hoyatables
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,603
|
Post by hoyatables on Feb 26, 2009 21:37:54 GMT -5
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? True, Bando, but Congress passed the Home Rule Act, and so Congress can override or retract it as it sees fit with new legislation. The 1974 Congress couldn't tie the hands of the 2009 Congres.
|
|
|
Post by lightbulbbandit on Feb 26, 2009 22:59:32 GMT -5
I think the issue as to whether the act is constitutional, ignoring any possible attachments, should be the only thing congressmen and senators consider when deciding whether to vote for this bill.
I think the arguments against the bill's constitutionality are simple as ed described above. The constitution does plainly say that only states shall have congressmen. That being said, a lawyer friend of mine and I recently were talking about this and got to argue on its constitutionality.
"Against Constitutionality" started with comments similar to ed's statements.
"For Constitutionality" responded that the definition of the House membership as coming from the several states was the only way to phrase the definition without including people completely outside the country. Additionally, the House can control its own membership, and the House was intentioned to represent the people directly, while the Senate was supposed to to represent the states. Therefore, the House should represent the people of DC. The reality is the Founders never thought the District of the federal government would end up housing a half million people, and having more citizens than a state. They thought that there would be a handful of people around and they did not want to give a seat in the House to thirty people and a bunch of federal buildings.
AgainstCon: That is all fine and good and a good argument for why there should be a constitutional amendment giving DC a seat in the house. There should be an amendment. But the words of the constitution are the words of the constitution and the supreme law of the land. That was some impressive mental twisting to argue for constitutionality, but the constitution is the constitution.
ForCon: If the words of the Constitution are the words of the Constitution explain to me why the Air Force is constitutional. I mean the Constitution explicitly says "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States" and that congress can "raise and support Armies...provide and maintain a Navy" And if you want to say that the Founders didn't know about planes, well then I win....
AgainstCon: The Air Force was part of the Army so that is why it was okay to have the Air Force, and since it is national defense the necessary and proper clause takes precedent.
At that point we both agreed that was the general endpoint of the debate. That was really the only way to respond to the claim that the Air Force is unconstitutional if the DC Voting Rights Act is, and neither of us were terrible happy about it as a response. But we both thought it was a pretty good approximation of what the actual debate should be.
|
|
azarin
Century (over 100 posts)
Posts: 198
|
Post by azarin on Feb 26, 2009 23:07:20 GMT -5
You know, it sounded absurd when it was offered, and it failed 7-91, but the more I think about it, the more I liked the Coburn amendment, which freed district residents from federal taxes.
We cry no taxation without representation, but how about no taxation and no representation? I'm not sure we'd be treated any worse than we already are, and it would be nice to not have to pay income tax.
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Feb 27, 2009 0:07:14 GMT -5
get an amendment to the Constitution (won't get enough states) Does this have to be said about every proposed amendment? Yes, it's very difficult to amend the U.S. Constitution, but the nation seems to have completely given up on the amendment process, mainly b/c "it'll never work." This proposed amendment is straightforward and promotes representative government. Why should we consider it doomed already?
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Feb 27, 2009 2:48:53 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. Puerto Rico has also had at least three referendums on the subject, with a choice of the status quo, statehood, or independence (they've voted for the status quo each time). And no, they don't pay federal income tax. While this is technically true, it's more truthful to say that neither the government of Maryland nor that of the District of Columbia supports such a move. My main problem with the "constitutional" arguments is that no legislator who's citing such an argument now will vote for such an amendment if proposed, completely for partisan reasons. It's a bull argument.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Feb 27, 2009 2:49:55 GMT -5
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? True, Bando, but Congress passed the Home Rule Act, and so Congress can override or retract it as it sees fit with new legislation. The 1974 Congress couldn't tie the hands of the 2009 Congres. Congress also had the power to regulate slavery. Which means slavery is awesome.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Feb 27, 2009 10:01:38 GMT -5
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? You mean the Supreme Court case that the D.C. council is doing everything it can to prevent from actually implementing? Have they gotten rid of the regulation that prevents D.C. residents from buying guns from gun shops in D.C. despite the fact that no gun ships exist in D.C.? Or any of the other impossible hoops they erected immediately after the decision? Supreme Court cases don't change anything--they only allow the opportunity for change (see Jackson and the Cherokee and all the desegregation cases, and I'm sure a host of other cases).
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Feb 27, 2009 10:04:54 GMT -5
Congress also had the power to regulate slavery. Which means slavery is awesome. I think we may have a new corollary to Godwin's Law. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Coast2CoastHoya on Feb 27, 2009 10:13:04 GMT -5
You know, it sounded absurd when it was offered, and it failed 7-91, but the more I think about it, the more I liked the Coburn amendment, which freed district residents from federal taxes. We cry no taxation without representation, but how about no taxation and no representation? I'm not sure we'd be treated any worse than we already are, and it would be nice to not have to pay income tax. If we're not going to get representation, being freed from federal income tax is alright by me!
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Feb 27, 2009 10:56:55 GMT -5
Now it looks like the gun part's going to be taken out in conference.
And Boz/Tables, I was actually just joking with slavery bit. I guess we get so worked up here that no amount of hyperbole can phase us. I'm going back to the I'mnotokyou'renotok thread.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Feb 27, 2009 11:06:27 GMT -5
Now it looks like the gun part's going to be taken out in conference. And Boz/Tables, I was actually just joking with slavery bit. I guess we get so worked up here that no amount of hyperbole can phase us. I'm going back to the I'mnotokyou'renotok thread. It was always going to get taken out in conference, because Pelosi would never allow a similar amendment to get offered in the House (because she'd lose that vote).
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Feb 27, 2009 11:35:51 GMT -5
Lightbulb said it all when he said "I think the issue as to whether the act is constitutional, ignoring any possible attachments, should be the only thing congressmen and senators consider when deciding whether to vote for this bill.'
In an earlier post I quoted the particular sections of the constitution involved. Every Representative and Senator, as well as the President of the United States must swear or affirm to support the Constitution of the United States - but 61 Senators voted to ignore it. For the record, Max Baucus of Montana and Robert Byrd of West Virginia were the only Democrats to vote for the constitution while six Republicans (Orrin Hatch, Dick Lugar, George Voinovich, Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, and Arlen Spector) ignored the constitution. When we have Senators completely ignoring the constitution, no wonder we have such a mess in Washington.
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,301
|
Post by Cambridge on Feb 27, 2009 11:54:32 GMT -5
1) It is not Congress' job to determine if anything is Constitutional or not. It is the Supreme Court's job. Therefore, I couldn't care less whether some House Rep from Nebraska thinks it is or isn't Constitutional. They should vote on the merits of the bill and the interests of their constituents, that is their job.
2) People think the Supreme Court would overturn. Really? Good luck getting standing to file the suit. If I can guarantee you anything it's that this Court will bounce anything on standing that it can and this would be very vulnerable to such a decision. So, it would pass and become law and the Supreme Court would not even consider the issue.
|
|
|
Post by fsohoya on Feb 27, 2009 12:11:32 GMT -5
1) It is not Congress' job to determine if anything is Constitutional or not. It is the Supreme Court's job. Therefore, I couldn't care less whether some House Rep from Nebraska thinks it is or isn't Constitutional. They should vote on the merits of the bill and the interests of their constituents, that is their job. WHAT!? Sorry 'bridge, but our representatives take a little thing called "an oath": "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States." I know the Constitution is meaningless to some people when it gets in their way, but it would be nice to at least remember for a moment that the federal government is supposed to abide by that little document.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Feb 27, 2009 12:14:47 GMT -5
Now it looks like the gun part's going to be taken out in conference. And Boz/Tables, I was actually just joking with slavery bit. I guess we get so worked up here that no amount of hyperbole can phase us. I'm going back to the I'mnotokyou'renotok thread. I know you were joking. Hence my smiley. DC people always crack me up. Look, the sooner you all accept your second class citizen status, be satisfied with what we give you and not ask for anything more, the happier we'll all be. We all know it takes, like, almost two DC residents to equal any of the rest of us. Why you can't see that is beyond me. ;D ;D ;D [ man, someone's really going to lay into me for this one.....]
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Feb 27, 2009 12:34:28 GMT -5
Now it looks like the gun part's going to be taken out in conference. And Boz/Tables, I was actually just joking with slavery bit. I guess we get so worked up here that no amount of hyperbole can phase us. I'm going back to the I'mnotokyou'renotok thread. I know you were joking. Hence my smiley. DC people always crack me up. Look, the sooner you all accept your second class citizen status, be satisfied with what we give you and not ask for anything more, the happier we'll all be. We all know it takes, like, almost two DC residents to equal any of the rest of us. Why you can't see that is beyond me. ;D ;D ;D [ man, someone's really going to lay into me for this one.....] "Listen, driving across the river just makes me a better person, I'm sorry."
|
|
|
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on Feb 27, 2009 12:45:00 GMT -5
Good luck getting standing to file the suit My thoughts exactly. Good luck getting into court with Lujan being the law of the land.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Feb 27, 2009 12:54:28 GMT -5
I will wager that, when the Voting Rights Act passes both houses (and it will because Democrats don't believe in the Constitution), the Supreme Court will delay its implementation until it hears the case. And, this court (assuming its makeup is not changed before it hears the case) will find it unconstitutional. And, of course, like you liberals like to say when it supports your aims, that establishes a precedence that should be followed by later courts (I confess, I don't believe a precedence should necessarilly be followed by later courts).
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,301
|
Post by Cambridge on Feb 27, 2009 13:06:02 GMT -5
1) It is not Congress' job to determine if anything is Constitutional or not. It is the Supreme Court's job. Therefore, I couldn't care less whether some House Rep from Nebraska thinks it is or isn't Constitutional. They should vote on the merits of the bill and the interests of their constituents, that is their job. WHAT!? Sorry 'bridge, but our representatives take a little thing called "an oath": "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States." I know the Constitution is meaningless to some people when it gets in their way, but it would be nice to at least remember for a moment that the federal government is supposed to abide by that little document. Support the Constitution is different from interpret its meaning.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Feb 27, 2009 13:07:39 GMT -5
Now it looks like the gun part's going to be taken out in conference. And Boz/Tables, I was actually just joking with slavery bit. I guess we get so worked up here that no amount of hyperbole can phase us. I'm going back to the I'mnotokyou'renotok thread. I know you were joking. Hence my smiley. DC people always crack me up. Look, the sooner you all accept your second class citizen status, be satisfied with what we give you and not ask for anything more, the happier we'll all be. We all know it takes, like, almost two DC residents to equal any of the rest of us. Why you can't see that is beyond me. ;D ;D ;D [ man, someone's really going to lay into me for this one.....] Gotta agree with Boz here. D.C. Residents are somewhere between 55% and 65% of other Americans. ;D ;D
|
|