|
Post by lightbulbbandit on Mar 3, 2009 1:20:09 GMT -5
Then please explain why your rule of interpretation does not state the Air Force is unconstitutional, since we are not ignoring the words of the Constitution. If you can't see the difference between DC getting a vote in Congress and the constitution NOT stating that the country has the right to have an Air Force, it will be difficult to give you an answer. I'll try. The constitution does not state a lot of things. It doesn't state there will be a Securities and Exchange Commission; or an IRS; or a White House; or a Pentagon; or a Martin Luther King holiday; or many, many other things that have been established by law. But it does state that Representative are to be from the STATES. A question for you: why was it necessary to pass an amendment to give D.C. the right to vote in national elections? The litany of things that you list are directly traced to powers of the federal government via the interstate commerce clause (SEC), 16th amendment (IRS), and "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" (White House and Pentagon), all supplemented by the necessary and proper clause. I think the power to declare federal holidays relates to the fact that it only has any force with respect to federal employees whose duties are related to other enacted legislation under one of the powers of Congress. When the Constitution states Congress's powers with respect to the military it does not state generally armed forces or military, it says army and navy. A strict constructionist reading of the Constitution would limit the powers to an Army and Navy. If we limit federal powers to the strict limits of the Constitution then the necessary and proper clause only gives the federal government the power to make laws necessary and proper to carry into effect their powers to "raise and support Armies," "provide and maintain a Navy," and "make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces." No mention of the Air Force. Congress's powers are limited, not endless, and they are limited strictly to those stated in Section 8 of Article One. Probably for the same reason there should be an amendment to give DC a voting member of Congress. I actually think that may be the best argument against the present act's Constitutionality, that we have already considered a similar issue once and decided as a nation that an Amendment was needed. This question is the point of my original posting, I think it is unconstitutional because I generally have a restricted view of federal powers. That being said, I also understand that my general views of Constitutional construction leaves unanswered questions. On the Air Force topic, despite a strict constructionist reading of the Constitution holding that it cannot exist, any strict constructionist would say its existence is constitutional. With the DC Voting Rights Act, I think it is unconstitutional, but know there is a counterexample to the standard argument. I prefer not to simply ignore these inconsistencies to my methodology, one of those pesky habits from Georgetown. It even worries me more because the argument is being used to deprive half a million people of congressional representation, something I find abhorrent. Therefore, I question my methodology to ask myself whether it is correct. You can only believe something if you continually question it.
|
|
azarin
Century (over 100 posts)
Posts: 198
|
Post by azarin on Mar 3, 2009 17:37:36 GMT -5
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Mar 3, 2009 17:42:17 GMT -5
You mean the bipartisan effort to overturn DC gun laws? Because last time I checked at least 40 Democrats would have to support it as well...
|
|
azarin
Century (over 100 posts)
Posts: 198
|
Post by azarin on Mar 3, 2009 17:58:11 GMT -5
Well yes, it would requires some Democrats to actually pass, so perhaps my wording was a bit imprecise.
However, I suspect that the Democratic leadership has enough control over its party at this point that no Democrat would offer such an amendment. They would have no compunctions about supporting a Republican attempt at it, though, which is why I think leadership is trying to keep the bill off the floor.
The statement from Hoyer shows what a cluster.... this bill could turn into if it splits the Democrats into pro- and anti-gun camps and gets the anti-gun camp to vote no on the bill.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Mar 3, 2009 19:54:57 GMT -5
Well yes, it would requires some Democrats to actually pass, so perhaps my wording was a bit imprecise. However, I suspect that the Democratic leadership has enough control over its party at this point that no Democrat would offer such an amendment. They would have no compunctions about supporting a Republican attempt at it, though, which is why I think leadership is trying to keep the bill off the floor. The statement from Hoyer shows what a cluster.... this bill could turn into if it splits the Democrats into pro- and anti-gun camps and gets the anti-gun camp to vote no on the bill. I don't think that's going to happen though. The reason so many Democrats were free to support the amendment (mostly Blue Dogs and those from rural and/or Southern areas) was because they knew the provision would be removed in conference. NRA ratings and the like are derived from actual votes, so the Blue Dogs would get the bump for voting for the amendment but not get penalized for failing to get the amendment through conference. Am I wrong about this? I though the House-Senate conference on this hadn't happened yet.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Mar 4, 2009 9:45:34 GMT -5
There hasn't been a conference yet, because the House hasn't passed it. And the reason the Dems had to pull the legislation was because Democrats wanted to offer the gun amendments (specifically Rep. Childers a Dem from Mississippi). If it was a Republican driven effort, it wouldn't be an issue because the House rules have been written such that its all too easy to exclude the minority. The fact that conservative/moderate Dems want this provision in might prevent them from excluding the provision though (this happened last year in the House as well with legislation to rewrite the DC Gun laws--Holmes-Norton had a bill and Pelosi let the House vote on a substitute with similar language offered by Rep. Pryor (D) from Arkansas). The NRA's pretty good at politics--I'd be surprised if they lose this fight. www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/03/firearm-provision-blows-dc-voting-rights/
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Mar 4, 2009 11:37:44 GMT -5
I'm curious as to why this is "blamed" on the NRA. There are an awful lot of Democrats who are pro-gun and these are people who vote. For the record I am not a pro-assault gun supporter.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Mar 4, 2009 11:47:23 GMT -5
I'm curious as to why this is "blamed" on the NRA. There are an awful lot of Democrats who are pro-gun and these are people who vote. For the record I am not a pro-assault gun supporter. No matter what word you use to describe it, this is the NRA's doing. Their endorsement is one of the big reasons for a lot of conservative Democrats winning their elections and so when they speak, a lot of Dems (and Repubs) listen. And they're currently threatening to score the vote on Pelosi's rule preventing amendments, which means that it wouldn't pass.
|
|
azarin
Century (over 100 posts)
Posts: 198
|
Post by azarin on Mar 4, 2009 12:10:52 GMT -5
TBird -- thanks for the Fox article. I stand corrected. When the Hill broke this yesterday, it was a little less clear what was going on. Interesting to me that they don't quite have the party discipline to prevent Dems from offering anti-gun-law amendments, but the NRA's threat to score it makes sense.
From a policy perspective, that's the problem with this new Democratic majority. On one hand, it's great to have the large advantage over the Republicans, but on the other hand, the majority proves illusory on centrist issues. One reason they have their large majority now is the intentional strategy of welcoming more conservative Democrats than they would have usually supported. But the flip side is that they're not reliable votes for things like this.
Should be interesting to see how this plays out.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Mar 4, 2009 12:35:13 GMT -5
I'm curious as to why this is "blamed" on the NRA. There are an awful lot of Democrats who are pro-gun and these are people who vote. For the record I am not a pro-assault gun supporter. I'm not even really opposed to the measure on the merits. However, I don't like Congress meddling in my local affairs.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Mar 4, 2009 12:38:10 GMT -5
TBird -- thanks for the Fox article. I stand corrected. When the Hill broke this yesterday, it was a little less clear what was going on. Interesting to me that they don't quite have the party discipline to prevent Dems from offering anti-gun-law amendments, but the NRA's threat to score it makes sense. From a policy perspective, that's the problem with this new Democratic majority. On one hand, it's great to have the large advantage over the Republicans, but on the other hand, the majority proves illusory on centrist issues. One reason they have their large majority now is the intentional strategy of welcoming more conservative Democrats than they would have usually supported. But the flip side is that they're not reliable votes for things like this. Should be interesting to see how this plays out. Additionally, I think NRA has already largely won, and that gun control is not a hallowed part of the Democratic platform anymore. Remember that Howard Dean, lefty extraordinaire, had an A rating from the NRA.
|
|
azarin
Century (over 100 posts)
Posts: 198
|
Post by azarin on Mar 4, 2009 19:54:13 GMT -5
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Mar 26, 2009 12:39:29 GMT -5
Now this is creative. DC Councilman Kwame Brown has proposed that the Democratic congressional leadership insert a provision into the DC voting rights bill outlawing crossing state lines for the purposes of soliciting sex. The target of such an act? Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev), who inserted the gun amendment to the bill. (via DCist)
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Mar 26, 2009 12:52:39 GMT -5
Now this is creative. DC Councilman Kwame Brown has proposed that the Democratic congressional leadership insert a provision into the DC voting rights bill outlawing crossing state lines for the purposes of soliciting sex. The target of such an act? Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev), who inserted the gun amendment to the bill. (via DCist) Does Ensign support / care about the legal prostitution "industry" in his state? And how does the Senate Majority leader feel about this brazen attack on his state's economy? Not that it matters, because the DC voting bill is being held up by House Democrats that refuse to allow their leadership to vote on the bill w/o the gun language (b/c the NRA wants them to). Speaking of, the DC voting bill isn't going to be considered by the House until after Easter at the earliest.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Mar 26, 2009 12:56:17 GMT -5
Now this is creative. DC Councilman Kwame Brown has proposed that the Democratic congressional leadership insert a provision into the DC voting rights bill outlawing crossing state lines for the purposes of soliciting sex. The target of such an act? Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev), who inserted the gun amendment to the bill. (via DCist) Does Ensign support / care about the legal prostitution "industry" in his state? And how does the Senate Majority leader feel about this brazen attack on his state's economy? Not that it matters, because the DC voting bill is being held up by House Democrats that refuse to allow their leadership to vote on the bill w/o the gun language (b/c the NRA wants them to). Speaking of, the DC voting bill isn't going to be considered by the House until after Easter at the earliest. Oh, I'm not at all saying this has any chance of happening. I just thought it was interesting.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Mar 26, 2009 14:08:36 GMT -5
Does Ensign support / care about the legal prostitution "industry" in his state? And how does the Senate Majority leader feel about this brazen attack on his state's economy? Not that it matters, because the DC voting bill is being held up by House Democrats that refuse to allow their leadership to vote on the bill w/o the gun language (b/c the NRA wants them to). Speaking of, the DC voting bill isn't going to be considered by the House until after Easter at the earliest. Oh, I'm not at all saying this has any chance of happening. I just thought it was interesting. Me neither. But I did enjoy describing an attack on legalized prostitution as a "brazen attack" on Nevada's economy ;D
|
|
LCPolo18
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,406
|
Post by LCPolo18 on Jun 9, 2020 21:25:09 GMT -5
DFW HOYA do you disagree that this is the first thing to do, or do you disagree generally with DC statehood?
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,730
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Jun 9, 2020 22:29:59 GMT -5
DFW HOYA do you disagree that this is the first thing to do, or do you disagree generally with DC statehood? Both. There's just too much on the 2021 plate right now without dividing the country further. Like the urban legend which could give Texas 10 senators by subdividing into five states, it's legally dubious, institutionally divisive and ill-suited to the numerous issues on the President's desk come Jan. 20, 2021, assuming the current occupant actually leaves the building if defeated. The Constitution was clear that it didn't want the federal district within the purview of any single state (Article 1, Section 8). Statehood also flies in the face of the 23rd Amendment which gave DC specific electoral votes, an amendment which might have to be repealed by 38 states prior to statehood. If DC voters want rights to a state, they could follow what was done in 1846; namely, when Arlington and Alexandria (included in DC) were retroceded to Virginia. The same could be done for Maryland. If statehood is that important it should be done by Constitutional Amendment, but even its staunchest supporters would not go down that path, because the votes wouldn't be there. On a minor note, absent a funding mechanism from the federal government, the District would look to eliminate the tax-free status of the five largest employers in the "state", namely 1. Georgetown University, 2. George Washington University, 3. Children's Hospital, 4. Washington Hospital Center, and 5. American University. Or you could get really silly:
|
|
LCPolo18
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,406
|
Post by LCPolo18 on Jun 9, 2020 23:02:02 GMT -5
DFW HOYA do you disagree that this is the first thing to do, or do you disagree generally with DC statehood? Both. There's just too much on the 2021 plate right now without dividing the country further. Like the urban legend which could give Texas 10 senators by subdividing into five states, it's legally dubious, institutionally divisive and ill-suited to the numerous issues on the President's desk come Jan. 20, 2021, assuming the current occupant actually leaves the building if defeated. The Constitution was clear that it didn't want the federal district within the purview of any single state (Article 1, Section 8). Statehood also flies in the face of the 23rd Amendment which gave DC specific electoral votes, an amendment which might have to be repealed by 38 states prior to statehood. If DC voters want rights to a state, they could follow what was done in 1846; namely, when Arlington and Alexandria (included in DC) were retroceded to Virginia. The same could be done for Maryland. If statehood is that important it should be done by Constitutional Amendment, but even its staunchest supporters would not go down that path, because the votes wouldn't be there. On a minor note, absent a funding mechanism from the federal government, the District would look to eliminate the tax-free status of the five largest employers in the "state", namely 1. Georgetown University, 2. George Washington University, 3. Children's Hospital, 4. Washington Hospital Center, and 5. American University. Totally fair, there’s a lot to do in 2021. But given the Republican strategies of the past decade(s), shouldn’t the Democratic Party think big? I agree about the divisiveness, but why does that fall solely on the Democratic Party to heal the country? I can get on board that it might not be the first thing to do, but it has to be high on the list in my opinion. This isn’t the 1800’s where a single state could overrun the federal district with their militia. And your argument about retrocession would result in the same issue of the federal district being in a single state. Even as it is now, DC is just a carve out of Maryland (with river borders to Virginia). Based on HR51, there would still be a Federal District, so the Federal District would still oversee itself. Anyways, both Maryland and DC generally don’t want retrocession, so all it would be is an olive branch concession to the Republican Party. The 23rd amendment isn’t that big of an obstacle. If DC became a state, the amendment would be a no brainer to repeal, and even if it isn’t repealed it would no longer apply to DC since DC would no longer be the federal district. The 23rd amendment would only apply to anyone living in the federal district, which would have a population of zero. There doesn’t need to be a constitutional amendment for DC statehood, since 7 states have used the Tennessee model to become states in the past, just as HR51 proposes.
|
|
LCPolo18
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,406
|
Post by LCPolo18 on Oct 19, 2020 8:07:57 GMT -5
|
|