Is it 9/10ths of a vote yet?
Recently, Congresswoman Stephanie Herseth voted to dilute her vote in congress by voting to allow representatives of Guam and the Virgin Islands a vote in congress.
Now, the Democrats are trying to give the DC delegates a vote? H.R. 1433 is "To provide for the treatment of the District of Columbia as a Congressional district for purposes of representation in the House of Representatives, and for other purposes."
Apparently, you don't have to be a state to be represented anymore. You just have to have a lot of Democratic voters.
Monitor it here, and see if our congresswoman is going to dilute South Dakota's voice even further.
Now, the Democrats are trying to give the DC delegates a vote? H.R. 1433 is "To provide for the treatment of the District of Columbia as a Congressional district for purposes of representation in the House of Representatives, and for other purposes."
Apparently, you don't have to be a state to be represented anymore. You just have to have a lot of Democratic voters.
Monitor it here, and see if our congresswoman is going to dilute South Dakota's voice even further.
Comments
They claim that the provision that gives Congress the power to pass legislation affeting DC empowers them to pass this legislation as it does, in fact, affect DC. But it seems pretty questionable to use the DC clause to pass legislation that completely contradicts a constitutional provision so basic to the structure. Could Congress pass a law banning free exercise of religion in DC, ignoring the First Amendment? I think not.
The law of the land may not be fair. If that is the case, then amend the Constitution. Until we do that, though, we have to follow the law, even if that means it will cost the Dems a few votes in the House.
It stinks when we let principles get in the way of politics, huh?
Not to question anonymous' constitutional law credentials, but some pretty prominent Republicans disagree. Ken Starr, former Solicitor General and Independent Counsel disagrees completely.
"First, interpretation of Congress's Article I legislative authority should always be guided
by the fundamental principles upon which the nation and the Constitution were founded.
Those principles include a commitment to a republican form of government and to the
proposition that the laws enacted by the legislature should be based on the consent of the
governed. There is nothing in our Constitution's history or its fundamental principles
suggesting that the Framers intended to deny the precious right to vote to those who live
in the capital of the great democracy they founded.
Second, Congress's specific power over the District of Columbia is one of the broadest of
all its powers. In the words of the Constitution, "Congress shall have power . . . to
exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever" over the District."
You may not like the make up of the DC electorate, but to say that it's "American" to support taxation without representation, isn't right...
i'm a republican, but it is flat out wrong that there are people who are forced to pay federal taxes but do not have a vote in congress.
i doubt steffi is motivated by standing up for taxpayer rights here, but we shouldnt attack her on this just because shes a democrat.
if people in dc didnt pay federal income taxes (like puerto rico) it be one thing. but they do. and they deserve to have a vote in congress.
You assert that it is "the law of the land," and cite anon 8:14am as the definitive source that granting the DC delegate a vote in Congress is unconstitutional.
Ken Star, former Independent Counsel and Solicitor General of the United States (the government's top constitutional lawyer)
Viet Dinh, former Deputy Attorney General under George W Bush, Chief Architect of the Patriot Act.
I don't know who is right, but to cite "anonymouse 8:14am" and claim that he/she is the definitive source for an undecided constitutional question is a bit of a stretch.
The 16th Amendment states:
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
Residents of the District of Columbia are required to pay income taxes. Is that unconstitutional as well?
The real irony here is that Pat is complaining that we're losing 0.00106% of our voting power in Congress, while taxpayers in DC have no vote in Congress.
"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."
How exactly can a D.C. resident qualify? The Rep would not be an inhabitant of the state from which s/he is chosen.
To say that "interpretation of Congress's Article I legislative authority should always be guided by the fundamental principles upon which the nation and the Constitution were founded" and thereby take the most basic requirements of House membership and read them out of the Constitution seems ironic to me. Seems like our Constitution was written so that the government can't change the basic rules as it goes along.
Article I, Section 2
I confess I know very little about how the government in the district works. Can anyone shed light on that?
Bruce -
That being said, DC still needs a voice. They pay taxes, and they should have representation to decide how those taxes are spent.