Posted on 02/26/2009 2:59:26 PM PST by stevie_d_64
District of Columbia when it became the nation's capital two centuries ago would be granted under legislation the Senate passed Thursday.
Congress is "moving to right a centuries-old wrong," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid shortly before the 61-37 vote.
The House is expected to pass the measure with a strong majority next week and President Barack Obama, a co-sponsor when the bill failed to clear the Senate two years ago, has promised to sign it.
The measure is likely to face a court challenge immediately after becoming law; opponents argue that it is unconstitutional because D.C. is not a state and does not qualify for representation.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
“As long as we refuse to surrender our weapons even in the face of police authority and get out there and get in their faces.”
I’m right there with you, brother.
Spread the word.
It’s time to be bold.
Did he pull his pocket Constitution out for the vote? ;-)
Each state has standing.
Agreed.
Idaho gets another representative if DC gets one.
Hence Hatch’s support.
One thing popped out - "Utah's Hatch was a co-sponsor in part because the legislation, to offset the certain Democratic gain from D.C., adds a fourth district to Republican-leaning Utah. That would increase House voting membership by two, to 437."
Just another Blogoyevich (sp) sale? This is actually a big step as the number of reps has been frozen at 435 for quite some time despite population increases. Now we'll have 537 bastids to keep on eye on. :-(
Hatch is nuts. First, SLC's mayor is a leftist and could win a congressional seat, and possibly coattail another district. Second, the 'Rats will introduce a Senate representation bill for DC within a month (and I'm being generous.) Then we're screwed for eternity.
How so? Does each state have standing to contest the admission of a new state by Congress?
At the root of things, the US Constitution is a contract, between the people, the states, and the federal government.
As signatories to the contract, the states have standing to see the terms enforced.
One of the terms is that DC cannot have representation in Congress.
So, if DC does get representation, the fed has completely abrogated the Constitution.
You wanna know the funny part? I was born in DC.
Not sure if I am a US citizen.
That’s what I thought as well - I was just hoping there was some other loophole I wasn’t aware of. sigh....
District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2009 - (Sec. 2) Considers the District of Columbia a congressional district for purposes of representation in the House of Representatives.
Declares that the District shall not be considered a state for purposes of representation in the Senate.
Applies to the District in the same manner as it applies to a state the federal law providing for the fifteenth and subsequent decennial censuses and for apportionment of Representatives in Congress. Limits the District to one Member under any reapportionment of Members.
Modifies the formula regarding the number of presidential electors to subject it to the 23rd amendment to the Constitution in the case of the District.
(Sec. 3) Increases membership of the House from 435 to 437 Members.
Provides for a reapportionment of Members resulting from such increase.
Requires: (1) the President to submit to Congress a revised version of the most recent statement of such apportionment reflecting that the District of Columbia is entitled to one Representative and identifying Utah as the other state entitled to one Representative; and (2) the Clerk of the House, upon receipt of such revision, to make such identifications to the Speaker of the House.
(Sec. 4) Requires the additional Representative to which the state of Utah is entitled to be elected pursuant to a redistricting plan enacted by the state.
(Sec. 6) Repeals provisions of: (1) the District of Columbia Delegate Act establishing the office of District of Columbia Delegate to the House of Representatives; and (2) the District of Columbia Statehood Constitution Convention Initiative of 1979 providing for election of a Representative for the District.
Makes conforming amendments to the District of Columbia Elections Code of 1955.
They already know it's going to happen... what does THAT tell you? Grrr...
I doubt it...actually I can't even imagine anything anyone would have on him, of course I guess they could have promised him a #1 spot on the charts for one of his 'songs' in exchange for his vote. Nah...even the crooked democrats couldn't pull that one off. ;^)
He was my senator when I lived in Utah & I respected him, too...most of the time, sometimes I got really aggravated with him for seeming to side with clinton a little too often.
>>Not even remotely Constitutional.<<
Let me quote what the Great One says on this issue ...
“CONSTITUTION SMONSTITUTION”
The President refuses to show his birth certificate to get his job and fights tooth and nail to keep it out of court at $800,000.00. No one in Pelosi’s camp says word one about it. You think that they care about the constitution anymore???
You must be exhausted .. get some rest, Obama’s supporters are counting on your paycheck to pay their bills.
>>It’s like a nightmare and it just keeps getting worse and worse<<
>He’s conditioning us. Daily outrage. Eventually we’ll get used to it?<
He is not even sure where the bathrooms are yet in the White house, he is just getting started! Wait till you see what he does if he is elected for another 4 years by the kool-aid drinkers and ACORN.
They have violated their oaths of office in accord with Article 1, Section 2, clause 2 of the Constitution.
These 61 senators should now be impeached and/or recalled from office (for the 18 states that have recall provisions). It didn't take the democrats long to bring the nation to a constitutional crisis of such serious proportion that may require the removal from office of the majority of the Senate.
“It’s like a nightmare and it just keeps getting worse and worse.”
Yep. Knowing the racial makeup of DC, this is like giving
criminals keys to the vault.
You are so right. Every day in Amerika just gets worse, and some FReepers have the nerve to criticize me for not being there to suffer with them.
It is one thing to die for your country, but to die for Marxist Obamie??? No way.
This is not Venezuela.
It isn't even Chile.
I'm thinking more like...Indonesia.
Although it's hard to see the future, something's gotta give. You betcha.
Very good point!
Presidents are impeached by the house of representatives and then convicted by the senate.
Senators are expelled. Different terminology in the constitution.
Once practical difference between impeaching a president and expelling a senator is that impeachment requires both the house and senate, while expulsion only involves the particular chamber the thug is to be ousted from.
Four days later, on July 7, the United States House of Representatives voted to impeach Blount and on July 8 the Senate voted 25 to 1 to expel him from the Senate.[3] The Senate began an impeachment trial on December 17, 1798, but dropped charges two months later on the grounds that no further action could be taken beyond his expulsion.[3]
Interesting. Thanks.
The action of the house seems kind of irrelevant. 2/3 of the senate can convict a senator after impeachment by the house, or 2/3 of the senate can expel a senator with no action by the house.
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.