all it was right from the get go: a ploy.

The republican party has made it clear how it views conservatives. And because of that, many conservatives like myself have come to view the republican party in the exact same way.

A smart man once said “I didn’t leave the democrat party, they left me”. A few decades later, the republican party is making the exact same mistake.

———And now she’s the conservative front-runner for the 2012 race! That McCain, what a jerk!-—————

When people do something only because they want to like this(not because they are forced to) do they deserve credit. Yes, McCain is a jerk. Had he gotten his way, someone much more liberal would’ve been chosen. Pawlenty or Lieberman or some such idiocy.


67 posted on 02/11/2009 10:13:26 AM PST by Halfmanhalfamazing (Undercut Microsoft: Use Linux)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Eric in the Ozarks
I don’t know of any who actually did.

I don't either. Not one. The polling data doesn't back it up one bit, either. It's pure "moderate" mythology.

68 posted on 02/11/2009 10:14:30 AM PST by WhistlingPastTheGraveyard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: avdcmenian

“Will it without question provide a permanent Democratic addition? Absolutely; anyone saying this is not political is lying. But it is also the right thing to do.”

So your “feelings” override the Constitution then. Must be nice.


69 posted on 02/11/2009 10:21:51 AM PST by Pete98 (After his defeat by the Son of God, Satan changed his name to Allah and started over.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

I guess the constitution has no meaning at all anymore.


70 posted on 02/11/2009 10:23:52 AM PST by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

can 2 Senators for D.C. be far behind...

I smell ‘Rats behind all this!


71 posted on 02/11/2009 10:26:30 AM PST by kellynla (Freedom of speech makes it easier to spot the idiots! Semper Fi!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BGHater
They are gonna need a Constitutional Amendment, correct?

LOL!

The constitution has become a roadblock on the Obama highway. The Senate is just making a detour around that restrictive document.

The Constitution no longer exists. It is but a meaningless piece of paper.

72 posted on 02/11/2009 10:26:33 AM PST by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: kellynla
can 2 Senators for D.C. be far behind...

Why limit it to 2?

If you are going to ignore the Constitution, why not just give blue states 4 Senators each and give the red states 1 Senator (with limited voting rights).

As Obama said.... "WE WON"!

The battle for the constitution has been lost.

73 posted on 02/11/2009 10:30:37 AM PST by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: FatherofFive

And Rush is right, but it’s too bad the alternative was even worse. Looking back on it now, though, I kind of wish Algore had won the election. We could still have a GOP majority in the senate and house if he had.......


74 posted on 02/11/2009 10:32:26 AM PST by pctech
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe
“The battle for the constitution has been lost?”

Easy, Trigger! LOL

As long as Americans are armed, nothing is “lost!”

75 posted on 02/11/2009 10:37:10 AM PST by kellynla (Freedom of speech makes it easier to spot the idiots! Semper Fi!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: The Anti-One
Do you have a link to either a transcript or video that backs up this claim?

No, I don't. I just recall that he mentioned at least several times on air during the primaries how conservative W was. I recall his telling of private conservations with prominent people who knew W personally, and that people would be surprised. Other Freepers have shared this recollection in other posts.

76 posted on 02/11/2009 10:37:30 AM PST by FatherofFive (Islam is an EVIL like no other, and must be ERADICATED)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog

Your thinking of the 23rd ammendment. All that does is give DC electors even though it is not a state. It does not state that DC CANNOT apply for statehood. I’m just saying there is a way they can get senators and representatives while staying within the framework of the Constitution. The Dems are trying to ignore the Constitution and they really dont even have to do that. But they consider the Consitution irrelevant anyway so it doesn’t really surprise me.


77 posted on 02/11/2009 10:41:57 AM PST by CougarGA7 (Wisdom comes with age, but sometimes age comes alone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: tom h

see post 77.


78 posted on 02/11/2009 11:03:42 AM PST by CougarGA7 (Wisdom comes with age, but sometimes age comes alone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg; AuH2ORepublican; fieldmarshaldj; BillyBoy

Ping

Not constitutional.

Looks like it will pass.


79 posted on 02/11/2009 11:07:50 AM PST by Impy (RED=COMMUNIST, NOT REPUBLICAN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Halfmanhalfamazing
Utterly ridiculous! Nobody had ever heard of Palin before she came on the ticket...McCain picked her, not because she was a "conservative," but because she, like he, was strong on defense and a budget hawk on spending--it also didn't hurt that she was a woman and there were a lot of left-leaning independents and moderate Democrats bemoaning the fact that Hillary lost the Dem nod by a hair's breath.

As for "conservative" philosophy being the ruling issue among the majority here at FR; well, I really don't know what that means any more after the debacle of eight years that GWB logged. Does "conservative" mean shipping $$millions$$ to Africa to fight AIDs? Does it mean the creation and expansion of government with whole new agencies (i.e. Homeland Security)? Does it mean employing "limited warfare strategy" that Rumsfeld and Cheney said would work pre-surge in Iraq when they were certain the U.S. "would be welcomed as heroes"? Does it mean Harriet Myers was well qualified to be a justice on the Supreme Court before Samuel Alito was?

McCain might have been all wet on CFR (incidentally, HE WASN'T THE ONE WHO SIGNED IT INTO LAW), he definitely was wrong on amnesty for illegals (though McCain-Kennedy was being also pushed by GWB if you'll remember correctly), but he certainly didn't try to robe himself in a "compassionate conservative" hypocritical cloak and was there, warts and all, for everyone to see--Unlike the one who held the White House some 30 days ago and was the darling of Rush and Sean when it came to "conservative" labels!

80 posted on 02/11/2009 11:12:45 AM PST by meandog (The two named Bush get the bird from this hand!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 141-155 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson