Lamh Foistenach Abu!
Posted on 02/24/2009 12:14:13 PM PST by nickcarraway
A measure granting Utah an additional House seat and the District of Columbia its first full-voting member overcame its biggest likely hurdle Tuesday as the U.S. Senate on Tuesday surpassed the 60 needed votes to move the legislation to final passage.
The Senate voted 62-34 to debate the bill and move to a final vote later this week, moving past objections from some Republicans that the legislation is unconstitutional.
Utah's Republican senators split on the issue. Orrin Hatch backed advancing the measure, while Bob Bennett opposed it.
The bill -- primarily aimed at giving D.C.'s overwhelmingly Democratic 600,000 residents their first full-voting House member but paired with Republican Utah to strike a political balance -- now faces a cadre of amendments by foes meant to hold it up.
Hatch said after the vote that D.C. residents soon may "have the right to vote for their own representative in the people's body. To me that's a no-brainer."
"For Utah," the senator continued, "it would right a terrible wrong, and it means we don't particularly have to rely on the census for the fourth seat."
Utah lost out on a fourth House seat after the 2000 Census by fewer than 100 people in its population tally. LDS missionaries serving abroad were not counted.
Bennett, who supported the bill in a 2007 vote, cast his ballot against moving the bill forward, saying he had constitutional Advertisement concerns.
"After further review, I have been convinced that this legislation exceeds the authority that the Constitution vests in Congress, and there is no viable amendment I could offer to remedy this and other constitutional concerns," Bennett said in a statement, noting Utah would get a fourth seat in 2012 anyway.
Supporters of the measure were encouraged by the vote but warned that more battles loom.
"This is the biggest hurdle based on the last vote, but there will be other hurdles," said Ilir Zherka, executive director of the advocacy group DC Vote. "We are within striking distance of having this bill enacted into law."
With a bolstered Democratic majority in the House, the measure is likely to sail through that body and head to President Barack Obama's desk. Obama, who co-sponsored the legislation as a senator, is expected to sign it.
Supporters and opponents alike expect legal challenges to the bill, which includes a provision expediting any court action straight to a three-judge panel in Washington and then to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Constitutional scholars have disagreed on whether the measure would pass legal muster. The Constitution says members of Congress shall be elected "by the people of the several states," and critics argue that D.C. is clearly not a state.
But advocates say D.C. already is treated as a state for other purposes, including the levying of federal taxes on residents.
Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., already announced plans to amend the measure to revive the Fairness Doctrine, which would force radio stations to include conservative and liberal talk shows. DeMint opposes the doctrine, which was repealed under President Reagan, but he wants to make the Democrats vote on the issue.
"I intend to seek a vote on this amendment [this week] so every senator is on record: Do you support free speech or do you want to silence voices you disagree with?" DeMint said in a statement.
The bill, which would permanently expand the House by two seats to 437 from 435, allows Utah to elect a fourth member in 2010 to be seated in January 2011, about two years before the state likely would snag another member in the next census.
The state would have to redraw districts into a four-seat map under the legislation.
Hatch you turd.
I am going to start pushing for a maximum age limit in Congress.
Utah Ping...
D.C. is not a State! Only States can have a voting Representative in Congress.
Lamh Foistenach Abu!
First step towards DC getting two (2) Senators.
Once that happens, Reid and Obama will no longer need Republican liberals, they can jam any legislation down the nation’s throats.
The Supremes will deem this unconstitutional in a New York City minute.
They’d better or their opinion wouldn’t be worth a bucket of horse manure.
If DC gets them then why can’t Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands, Guam etc get them as well? SCOTUS has to laugh at this.
Why not just cede the residential areas of Washington, DC back to Maryland? The Virginia portions were ceded back to Virginia back in the 19th century. Of course I would only support this on the condition that the 23rd amendment be repealed.
It would be interesting if the legislation passed, Utah got their extra house member (which blue rust belt state loses theirs?) DC got theirs and then Supreme court rules that the DC seat is unconstitutional (which it is) but lets stand the Utah reapportionaing which is constitutional. Finally a Lucy and the football momemt for the Dems.
In 1978, Congress passed a proposed constitutional amendment to give DC representation in Congress.
That amendment was not ratified by enough states to become part of the constitution.
If, in 1978, Democrats then thought they needed a constitutional amendment to accomplish this, why is it that Democrats in 2009 think that a regular statute law will accomplish this goal? Nothing has changed in the legal status of DC since 1978. It’s still not a state.
I think if this needed a constitutional amendment in 1978, it still needs one now.
Sounds like a reprise of the FDR kerfuffle on the National Recovery Act which resulted in FDR trying to amend the Constitution to add members to the Supreme Court. That also went down to defeat...
"Mr. Chairman, as to the constitutionality on this, I've really studied it and there's scholars on both sides of the coin in terms of whether it's constitutional or not, and I think that taking that into consideration for those who feel it is unconstitutional, to pass this would allow it to move to the Supreme Court and they can decide whether it's constitutional or not and get that over with and clarified which I think is very important. It's been hanging out there for a long period of time. I think the other issue here is this is the home of our federal government, and it seems to me that it's very difficult to explain to people from other parts of the world that in the district where our government is located, the people are denied representation in the House of Representatives."So Voinovich really studied the issue of DC representation and has absolutely no clue after all that study whether it's constitutional. Utter brilliance there. To make it better, he figures the best idea is to make it a law and see what the Supreme Court says. And just in case anyone questions why it would be constitutional, which is obviously what this coward thinks but won't say, he relates how difficult it is to explain to foreign visitors why DC gets no representation. God forbid this clymer would think to show them the Constitution as the explanation since that's why DC doesn't have representation. No, he, like the rest of the constitutional scholars in and out of government, can roll off their tongues constitutional and unconstitutional, but reading and referring to the Constitution itself is beyond them.
Source: February 11 Business Meeting of U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, time index: 42:41-43:35
What Congress could do is to attach provisions to bills dispensing federal funds that only states which have ratified the DC representation amendment will receive them. That seems to work with everything else. Money talks.
I wonder if Byron Dorgen would be interested in a more tropical climate
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.