azarin
Century (over 100 posts)
Posts: 198
|
Post by azarin on Feb 24, 2009 11:43:12 GMT -5
Well, unless something odd happens this evening, it looks like DC is finally going to get some real representation in Congress! www.insidecongresstoday.com/With the last Congress, this bill passed the house by 50 votes but died in the Senate. With the expanded Democratic majority in the House, it should pass as soon as it´s brought for a vote. Exciting, huh? I´m not convinced it´s constitutional. but I´m not sure it´s as clearly unconstitutional as many opponents of the bill make it out to be.
|
|
CTHoya08
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Bring back Izzo!
Posts: 2,836
|
Post by CTHoya08 on Feb 24, 2009 14:11:24 GMT -5
Would such a law force DC to abandon the "Taxation Without Representation" license plates? I don't think I'm ready for that.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Feb 24, 2009 14:26:37 GMT -5
It would be nice to have congressional representation. Then maybe we could do something about strengthening home rule.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Feb 24, 2009 14:43:43 GMT -5
I think DC should be run as an anarco-sydicalist commune.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,440
|
Post by TC on Feb 24, 2009 14:53:08 GMT -5
I think DC should be run as an anarco-sydicalist commune. Don't we already have a Detroit?
|
|
azarin
Century (over 100 posts)
Posts: 198
|
Post by azarin on Feb 24, 2009 18:18:35 GMT -5
Would such a law force DC to abandon the "Taxation Without Representation" license plates? I don't think I'm ready for that. Well, I think they can keep them on the basis of not having Senators. That's an interesting issue actually, and one that this bill takes a definitive stand on. As written, S.160 explicitly prohibits DC from receiving Senators, something Hatch was very specific about noting during his speech. By contrast, the House bill that is currently in committee does not preclude DC from some day receiving a senator or two. Again, I'm not sure on the constitutionality of the whole thing, but I don't see why DC shouldn't have senators as well as a representative. The argument that it has a low population is flimsy. Wyoming actually has a smaller population than D.C., yet it has two senators. What gives? And actually, I still don't see any legitimate reason for Utah to be getting a seat. I know it's necessary to win Republicans over, but from any other approach, I fail to see the logic.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Feb 24, 2009 19:19:36 GMT -5
Article I, Section 2 of Constitution:
"Clause 1: The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.
Clause 2: No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.
Clause 3: Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States................"
It is clearly unconstitutional. I'm all in favor of D.C. getting voting representation in Congress via a Constitutional Amendment.
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Feb 24, 2009 21:30:49 GMT -5
It is clearly unconstitutional. I'm all in favor of D.C. getting voting representation in Congress via a Constitutional Amendment. I agree 100% with ed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2009 16:28:03 GMT -5
Article I, Section 2 of Constitution: "Clause 1: The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature. Clause 2: No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen. Clause 3: Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States................" It is clearly unconstitutional. I'm all in favor of D.C. getting voting representation in Congress via a Constitutional Amendment. According to Clause 3, many of the taxes I've paid over the past 8 years have been unconstitutional as well. Too bad nobody gives a crap about that.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Feb 25, 2009 16:32:17 GMT -5
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Feb 25, 2009 19:09:13 GMT -5
Didn't Murkowski vote for cloture, though? DCist says she changed her mind after meeting with the only Republican I voted for in the last election, Patrick Mara (the DC Republicans support the bill). As for the merits of the bill, I support it, although share ed and Austin's concerns that it's probably unconstitutional. (Cam's rejoinder about the unconstituionality of my tax payments notwithstanding). Nevertheless, I feel that taking representation away via court decision will provide the political shame necessary for the constitutional amendment to become a reality. On the other hand, statehood just requires a majority of Congress.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Feb 26, 2009 17:25:24 GMT -5
Fraking Senators!!! They just voted to add a repeal of all the District's gun laws to this legislation. Now you might agree with the principle of this, and that's fine, but surely this is the DC Council's place and not Congress'.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Feb 26, 2009 17:30:52 GMT -5
Washington at work is a thing of beauty.
;D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2009 17:47:10 GMT -5
Conditional democracy...just as the Founding Fathers envisioned it. Perfect.
|
|
|
Post by Coast2CoastHoya on Feb 26, 2009 17:57:52 GMT -5
Good (and I too agree about ed and Austin's Article I concerns). Maybe this will force a Constl Amdmt to the forefront. It's about time DC had a fair share in Congress.
We certaintly pay enough in taxes to not have a real voice...
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Feb 26, 2009 18:01:35 GMT -5
Fraking Senators!!! They just voted to add a repeal of all the District's gun laws to this legislation. Now you might agree with the principle of this, and that's fine, but surely this is the DC Council's place and not Congress'. Isn't it Congress' job "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"? And if so, wouldn't it be Congress' job to weigh in on the gun laws, ESPECIALLY if it thinks that the 2nd Amendment is being violated? (I'm pretty sure this amendment was the same as H.R. 6842, which the House passed last Congress: tinyurl.com/d8e9ks, but correct me if I'm wrong)
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Feb 26, 2009 18:28:12 GMT -5
Fraking Senators!!! They just voted to add a repeal of all the District's gun laws to this legislation. Now you might agree with the principle of this, and that's fine, but surely this is the DC Council's place and not Congress'. Isn't it Congress' job "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"? And if so, wouldn't it be Congress' job to weigh in on the gun laws, ESPECIALLY if it thinks that the 2nd Amendment is being violated? (I'm pretty sure this amendment was the same as H.R. 6842, which the House passed last Congress: tinyurl.com/d8e9ks, but correct me if I'm wrong) Well there is a nifty piece of legislation called the District of Columbia Home Rule Act that you might be unfamiliar with. Nevertheless, I'm not claiming Congress lacks the power to do so, just that it's wrong for it to do so. A body that I have absolutely no representative in is messing with my local laws, which is frankly dictatorial. If someone thinks the DC gun laws are out of synch with the 2nd Amendment, they can go through the courts, or are you also unfamiliar with District of Columbia v. Heller?
|
|
HealyHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Victory!!!
Posts: 1,059
|
Post by HealyHoya on Feb 26, 2009 20:40:14 GMT -5
Would Puerto Rico be next? Is there an argument to be made there? If DC, why not Puerto Rico?
Do they pay federal taxes?
|
|
PhillyHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,016
|
Post by PhillyHoya on Feb 26, 2009 20:47:28 GMT -5
Would Puerto Rico be next? Is there an argument to be made there? If DC, why not Puerto Rico? Do they pay federal taxes? They pay some taxes in Puerto Rico (mostly import/export, social security). The majority do not pay US income tax, just local and payroll taxes.
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,728
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Feb 26, 2009 21:06:54 GMT -5
Even GW law professor Jonathan Turley (no strict constructionist) called this "flagrantly unconstitutional" and it's hard to see the present Supreme Court letting this one stand.
Representatives are clearly apportioned by state and either DC has to become a state (which won't happen), be retroceded to Maryland (still opposed by Democrats), get an amendment to the Constitution (won't get enough states), or stay status quo.
|
|