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
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120 ... 141-155 next last
To: Boiling Pots
Bush was a complete and total disaster... Couldn't have said it better myself. Thank you!
81
posted on
02/11/2009 11:15:14 AM PST
by
meandog
(The two named Bush get the bird from this hand!))
To: Perdogg
> The lone “no” vote was cast by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), the 2008 Republican presidential nominee.<
Hmm.
Reaching across the aisle?
82
posted on
02/11/2009 11:32:18 AM PST
by
Califreak
(Stimulus-paying back donors and vote farming)
To: Perdogg
I still wonder why that for voting purposes they couldn’t just evenly split DC voters between the closest Maryland and Virginia districts.
83
posted on
02/11/2009 11:36:20 AM PST
by
Hillarys Gate Cult
(The man who said "there's no such thing as a stupid question" has never talked to Helen Thomas.)
To: callthemlikeyouseethem
I cannot believe that Dr. Tom Coburn would have voted for such an obviously unconstitutional bill. If McCain was the lone “no” vote, then Coburn must have been absent. I hope Ensign was absent, too. As for Collins, Voinovich and Lindsey Graham, I wouldn’t be shocked if they actually voted for that ridiculous bill.
84
posted on
02/11/2009 11:38:08 AM PST
by
AuH2ORepublican
(Fred Thompson appears human-sized because he is actually standing a million miles away.)
To: PSYCHO-FREEP
But where do we even hope to begin? There are so many similar bills being rammed through, we cannot possibly even slow them down. And the Amerikan publik are so far gone, they dont care.
American Idol is on tonight!
To: Perdogg
The Commiecrats are hoping Justice Kennedy is on their side. They, and we, already know how the rest of the Justices would vote.
Screwing with the Census, passing Socialist (Communist?) legislation and now trying to give a non-State full representation in the House. The D's are playing with fire and, if they aren't careful, they may face a rebellion by many States (copy & paste link below).
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=88218
86
posted on
02/11/2009 12:19:01 PM PST
by
Repeal 16-17
(Let me know when the Shooting starts.)
To: Perdogg
87
posted on
02/11/2009 12:21:30 PM PST
by
trumandogz
(The Democrats are driving us to Socialism at I00 MPH -The GOP is driving us to Socialism at 97.5 MPH)
To: CougarGA7
"Im just saying there is a way they can get senators and representatives while staying within the framework of the Constitution." Nope. The 23rd Amendment has nothing to do with it. The establishment and definition of DC is part of the original Constitution, and it is, by definition, NOT a state. And I see no way it can legitimately be considered a state unless an amendment is passed to allow it.
"The Congress shall have Power To
exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States
(The U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 17)"
To: Perdogg
Didn’t DC have a vote in the House in the pre-1995 Congress?
89
posted on
02/11/2009 12:21:36 PM PST
by
EDINVA
To: Wonder Warthog
Ok. I was looking in the ammendments and forgot about that establishment in the meat of the Constitution itself. Yeah, with that in there it’s pretty hard to make it a state without ammendment. I stand corrected.
90
posted on
02/11/2009 12:28:39 PM PST
by
CougarGA7
(Wisdom comes with age, but sometimes age comes alone.)
To: EDINVA
Didnt DC have a vote in the House in the pre-1995 Congress?It did, and has since 2007, but it is only symbolic. The delegates (of D.C. and the territories) only vote when (1) it's not on final passage and (2) the result would have been the same even without those votes.
91
posted on
02/11/2009 12:30:05 PM PST
by
Repeal 16-17
(Let me know when the Shooting starts.)
To: Perdogg; roamer_1; DoughtyOne
I wonder how those conservatives who stayed home in 2006 and 2008 feel now?I have zero regrets about sending the Republicans to the corner for a time out after their Big Government spending orgy. And the party can stay there until it finally learns that it doesn't own my vote and that it must earn my vote by actually walking the walk instead of just talking the talk.
92
posted on
02/11/2009 12:37:41 PM PST
by
rabscuttle385
("If this be treason, then make the most of it!" —Patrick Henry)
To: callthemlikeyouseethem; upchuck
If McCain’s was the only no vote, then Miss Lindsay must have either voted yes or not at all. Somebody, please investigate.
93
posted on
02/11/2009 12:39:17 PM PST
by
rabscuttle385
("If this be treason, then make the most of it!" —Patrick Henry)
To: BGHater
If Congress CARED about that document, yes.
So, no.
94
posted on
02/11/2009 12:45:54 PM PST
by
WayneS
(Respect the 2nd Amendment; Repeal the 16th)
To: FatherofFive
Face it.
Rush was wrong for the last 8 years.
95
posted on
02/11/2009 12:46:29 PM PST
by
WayneS
(Respect the 2nd Amendment; Repeal the 16th)
To: Mojave
96
posted on
02/11/2009 12:47:00 PM PST
by
WayneS
(Respect the 2nd Amendment; Repeal the 16th)
To: CougarGA7
BUT!
Once they become a state they can no longer be the seat of the federal government.
97
posted on
02/11/2009 12:47:50 PM PST
by
WayneS
(Respect the 2nd Amendment; Repeal the 16th)
To: gondramB
And in 2004 the only other choice was John Kerry. Fair enough. But that STILL doesn't make George W. Bush and his Republicrat buddies Conservatives.
98
posted on
02/11/2009 12:49:18 PM PST
by
WayneS
(Respect the 2nd Amendment; Repeal the 16th)
To: Boiling Pots
I have to admit, if “Fat Al” HAD won in 2000, we’d most likely have a Consevative as our President right NOW.
99
posted on
02/11/2009 12:51:40 PM PST
by
WayneS
(Respect the 2nd Amendment; Repeal the 16th)
To: goldylight
That is by their choice.
The “rules” for the District are quite clearly laid out in the Constitution. No one but the President HAS to live there.
They can always move to a state.
100
posted on
02/11/2009 12:55:39 PM PST
by
WayneS
(Respect the 2nd Amendment; Repeal the 16th)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120 ... 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson