Posted on 04/18/2010 3:21:26 PM PDT by neverdem
The Post asked whether Congress should pass legislation giving D.C. residents a vote in the House, or whether amendments to the legislation that roll back the city's gun-control laws is too high a price. Below, responses from Tom Davis, Paul Helmke, Robert A. Levy, Wade Henderson and Kristopher Baumann.
TOM DAVIS
Former U.S. representative from Virginia; president of the Republican Main Street Partnership
For voting-rights activists, the answer is clear. As distasteful as the gun amendments may be, the District should reluctantly accept them as the compromise for a vote in Congress. I say this because the Senate's coloration will change in November, and the 60 votes needed to pass voting rights for Washington simply will not be there for several more years at best. Moreover, the National Rifle Association has the votes now and will have the votes in the next Congress to impose gun rights on the city. The compromise that gives red Utah an extra seat to offset the blue one Washington will get also expires with this Congress.
The worst outcome would be to allow this opportunity to pass and have the next Congress impose gun rights anyway. Senate Democrats are likely to lose at least three seats in the upcoming election and will lose the 60 votes needed to pass this bill, which they currently have. And the 2012 Senate election cycle has 21 Democrats facing reelection and only 12 Republicans, making further GOP (and anti-voting rights) gains probable.
Voting rights for the D.C. delegate to Congress are too important to put off for another generation. Those who advocate waiting for the perfect bill do not understand the political realities and do their constituents a disservice by pretending otherwise.
PAUL HELMKE
President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
After the Supreme Court struck...
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
No more compromise.
Damn leftists are always thinking about the long march. The gun-grabbers are willing to sacrifice a little now for the hope that in the future they can change the law back to their side.
Yeah, we certainly wouldn't want the government running around "imposing" rights on people. < facepalm >
What a telling quote.
Now I agree with the basic point of the article, that this is a cheap trade from the Democrats point of view. This is a bad deal for Republicans and they shouldn’t be doing it. Plus, DC is overwhelmingly Democrat anyway. They’d be getting a bad trade if it were good people obtaining the benefit, and then it’s Democrats getting the gun rights on top of that.
Here’s a counter proposal. Make the entire D.C. area a federal reservation, so it has no residents, or slums, and a lot lower street, if not white collar, crime rate.
To start with, the government could eminent domain and lease to businesses, such as the Watergate Hotel complex, or remove all private buildings and turn them into park, until needed by federal offices. Otherwise the land could be used for monuments, memorials, public gatherings and recreation.
The streets could be limited to just public transport and VIP travel, and automatic sidewalks, like those in use in many airports, would speed pedestrian travel in high traffic areas.
The desired end result would be a low traffic, much better security city capable of handling a greater public daily inflow. It would be far more aesthetically pleasing, cleaner, and return to being a national capital we could be proud of.
No taxation without representation.
Giving DC voting rights would be expressly unconstitutional.
Fine. Exempt them from all Federal taxes.
Why would I want Somalia to be represented in 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.