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

Skip to comments.

Will trade: One black Democrat for one Mormon Republican (DC Congress Vote)
Salon ^ | 2/26/2009 | Mike Madden

Posted on 02/26/2009 2:22:49 PM PST by Domandred

Even if Congress gives D.C. a vote in the House, don't expect federal lawmakers to stop meddling in the city's business.

Feb. 26, 2009 | WASHINGTON -- Not long before President Obama's inauguration last month, some homemade fliers started popping up on lampposts and traffic lights around town. "Welcome to D.C.!" the posters proclaimed, in red ink, next to stenciled images of people in voting booths. "Wyoming: 522,830 residents. 244,818 voters. Washington, D.C.: 588,292 residents. 399,127 voters. 0 votes in Congress."

The stats were a little off; the population estimates came from 2007 Census figures, not the more current 2008 numbers, which show both Wyoming and D.C. have grown. And the voter registration numbers actually undercounted D.C. voters, by using stats from August instead of the November election. But the point should not have been hard to miss for the hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people who came to Washington for the inaugural celebration: The nation's capital may as well be a colony, taxed heavily by its powerful rulers without any say in how the money is spent.

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


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events; US: District of Columbia; US: Utah
KEYWORDS: 111th; bho44; census; congress; dc; dcstatehood; mormon
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-31 next last
Yes seriously that is the article title. Paren of course mine. No the article isn't about mormons, it's about DC getting a voting seat in congress, and why it's in news and not religion.

Bolded part cracks me up though as it honestly applies to everyone not living on the coasts.

1 posted on 02/26/2009 2:22:49 PM PST by Domandred
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Domandred

Excuse me, but where does the Constitution say anything about any non-state having representation in Congress?


2 posted on 02/26/2009 2:24:15 PM PST by Paleo Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Domandred

Slamming the Constitution again, are they?


3 posted on 02/26/2009 2:24:35 PM PST by madison10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative

Right next to the part that it says that the 2nd amendment only applies to hunting and sporting purposes.


4 posted on 02/26/2009 2:26:33 PM PST by Domandred (Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: madison10

Old habits die hard.


5 posted on 02/26/2009 2:27:03 PM PST by Southside_Chicago_Republican ("During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." --Orwell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative
Excuse me, but where does the Constitution say anything about any non-state having representation in Congress?

Excuse me, but what gives you the idea that Democrats give a damn about the Constitution?

6 posted on 02/26/2009 2:30:19 PM PST by Repeal 16-17 (Let me know when the Shooting starts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative

The bill proposes to give DC a representative seat AND increase the total House seats to 437. Both of which are unconstitutional.


7 posted on 02/26/2009 2:31:00 PM PST by Blood of Tyrants (The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money. Margret Thatcher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Repeal 16-17
Excuse me, but why do you think it's only the Democrats that dont give a shit about the constitution?
8 posted on 02/26/2009 2:32:23 PM PST by SwankyC (Please stand by - The govt will be there to help you in just a few moments.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Domandred
Maryland, five miles (or less) that way if you are really that eager to vote for a Dem. If you want want to include those voters, then return the residential areas of Washington to Maryland just as part was returned to Virginia in the 19th century. Washington DC would be reduced to a small area of federal buildings around the Mall.
9 posted on 02/26/2009 2:32:47 PM PST by KarlInOhio (On 9/11 Israel mourned with us while the Palestinians danced in the streets. Who should we support?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants
The bill proposes to give DC a representative seat AND increase the total House seats to 437. Both of which are unconstitutional.

The first is obviously unconstitutional. Why would changing the size of the House be? The size of the House hasn't always been 435 seats, and is often bumped up by 1 until the next census and reapportionment when a new state is admitted.

10 posted on 02/26/2009 2:35:21 PM PST by KarlInOhio (On 9/11 Israel mourned with us while the Palestinians danced in the streets. Who should we support?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants
The bill proposes to give DC a representative seat AND increase the total House seats to 437. Both of which are unconstitutional.

It isn't unconstitutional to change the number of seats in the House. There is no fixed number. There is no provision for any political divisions other than states having representation in Congress. It would take a constitutional amendment. It would be possible to cede back the residential areas of DC back to Maryland for the purposed of representation. I would support that only if simultaneously the 23rd amendment were repealed. DC shouldn't be able to have 3 electoral votes and simultaneously also be able to vote for Maryland's two senate seats.

11 posted on 02/26/2009 2:39:06 PM PST by Paleo Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: KarlInOhio

The size of the House hasn’t always been 435 seats,
____________________________________________

Only since 1912...


12 posted on 02/26/2009 2:39:07 PM PST by Tennessee Nana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SwankyC
Excuse me, but why do you think it's only the Democrats that don't give a shit about the constitution?

Some of the Congressional Republicans care about the Constitution. None of the Democrats do.

13 posted on 02/26/2009 2:42:03 PM PST by Repeal 16-17 (Let me know when the Shooting starts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Domandred
I'd trade a certain black Dimocrat for one cross dressing Rino.

14 posted on 02/26/2009 2:43:35 PM PST by I see my hands (_8(|)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Repeal 16-17
None of the Democrats do.

Course not. The Constitution stands in the way of getting their agenda done. Working as intended.

15 posted on 02/26/2009 2:46:18 PM PST by Domandred (Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Domandred

“...taxed heavily by its powerful rulers without any say in how the money is spent.”

Don’t we all feel that way?


16 posted on 02/26/2009 2:47:13 PM PST by vladimir998 (Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ. St. Jerome)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Domandred

I say if DC gets a vote, then stop having us pay for their municipal upkeep. The federal government doesn’t build and maintain subway stations anywhere else, for example. Just DC because it is a district of the federal government, and not a state. They dont get a vote but they get federal funding. If they want the vote so bad, treat ‘em like every other congressional district. One vote and no special funding considerations.


17 posted on 02/26/2009 2:49:44 PM PST by pepsi_junkie (Often wrong, but never in doubt!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Domandred

Will trade one Republican party full of RINO turds for one Real Reagan conservative party.
Less Govt. is best govt.


18 posted on 02/26/2009 2:49:58 PM PST by Joe Boucher (An enemy of Islam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative

You wrote:

“Excuse me, but where does the Constitution say anything about any non-state having representation in Congress?”

Don’t Guam and Puerto Rico and other US territories just have delegates (i.e. non-voting members) in the House?

Why then should D.C. be treated differently, right?


19 posted on 02/26/2009 2:54:48 PM PST by vladimir998 (Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ. St. Jerome)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Domandred

This is a great bill because we will get (1) Utah Republican and (1) psycho-liberal from DC. After the Supreme court rules we will be left with the Republican from Utah and the unconstitutional DC rep will be dismissed.


20 posted on 02/26/2009 2:59:19 PM PST by azcap
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-31 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