Posted on 02/25/2009 8:01:44 PM PST by heleny
The House of Representatives seems set to grow by two Members, to 437, after next year's election. Yesterday the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act passed a key procedural vote in the Senate, making passage of the legislation, which President Obama supports, all but certain. The only thing standing in the way may be the Constitution.
...
... the plain language of the Constitution, ... provides that House members shall be chosen "by the People of the several States" and stipulates that the District of Columbia is not a state.
... if Congress wishes to grant [DC] full representation, [Congress] should do so by amending, not ignoring, the Constitution.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Constitution? We don’ need no stinkin’ constitution!
Why don’t they do this the proper way an amend the Constitution? Oh ya because they’re evil.
1. The Utah seat in exchange for a DC seat is ridiculous on the face of it. The missionaries should have been counted already, just like the military. Apples and oranges.
2. The Constitution is clear. States make the call, not the House. And DC is not a state.
3. That being said, I wonder how many of us would be in favor of it (through Constitutional means, of course) if DC were a pocket of conservatism rather than the far left stronghold that it is now.
In principle I agree that American citizens should be represented. (Not that most really are.)
Two more who are guaranteed to put the “dim” in “Dimocrat.”
Why not save the cost of an election and just clone Cynthia McKinney and The Rev’run Al?
One more vote for the looters. SURE why not do that!
How ‘bout this: since D.C. doesn’t have any voting representation in Congress, wouldn’t it be better for Congress to not force the citizens of the District to pay taxes??? O’Reilly was talking about “taxation w/o representation” in his show this evening, but neither he nor anyone else on the show brought up that idea.
Just make the 10-sq miles of DC a tax-free zone! I wonder what that would do for business in the District....hmmmmm....
Any and all subsequent Acts of Congress would become de jure null and void, were they to include “representatives” from any non-State as voting members of Congress.
You know, I would actually support a DC seat if it were a proposed amendment. But the end around makes me sick.
Or, you'll like this one...
Let's give each city a Representative in the House instead of each district, and add a third Senator to avoid ties in votes.
Or...
Hey, I can make this stuff up too, can't I? Why should Congress have all the fun?
-PJ
It's just more of the same old playbook ~ the Missouri Compromise didn't work then and it won't work now.
It will be interesting to see how many actually vote to dilute their own vote, and the votes of all of their constituents. The only way I can see to do this without prejudice would be to redistrict Maryland and incorporate DC into one of the districts by turning DC back over to Maryland (which is already a left-wing hell hole, so no more harm would be done)
Forgot to say: If they do this, it will make for some wonderfully long and drawn out lawsuits. Lawyers’ full employment bill.
We the people need to get busy and start reminding the @$$holes in D.C. that we still have a Constitution.
The good news is you can make a legal case that legislation passed with the votes of this representative be thrown out since it’s an unconstitutional appointment.
Not to be picky, but it's 100 sq. miles. The Constitution stipulated that the district would not exceed 10 miles square (10 x 10 x 10 x 10). But you're right, if it were tax free, there would be many more jobs.
Yeah, right.
Or how about we do like we do with kids: 1 divides the cake and the other decides which piece he gets. Dems divide DC and republicans decide which party is represented.
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.