  Vetalalumni Member Username: Vetalalumni Post Number: 1277 Registered: 05-2007 |
DeMint Hopes to Force Vote on Fairness Doctrine Bill Next Week. Adding the Fairness Doctrine as an amendment on D.C. Voting Rights bill to prevent FCC from censoring talk radio. http://www.businessandmedia.or g/articles/2009/20090219171331 .aspx http://senatus.wordpress.com/2 009/02/19/demint-hopes-to-forc e-vote-on-fairness-doctrine-bi ll-next-week/ District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2009 (S.160) http://www.opencongress.org/bi ll/111-s160/show Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2009 (S.34) http://www.opencongress.org/bi ll/111-s34/show | ||
Oladub Member Username: Oladub Post Number: 1248 Registered: 08-2006 |
The Constitution says in article 1, section 2 : "The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative" It seems reasonable to allow the residents of Washington DC to elect a representative to represent themselves. The problem is that DC is not a state anymore than the Lakota Reservation or Puerto Rico is a state. The Constitution only allows states to have representation in Congress. This could be addressed by giving DC back to Maryland or amending the Constitution to allow an exception for DC. This cannot be addressed by overriding the Constitution. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4445 Registered: 10-2003 |
^^^First of all, DC does not want to be a part of Maryland, and I'm fairly certain Maryland doesn't want DC within its boundaries. Second, the Constitution also explicitly gives Congress jurisdiction over the District. This same provision was used to justify the Home Rule Act in the 1970s, which abandoned the commissioner system of government, and allowed the District to elect its own mayor and council. | ||
Detroitej72 Member Username: Detroitej72 Post Number: 1269 Registered: 05-2006 |
Isn't it strange that a country that prides itself on representation would not allow the residents of its capital a voice in congress? Although I can see why the Republican party would want silent the city, as it tends to be Democrat leaning. | ||
Oladub Member Username: Oladub Post Number: 1250 Registered: 08-2006 |
Thanks for the insight. However the wording remains "each STATE shall have at Least one Representative". DC, of course, isn't a state. This has been brought up before and has always been shot down on a Constitutional basis. What's the problem with amending the Constitution so "each State and the District of Columbia shall have at Least one Representative"?. If the State wording in the Constitution can be overridden by the "Home Rule Act", what's to stop Congress from also giving DC two senators? Why only two if "the Constitution also explicitly gives Congress jurisdiction over the District"? | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4447 Registered: 10-2003 |
A Constitutional amendment would be difficult to pass, at best. Remember--we only have 27 Amendments total, and 10 of those were passed in 1791. It may have to come to that, though, as I'm sure that if the legislation passes, it will be challenged in federal court. The Home Rule Act doesn't override the Constitution, as there is no prohibition, in the Constitution, of Congress allowing District residents to elect their own local government. If Congress decided, they probably *could* achieve representation in the Senate for DC. These are the primary arguments that the District, and their non-voting delegate to the House, Eleanor Holmes Norton, have put forth: *DC has more residents than Wyoming, and almost as many as Vermont and Montana. *DC residents pay federal taxes. *DC residents serve in our nations armed forces. *DC residents are bound to abide by laws enacted by the Congress. The District is the only capital of a democratic republic whose citizens are disenfranchised in the national legislature. I sincerely hope Congress comes to its senses and gives these 600,000 residents their full democratic rights. | ||
Firstandten Member Username: Firstandten Post Number: 715 Registered: 05-2006 |
Danindc - How will that work ? I understand that DC and Utah will get 1 representative. Will that come at the expense of another state or will the House of Rep numbers be expanded ? Also wouldn't DC residents want Senate representation as well? | ||
Stosh Member Username: Stosh Post Number: 62 Registered: 01-2009 |
I'd like to see this happen. Let the right have Rush and his ilk, then full representation for DC. Representatives and Senators, just like the above mentioned states. Fair trade in my book. Otherwise Rush and his buddies could just get a real job. | ||
Firstandten Member Username: Firstandten Post Number: 716 Registered: 05-2006 |
Danindc - How will that work ? I understand that DC and Utah will get 1 representative. Will that come at the expense of another state or will the House of Rep numbers be expanded ? Also wouldn't DC residents want Senate representation as well? | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4449 Registered: 10-2003 |
A bill previously introduced in the House by then-Congressman Tom Davis (R-VA) proposed that two members be permanently added to the House. DC would get one of those members (based on population), and Utah would get the other (After the 2000 Census, Utah was the state closest to getting another seat in the House.). The seats would be reapportioned to the states based on population after the 2010 Census, with DC retaining its one member. The current bill is similar from what I understand, although some members are trying to add amendments to further their own causes, such as repeal of all gun control laws in the District--sure, you can have a vote in the House, as long as you let alcoholics, children, and the mentally ill own guns. It seems Members of a Certain Political Party love to use the District as a laboratory; I wonder how their constituents feel about the need of these Members to meddle in affairs of local government. I think right now, DC would be thrilled to get a vote on the floor of the House, and I don't think the District wants to endanger its opportunity for enfranchisement by asking for too much at once. One might be able to make a better case that the Senate represents the states themselves, as opposed to the House, which represents the people. A quest for two Senate seats would be a battle for a later time. | ||
Oladub Member Username: Oladub Post Number: 1254 Registered: 08-2006 |
Dan, I don't have any problem with DC resident getting representation but I keep going back to the correct way to go about this. If the Democratic leadership had any brains, they would insist on amending the Constitution to allow this representation without being a state. The GOP would then fight tooth an nail to try to deny this and would manage to further alienate Blacks and alienate a lot of moderates and independents for good measure. In the end, I think that Democrats could get enough cross over votes to do this right. Conversely, not doing this correctly will further establish a contempt of the Constitution by Democrats. | ||
Vetalalumni Member Username: Vetalalumni Post Number: 1291 Registered: 05-2007 |
Fundamentally, the Fairness Doctrine and DC Voting Rights are not cohesive. | ||
Firstandten Member Username: Firstandten Post Number: 718 Registered: 05-2006 |
I dunno Oladub the last amendment(27th) was ratified in 1992 which limits congressional pay raises. It took 202 years from the time it was introduced to when it was ratified. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4451 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: There is a larger question here, though: Why amend the Constitution, if the Constitution already permits Congress to allow representation for the District? | ||
Ccbatson Member Username: Ccbatson Post Number: 19060 Registered: 11-2006 |
Of course they are not cohesive...deceptive corrupt politicians at work here folks. | ||
Jiminnm Member Username: Jiminnm Post Number: 1748 Registered: 02-2005 |
"There is a larger question here, though: Why amend the Constitution, if the Constitution already permits Congress to allow representation for the District?" Why Dan? Because representation for DC is not allowed by the constitution, and you cannot implement by statute something that is unconstitutional. Art 1 Sec 2 states "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States ..." Art 1 Sec 3 states "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State ..." Art 1, Sec 8 states "To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings" The Constitution expressly limits Reps and Senators to those chosen in and by the States. The Home Rule for DC that you mentioned is expressly allowed under Sec 8. Yet the same sentence that allows that action also references other actions relative to the States, which further demonstrates the constitutional distinction between the District and the States. Additionally, the 23rd amendment states "The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct: A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State." This may well be construed to be a prima facie acknowledgement within the consitution that the District is not a State. The only avenue for DC to gain representation in Congress is by amendment. Congress passed a proposed amendment to do this in 1978 (another acknowledgement that DC does not have the same constitutional rights as a State?), yet few states agreed within the 7 year limit included in the proposed amendment. The ploy here by the Dems is not the added rep for DC, which Congress is hoping to buy by offering Utah a seat it may well have been entitled to after the 2000 census. If this blatantly unconsitutional act stands, then Dems will argue that DC is also entitled to representation in the Senate as well. Dan, the facts you lay out may or may not be true, but they are irrelevant to any constitutional determination. | ||
Oladub Member Username: Oladub Post Number: 1257 Registered: 08-2006 |
Dan, It is now standard practice for Congress to use the commerce clause and the general welfare clause to ok anything that someone might define as in the general welfare or having the least thing to do with commerce. The rest of the Constitution may as well be discarded by such advocates who think they have found magic keys that overrides the remainder of the Constitution. My impression is that Congressional jurisdiction over DC is a similar key. In my post 1250, I was almost being facetious in asking, "why stop at two senators?". If Congressional jurisdiction allows Congress to arbitrarily override the State/representative provision, wouldn't this same jurisdiction also allow Congress to appoint fifty or a hundred senators from Washington DC? The Constitution only allows states to have two senators but says nothing about how many senators the District of Columbia can have. I have since thought of a possible third way to Constitutionally allow DC residents a voice in Congress. I know next to nothing about the original deal of Maryland giving away land for the District of Columbia. Perhaps, there is something in paperwork that would be open to considering the DC as being part of Maryland for Congressional voting purposes. It wouldn't, after all, affect any state-wide election. Were that the case, perhaps an amendment would not be needed to meet the state wording in the Constitution. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4454 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: While not explicitly permitted, represetation of DC in Congress isn't explicitly prohibited, either. quote: You'll note that the bill originally introduced (in 2006, I believe), was introduced by Tom Davis of Virginia, a Republican. So, what's the Democratic "ploy"? And what do you have against representation for 600,000 of your fellow citizens? If we only did what the Constitution explicitly allowed, our nation would still be an 18th century agrarian society. quote: And maybe we can merge Michigan with Wisconsin too. You know, just for Congressional voting purposes. quote: | ||
Jiminnm Member Username: Jiminnm Post Number: 1751 Registered: 02-2005 |
An express statement of how House members and Senators shall be selected can't be negated by a phrase referencing formation of the District, especially when through amendment and proposed amendment Comgress has already admitted that DC cannot have representation. I don't have anything against representation for DC, I just think it should be done constitutionally. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4455 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: Where does it say in the Constitution that the District is prohibited from representation in the Congress? | ||
Oladub Member Username: Oladub Post Number: 1263 Registered: 08-2006 |
"Where does it say in the Constitution that the District is prohibited from representation in the Congress?" Jiminnm was pretty thorough about what the Constitution says ^^ in his post 1748. You are asking what the Constitution doesn't say and implying that if it doesn't specifically say something, then it must be ok. So your answer is that no the Constitution does not specifically say that the District, the Lakota Reservation, or Guam is prohibited from representation in the Congress? Nor does it say specifically that the District may or may not be awarded with fifty senators. But the question isn't whether District residents should prohibited from representation. It is about how to have Constitutionally acceptable representation. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4464 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: Right. And nothing you have stated has shown why representation for the District is prohibited by the Constitution. Right now, the District is little more than a federal colony. They receive a non-voting delegate to the house--just like Puerto Rico and Guam. Unlike those protectorates, though, the District does not have final say over its own budget or its own laws, which can be overridden by Congress at any time. It's residents pay federal taxes, and serve in our nation's armed forces, and have given up 40% of the taxable value of their land by hosting the federal government and associated activities. You don't think this is worthy of ONE vote in the House of Representatives? The Constitution was intentionally crafted to be open-ended, anticipating that the world wouldn't remain in 1789-mode for eternity. Using your rationale, we would still be an 18th-century agrarian nation. For example, what right did Ronald Reagan have to fire the air traffic controllers? The Constitution says nothing about giving the federal government the authority to hire and fire air traffic controllers! | ||
Oladub Member Username: Oladub Post Number: 1265 Registered: 08-2006 |
Dan, I guess we just disagree. You apparently think that amending the Constitution to make changes is so very 1789. I don't. Wondering off into non-DC semi-related subject- The Constitutions authorizes 'postal roads'; Whether or not the concept of roadways includes such things as ferries across rivers, which existed back than and air routes today is something the courts could look at. However, your example is an apple to oranges issue in that one defines an application (define postal road) and the other re-structures the mechanism of government. Anyway, the Constitution, as presently written, clearly links Representatives to States. That is what has to change. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4466 Registered: 10-2003 |
No, I don't think that Amendments are outdated. I just don't believe in making Amendments if they aren't necessary. The Equal Rights Amendment failed in the past. Does that mean any legislation that prohibits gender-based pay discrimination is unconstitutional? quote: Nowhere does it say that Representatives to the House are strictly limited to the "several states". | ||
Jiminnm Member Username: Jiminnm Post Number: 1753 Registered: 02-2005 |
Dan, put your reading glasses back on: Art 1 Sec 2 states "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States ..." | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4468 Registered: 10-2003 |
And once again: Art 1, Sec 8 states "To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States Suddenly we're concerned about the Constitution, now that the sitting President is a Democrat? | ||
Jiminnm Member Username: Jiminnm Post Number: 1755 Registered: 02-2005 |
And once again: "An express statement of how House members and Senators shall be selected can't be negated by a phrase referencing formation of the District, especially when through amendment and proposed amendment Comgress has already admitted that DC cannot have representation." Try reading some constitutional law. Who is president is irrelevant to what is and what is not constitutional. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4471 Registered: 10-2003 |
This: quote: is a self-contradictory statement. I do agree with the first portion of it, however. I'm not sure what the word "admit" means in the second half of the statement--has Congress been accused of a crime? Those who paid attention in 9th grade know that Congress doesn't have the authority to decide what is and what is not Constitutional. All an Amendment does is not subject District representation to judicial review by the Supreme Court. (Message edited by DaninDC on February 27, 2009) | ||
Ccbatson Member Username: Ccbatson Post Number: 19064 Registered: 11-2006 |
With the messes brewing via Obama and his socialist hoard intent on rescinding the US constitution in favor of the communist manifesto, we need to question everything thing that comes out of Washington. | ||
Classicyesfan Member Username: Classicyesfan Post Number: 578 Registered: 04-2008 |
"With the messes brewing via Obama and his socialist hoard intent on rescinding the US constitution in favor of the communist manifesto, we need to question everything thing that comes out of Washington." Let's whip up some hysteria among the overly emotional Americans who are ill-equipped for rational processing of public events. Give them what they want to hear! It sells. |
