DC voting rights in US house?

[LazyDrunk]

Washington DC may be on it's way to becoming the 51st state, at least on paper.

"The Senate has approved a key procedural step that clears the way for full Senate approval of a bill giving Washington, D.C., its first-ever seat in the House of Representatives. The vote to cut off further debate on the issue and move to a vote passed 62 to 34"

Included in the unprecedented bill is a seat for Utah as well. But I don't want to talk about that, because Utah is a state and statehood is the issue here, not the hue of the voting populace on election maps. PLEASE, DO NOT BRING THIS UP AS ANYTHING OTHER THAN A POINT OF INTEREST.

I'd like to hear your opinions concerning the precedent in allowing non-state representation in our US House of Representatives, and if applicable, your reasons for supporting such measures.

Finally, should DC be granted a seat or seats in the US Senate? Why or why not?

[Achilles2]

I support non-voting delegates from non-states in the United States Congress. The reason is because non-states don't receive specific funds and such that are granted only to states, and non-states are exempt from some laws and government projects. For that reason, since they're such an exception to the laws passed by Congress, then why should they have any say in what law is passed?

When it comes to Washington, D.C., I support them becoming a state in all but name. The Constitution says that the capital of this country is not to be part of any state. For that reason, Washington, D.C. shouldn't be called a state. However, all of our laws and government projects apply to them, and for that reason, they deserve the right to have a say in what passes in Congress.

[n64kid]

At 2/24/09 03:01 PM, LazyDrunk wrote:

I'd like to hear your opinions concerning the precedent in allowing non-state representation in our US House of Representatives, and if applicable, your reasons for supporting such measures.

I am against it unless Guam, PR and all other territories we control get a voice (as well as pay federal taxes)

Finally, should DC be granted a seat or seats in the US Senate? Why or why not?

Fuck no. They are not a state, it's just the homeless and strip club capital of the world. Oh and coincidentally the capital of the US, but ignore that last one.

[aninjaman]

At 2/24/09 06:10 PM, n64kid wrote: Fuck no. They are not a state, it's just the homeless and strip club capital of the world. Oh and coincidentally the capital of the US, but ignore that last one.

The city I live in is considered the homicide and herion capital of the U.S. but we, like DC pay taxes and are affected by laws passed by the U.S. government, so my city gets to vote and have a say.
Whats a real reason DC shouldnt get a vote?

[LazyDrunk]

At 2/24/09 06:04 PM, Achilles2 wrote: When it comes to Washington, D.C., I support them becoming a state in all but name.

But see this is where reality reflects your viewpoint for what it is: a weak attempt to reassign definitions to fit a goal regardless of merit or forethought. Redefining important terms like "state", "shall" and "must" have dangerous consequences, not unlike renaming cigarettes funsticks. Funsticks because they are both fun and sticks, but not cigarettes.

You wanna change the Constitution, follow the proper channels and amend it. Slipping a grope on Uncle Sam is not cool.

The Constitution says that the capital of this country is not to be part of any state. For that reason, Washington, D.C. shouldn't be called a state.

If it is not a state, who does it represent?

^^^^^^^^that is the most important question of this thread^^^^^^^^^^^^

However, all of our laws and government projects apply to them, and for that reason, they deserve the right to have a say in what passes in Congress.

I see. Are you of the belief that US government installations across the globe, who also must follow the laws passed by this nation, be granted the same benefit of US House representation?

Guam? Japan?

How far are you willing to wring the essence of statehood to achieve whatever it is that your goal was?

At 2/24/09 06:42 PM, aninjaman wrote: Whats a real reason DC shouldnt get a vote?

Besides Article 1, section 2 of the US Constitution? I'd have to ask you to broaden your horizons and think outside the box.

Are DC residents being granted a seat in the house the only way to represent them? Is the compromise of letting DC voters participate in Maryland elections unreasonable?

Why should DC residence recieve special, unconstitutional privileges when a smarter, cleaner, more energy efficient solution is readily available?

[blackattackbitch]

There's a lot I don't know, so I'm going to post a list of questions:

1) Do they pay federal taxes?
2) Do they recieve federal money and/or support since the federal government is using their land?
3) Who does represent the people who live there? If they have no representatives at all in the federal government, they're subsceptible to getting royally fucked in the ass by congress and the federal government. (unless the exemptions mentioned above protect against that.)

[Memorize]

"Are they a state?"

That's really the only question that would need to be asked.

[SkunkyFluffy]

I find the comment by some dumb female representative amazing...something along the lines of "Let's just pass it and let the courts decide if it's constitutional."

Last I heard, Congressmen take an oath to uphold the Constitution.

My question is, if this passes and is later overturned, can we oust all the morons who voted for it?

[blackattackbitch]

At 2/24/09 09:43 PM, Memorize wrote: "Are they a state?"

That's really the only question that would need to be asked.

Well, after checking it out just now, they do pay taxes, but only because they do have a representative in the house. It's a non-voting representative, but he's in charge of appropriating money for the district.

So technically, our government pays them to STFU.

[Memorize]

At 2/24/09 10:49 PM, blackattackbitch wrote:

So technically, our government pays them to STFU.

They're more like "caving in" to DC.

According to the Constitution, only STATES can have this representation. So they actually have more than they're allowed.

They could just have Maryland absorb them back in again, just like it used to be.

[LazyDrunk]

At 2/24/09 08:27 PM, blackattackbitch wrote: There's a lot I don't know, so I'm going to post a list of questions:

1) Do they pay federal taxes?

Unless they are nominated for key cabinet positions, probably.

2) Do they recieve federal money and/or support since the federal government is using their land?

It's not their land.

3) Who does represent the people who live there? If they have no representatives at all in the federal government, they're subsceptible to getting royally fucked in the ass by congress and the federal government. (unless the exemptions mentioned above protect against that.)

The people who live in this nation's capitol are represented by the needs of the government, as per the rules and regulations set forth by Congress. However, inalienable rights, granted to all qualifying Americans (and some foreigners) cannot simply be legislated over. A prime example of this would be the recent 2nd amendment ruling handed down by the SCOTUS last year declaring the DC handgun ban in violation of one inalienable right.

The District of Columbia cannot make itself a de facto state without directly violating the language of our foundational document. Only through the proper channels, meaning the achievement of statehood, should any populace recieve a weighted vioce in the shaping of US policy. The fact that the language used in Article I was not clear enough for DC legislators and lobbyists to seek another avenue of justice screams at me that the people fighting for this agenda are NOT in-tune with the values of this country.... which are eroding more and more every day.

Honesty and integrity, compromise and insight are all absent in this bill. The issue can and should be resolved without forming the precedent of side-stepping Constitutional rights with euphemistic speech and interpretive bait-and-switch tactics.

At 2/24/09 09:51 PM, SkunkyFluffy wrote: My question is, if this passes and is later overturned, can we oust all the morons who voted for it?

In a sane world with honest people, you wouldn't have even needed to think about asking that question.

I'd rather just shoot the lobbyists who couldn't come up with a better solution.

[AntiangelicAngel]

At 2/24/09 03:01 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: DO NOT BRING THIS UP AS ANYTHING OTHER THAN A POINT OF INTEREST.

If it's only a point of interest, why did you use the angry frown face, hmm?

So here is my thought on the issue: When the constitution was written, the founders didn't consider the possibility of anything other than a state being part of the union, since our nation was a union of states. Especially when taking into consideration the notion that the United States' creation was essentially a protest against colonialism.
So, basically, if people are citizens of the U.S., and living in a landmass under U.S. law, I think it would be wrong to not allow them voting representatives. It makes sense, right? If someone is paying federal taxes, they shouldn't be taxed without representatives.
,

[LazyDrunk]

At 2/25/09 03:05 AM, AntiangelicAngel wrote:

At 2/24/09 03:01 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: DO NOT BRING THIS UP AS ANYTHING OTHER THAN A POINT OF INTEREST.

If it's only a point of interest, why did you use the angry frown face, hmm?

Because the only people bringing it up as a supporting "point" are the same people who will bring up Hitler would've quit early if we'd just given him England along with Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaustria. And that's a true statement.

So here is my thought on the issue: When the constitution was written, the founders didn't consider the possibility of anything other than a state being part of the union, since our nation was a union of states. Especially when taking into consideration the notion that the United States' creation was essentially a protest against colonialism.

OKay, so according to you, the Founder's didn't foresee a federal government, or anything after the civil war, so whatever the language says, it couldn't possibly take into account representation in the US House by nonstate affiliates.

You believe the electoral college has not considered this fact, and that change needs to be made. That change that needs to be name is a blatent circumvention of the simple language used in the opening text of the US Constitution.

You believe this because that would be akin with protesting colonialism, as DC is a colony. Is that pretty close?

So, basically, if people are citizens of the U.S., and living in a landmass under U.S. law, I think it would be wrong to not allow them voting representatives. It makes sense, right?

No, it doesn't make sense when you create extra seats instead of allocatting them into a state already recognized. Instead of redefining statehood to meet a political goal, the goal of representation is available without legislating unconstitutional text granting "as though it were a state" powers.

It's like trying to explain to a 5 year old why some people get to park in handicap spots while others don't, and then why some have license plates and some have rearview mirror hanging permits, and then explaining why you don't need a law construction all-new "quasi-handicap" spaces to accommodate those who aren't quite handicapped yet still don't understand why they shouldn't get special treatment.

If someone is paying federal taxes, they shouldn't be taxed without representatives.

Parrot.

[AntiangelicAngel]

At 2/25/09 10:03 AM, LazyDrunk wrote: You believe this because that would be akin with protesting colonialism, as DC is a colony. Is that pretty close?

No. The notion I was presenting was that the constitution supported a federal government, and dictated the states' role in that government. At the time, the only land in the U.S. was states, so there were no territories, districts, or other possessions to factor in. Kind of the same way "all men" originally referred to white males, but was later taken to represent males and females of all races, I think "states" should be adapted into states, territories, districts, or land possessions.

It's like trying to explain to a 5 year old

That is the worst analogy ever.

Parrot

Forgive me for mentioning a founding principle of our nation in a relevant function. Meanwhile, you're parroting republican pundits who are afraid to have another seat against them (which the Utah seat would probably level out anyway).

If this is merely a point of interest, why are you being such a twat about it? What's your interest in the issue, anyway?

[LazyDrunk]

At 2/25/09 10:47 PM, AntiangelicAngel wrote:

At 2/25/09 10:03 AM, LazyDrunk wrote: You believe this because that would be akin with protesting colonialism, as DC is a colony. Is that pretty close?

No. [...] Kind of the same way "all men" originally referred to white males, but was later taken to represent males and females of all races, I think "states" should be adapted into states, territories, districts, or land possessions.

So setting aside the fact that the US House has a whole bunch of definitions, you believe that because the Constitution doesn't narrowly define who votes, we should? You believe the vagueries of statehood are ample reason and not merely rhetoric? Okay.

It's like trying to explain to a 5 year old

That is the worst analogy ever.

I know. That's what makes it funny.

Parrot

Forgive me for mentioning a founding principle of our nation in a relevant function.

I would if you had, but you didn't. True story.

Meanwhile, you're parroting republican pundits

Wait, all I've heard so far is what I've seen debated on C-span, so unless you've got something more complicated than autistic Go Fish, I suggest you stick to the facts.

If this is merely a point of interest, why are you being such a twat about it? What's your interest in the issue, anyway?

I'm interested in the arguments people like to use to circumvent very plain constitutional speech.

...are you even aware of the speech that grants rights to the US House?

[DinkMeeker]

At 2/24/09 09:43 PM, Memorize wrote: "Are they a state?"

That's really the only question that would need to be asked.

That really isn't the question here. The question is "What does D.C. stand for?"

District of Columbia. The delegates to the House of Representatives are assigned by Federal District. The national capital is a federal, tax paying district. It elects a person to the House every cycle, but she doesn't have voting rights. She should. DC is not and will not be a state, so it shouldn't have Senators, but the residents of the district are as much US citizens as any of us, and thus deserve a voice... and a vote.

[AntiangelicAngel]

At 2/26/09 12:25 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: ...are you even aware of the speech that grants rights to the US House?

Well, I'm aware that the Connecticut Compromise at the Philadelphia Convention established that the role of the Senate was to represent the states, and the role of the House was to represent the people. If the motion were to give senatorial seats to D.C., then I would be against it, but that isn't what this is about.

[Christopherr]

At 2/25/09 03:05 AM, AntiangelicAngel wrote: So, basically, if people are citizens of the U.S., and living in a landmass under U.S. law, I think it would be wrong to not allow them voting representatives. It makes sense, right? If someone is paying federal taxes, they shouldn't be taxed without representatives.

DC is represented, they just don't have a vote in Congress.

There is no Republican conspiracy to keep DC from voting; the only reason Democrats support it is because the Democrats want an extra vote. In fact, anyone supporting DC voting rights in Congress is arguing a very uphill battle against the US Constitution, notably Article I and the 14th and 23rd amendments:
-The motion to give DC a voting representative violates the Constitutional differences between DC and the fifty states, as stated in Article I that members of Congress must come from states. That's why DC and the US territories such as Puerto Rico shouldn't get any voting members but can be allowed delegates instead.
-The 14th Amendment states that only the states are allowed to vote in the House.
-Finally, the 23rd Amenment draws a clear distinction between DC and the states, stating that their electoral college members "shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State..."

With the fact that DC is not a state and should not be entitled to voting members in Congress, what should happen is the removal of the federal income tax for DC residents. It is only fair that a non-state should not be forced to pay income taxes without being represented, and we should not violate the Constitution by granting them Congressional voting rights, so the only logical choice is to exempt them from the federal income tax while still allowing them non-voting delegates., just like the US territories.

[Psycho-Medic]

If DC wants a vote, either:
Make them a state.
Make them part of a state.
Amend the Constitution.

Passing a bill into law is not sufficient.

[AntiangelicAngel]

At 2/26/09 04:32 PM, Psycho-Medic wrote:on.

Passing a bill into law is not sufficient.

Well, probably not. I don't disagree with that point. However, I think the Supreme Court probably state that it is also unconstitutional to infringe on tax-paying citizens right to representation.
Here's an alternative: Get rid of DC. Integrate private land into nearby states, and then declare government buildings as not a part of that state (similar in theory to how embassies are on their own land)

[LazyDrunk]

Thanks Chris, for representing the Republican pundit in me.

[Christopherr]

At 2/26/09 08:38 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: Thanks Chris, for representing the Republican pundit in me.

If that was a smear, I will rip your arms off.

It's not like I repeated everything you said... Just what I needed to to justify a few other points.

It's not a Republican pundit thing, it's a "Jesus Christ, read the Constitution!" thing.

[LazyDrunk]

At 2/26/09 08:49 PM, Christopherr wrote:

At 2/26/09 08:38 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: Thanks Chris, for representing the Republican pundit in me.

If that was a smear, I will rip your arms off.

Lord no! Though I could see how having a vivid imagination could evoke some hideous scenes of Rush in me.

Shiver me timbers.

It's not like I repeated everything you said... Just what I needed to to justify a few other points.

I was too lazy to data mine the US Constitution, much like most of this bill's supporters. I'm not surprised how few have any clue whatsoever a new house seat actually means. That I made a point to not bring up Utah's role, for that I apologize. I plead the 5th though, being the OPer :)

It's not a Republican pundit thing, it's a "Jesus Christ, read the Constitution!" thing.

<3

[Christopherr]

At 2/26/09 08:59 PM, LazyDrunk wrote:

It was lost in translation over the internet. I don't want to rip your arms off, <3

[LazyDrunk]

At 2/26/09 09:05 PM, Christopherr wrote:

At 2/26/09 08:59 PM, LazyDrunk wrote:

It was lost in translation over the internet. I don't want to rip your arms off, <3

Good, cuz I only got one arm left anyway.

it was me, I did it