Friday, April 20, 2007

What does Joe have against the people of DC having full representation?

Yesterday, the House of Representatives passed H R 1905 District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act, which gives the District its first full seat in Congress. Joe voted against the legislation. It may not have enough votes to pass the Senate, and the president has promised to veto the bill if it reaches his desk. Why don't Republicans want residents of Washington, DC to have full representation? They claim it's because it's unconstitutional -- that only states have the right to representation. But we know the real reason -- the seat will certainly be a sure Democratic seat. However, the compromise for passage included adding a representative to Utah, a heavily Republican seat.

The people of DC do pay taxes, so shouldn't they be entitled to have a voice in Congress? Perhaps a load of teabags on the WH lawn would be in order.

Source: Washington Post
By Mary Beth Sheridan and Yolanda Woodlee
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, April 20, 2007; Page A01A

Bill giving the District its first full seat in Congress cleared the House yesterday, marking the city's biggest legislative victory in its quest for voting rights in nearly three decades.Democrats on the House floor burst into applause, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) grabbed the arms of the District's nonvoting delegate, Eleanor Holmes Norton, as the 241 to 177 vote was announced.

"There was nothing but joy in the chamber this afternoon," Norton said.

But the bill faces considerable obstacles. Democrats don't appear to have enough votes in the Senate to avoid a filibuster, and the White House has threatened a veto. If the measure becomes law, it probably will be challenged in court.

Read more:


Chet said...

Wow. To answer the question posed here - how about the fact that its unconstitutional and a usurpation of power by the Democratic Congress that can only be done through Constitutional amendment or admission into the union as a state, either of which would require a 2/3rd majority of the States to ratify.

So Joe has stood up for the Constitution. Good job pointing that out. It's also obviously not good for Michigan - which is already destined to lose more representation in the next census - to further water its vote down. And while your at it - if you want equal representation, then take DC's special appropriations away and put it on a status equal to other states.

If you want D.C. statehood, then lobby for it straight up. Or, if the residential vote of the DC population is so important, revert the district back to Maryland (since Virginia's portion is already reverted) and let it incorporate itself into the local politics of that state (which I wouldn't object to). DC might benefit from some logical consolidation of services on that front anyway, and it would bring into play a state infrastructure capable of and with an interest in real oversight of the city, rather than letting it continue as the corrupt island it is.

SharonRB said...

This has been studied by legal scholars and some prominent constitutional law experts feel that it is legal.

The sponsor of the bill says that Congress has all the authority they need to pass this.

Talk about taxation without representation. DC doesn't want to become part of Maryland.

You only think Michigan's vote would be watered down because it would add a Democratic seat. Remember, under this bill, Utah gets another seat, too, so it's pretty equal.

If this was truly unconsitutional it wouldn't have gotten as much support as it did.