D.C. Voting Amendment - Merged Threads

[ZeSpectre]

D.C. Vote Amendment Would Repeal Gun Laws (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/25/AR2009022502007.html?hpid=topnews)

D.C. Vote Amendment Would Repeal Gun Laws

By Mary Beth Sheridan
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, February 25, 2009; 1:34 PM

A Nevada senator introduced an amendment today to the bill to give D.C. a voting member in Congress that tries to weaken the District's gun-control laws.

The D.C. Council has established "onerous and unconstitutional firearms regulations" for residents despite a Supreme Court decision overturning the city's ban on handgun ownership, Sen. John Ensign (R) said on the Senate floor.

His amendment would repeal the gun laws enacted by the city after the court decision last year.

Gun amendments are typically popular in Congress, raising the possibility the measure could succeed.

The amendment was offered during debate on the D.C. voting rights bill, which would add two seats to the House of Representatives: one for the heavily Democratic District, and the other for the next state in line to pick up an additional representative. For the next few years, that seat would go to Republican-leaning Utah.

A Senate vote on the D.C. bill could occur as early as tomorrow. After supporters of the bill won a procedural motion yesterday, the legislation proceeded to the floor. This is the first time in three decades that a D.C. voting rights bill is being considered by the Senate.

The House Judiciary Committee was scheduled to vote today on a similar bill, which would send it to the House floor.

[azredhawk44]

The more interesting angle of this is that the Dems are going to pad their lead in the House by adding DC.

And the fact that DC is not even a state... that's reprehensible.

Seems to me a Constitutional Amendment would be necessary to give DC a vote in the House.

Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution:

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

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.


Doesn't say anything about Federal Districts or Territories getting representatives in the House.

I smell a SCOTUS challenge.


ETA: Congress definitely didn't want DC to have House or Senate votes as of 1961, according to Amendment 23 to the Constitution:

The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct: A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State; they 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; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.

They would have included such wording in this amendment, otherwise.

I'll be raising holy heck with my representatives over this, I'm certain.

[Regolith]

Makes me glad i voted for Ensign. :cool:


Unfortunately, efforts to unseat Reid were not as successful...

[B. Lahey]

the Dems are going to pad their lead in the House by adding DC.


That was my first thought also, but Utah is getting another one at the same time. It's a wash.

[azredhawk44]

It won't always be a wash.

As California bleeds into Utah, Nevada, and AZ, so will their politics.

DC, on the other hand...:rolleyes:

My only hope is this makes the bill un-appealing enough to the libs that they decide to deep-six it.

Although... I think there is a strong case to deny the DC rep via Constitutional challenge, but still pick up the Utah rep. I could go along with that and a repeal of DC gun laws.

[bob.a]

The fact that residents of DC have NO representation at the national level is pretty scabrous. While the vast majority of residents are Dems, I suppose in simple fairness they ought to have a say in affairs. And given the crime situation, who knows, they might well prefer something in the way of self-protection by and by.

BTW, it's pretty clear that all this is race-based.

[azredhawk44]

BTW, it's pretty clear that all this is race-based.

???

That's a pretty loaded statement without presenting any backing to it. 'splain, please.

I'll happily admit to discrimination based upon someone's espoused political beliefs... that's my right to do so. However nothing in this thread touches on race whatsoever.

Frankly, I'm tired of people pulling out the voodoo race card any time Constitutional process is called into question.

So... got anything to back that statement up with?

[Mike Irwin]

"BTW, it's pretty clear that all this is race-based."

:rolleyes:

Right.

The Founding Fathers and the Framers got out their all-seeing crystal balls 200+ years ago and said "You know, they're slaves now, but in 200 years Washington, DC, will be primarily populated by free blacks, so let's stick it to them now with a little clause in the Constitution say says that anyone who lives in DC doesn't have voting representation on Congress. It's a good way to keep the black man down."

Sigh.

[shortwave]

bob. a , race-based? I missed something. Trying to figure that statement out:confused:. Are you by chance meaning: race =`s Republican vs Democrat? As requested please explain.

[bob.a]

Well, folks, population of Washington DC is about 75% African-American. It was only in the 1970s that they were permitted to vote for, and be governed by, their own local officials. Until that time, they had no vote, and were controlled by the US Congress. That includes having any say as to how and where thier tax money was allocated.

At that time, around the time that the concept of civil rights was being promulgated by Pres Johnson (and you may recall that a lot of people all over the country didn't care for the idea at all), DC was ruled by a mayor appointed by congress. Congress itself had a lot of folks in it who didn't think that black folk could successfully govern themselves, much less run a city, much less the capital city of the US.

It took a decade or two before the city was permitted to vote for end elect its own officials. Even now, visitors to the city are sometimes surprised to see the local license plates, which read "Taxation Without Representation". (You may remember this slogan from about 225 years ago). Folks in the area like to refer to the District as the "Last Colony", but of course we still have Puerto Rico and American Samoa, also governed by the US and also pretty well unrepresented at the national level.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to jump to the conclusion that many of the folks who do represent their districts at the national level did not care to permit the locals to have too much say, and that the reasons might well be based on what you might call local color. Certainly the locals feel that way. While your mileage may differ on the subject, you'd be hard pressed to convince most of the city's residents that they would still be second-class citizens if the demographics were less melanin-enhanced.

Lord knows that "Home Rule", which is the buzzword for letting the people who live here govern themselves, has not produced a model of local govt. Still, it must be remembered that Congress still provides much of the city's funds. These funds are meant to compensate the city govt for services that are provided for the Federal presence, and to account for the fact that a large amount of local real estate is not subject to taxation, belonging as it does to the federal govt. And of course, in real estate it's Location Location Location. You can bet that it's prime property, all excluded form the tax base. With its hand tightly on the controls of local finance, the city govt must still go hat in hand to Congress to get bucks for roads, schools, police etc.

This might have wandered a bit far afield, but I thought I might as well be comprehensive.

BTW, I no longer live in DC, but to my chagrin I'm not far away, in the Peoples' Republic of Maryland, where I am not permitted to protect myself or my family outside my home. Interestingly enough, while I was a District resident I could have purchased a handgun, and it'd be grandfathered legal, though of course it couldn't have been loaded or able to be used for more than a paperweight until Heller.

Many of you folks are pretty lucky, living where you do, and having a full range of constitutional rights. Someday I hope to join you, one way or another.

[azredhawk44]

Well, folks, population of Washington DC is about 75% African-American. It was only in the 1970s that they were permitted to vote for, and be governed by, their own local officials. Until that time, they had no vote, and were controlled by the US Congress. That includes having any say as to how and where thier tax money was allocated.

So all them white folks that lived there from 1800 to 1970 got to secretly vote just to spite them black folks that came along later?

DC was not always 75% black. Some historical perspective would be a good thing to have when discussing constitutional matters.

The facts are... DC is not a State. It's not a State for a reason... it's the seat of federal government. Frankly, it's small enough that no one should be living in it except Congress, the President and the Supremes. Everyone can commute from Virginia and Maryland.

It is unconstitutional for DC to have a Senator or a Representative. That's the facts. No "color" in it, it's been that way since 1788.

If you don't like it, then get 2/3 of the States to approve a change to the Consitution, or get DC turned into a State. But then we have to move the FedGov somewhere else.

[bob.a]

Well then, let's move it to Arizona. All these lawyers and such make me nervous anyway.

All that BS that I got in civics class doesn't cut it in the real world anyway. Taxation without representation is tyranny? One man, one vote? Actually, it's more like Them As Has, Gets. The lobbyists on K Street make a herd of wild hogs feeding seem like a tea dance. And it's my government they're buying. Wish I could afford it.

[ZeSpectre]

Wasn't there a (mostly tongue-in-cheek) movement a while back to move the capitol to the actual geophysical center of the country (Lebanon, Kansas if I remember correctly)?

[swman]

DC from its inception was designed to be ruled exclusively by and for Congress. Any DC voting representation to the Congress should be by Constitutional Amendment. Good luck in getting that passed.:)

[azredhawk44]

All that BS that I got in civics class doesn't cut it in the real world anyway. Taxation without representation is tyranny? One man, one vote? Actually, it's more like Them As Has, Gets. The lobbyists on K Street make a herd of wild hogs feeding seem like a tea dance. And it's my government they're buying. Wish I could afford it.

The language that created DC called for it to be (if my memory serves correctly) 10 miles by 10 miles square, to be filled with buildings needful to the running of Government, and to equipping and maintaining a Navy and Army, to include forts, munitions storage and shipyards along with other needful things.

It says nothing about McDonalds, Starbucks, welfare housing, discrete high end brothels, lobbyist housing or other tripe that's there now.

The only other people who have any business living in DC, IMO, besides the key 545 people that run our Federal Government, are ambassadors and their staff in embassies and any armed services personnel deployed at forts, shipyards or airbases in DC.

Every single one of those people that are citizens can vote via Absentee Ballot in their true home state.

[Mike Irwin]

with the admentment that strips a good chunk of DC's gun laws ATTACHED.

Ah, which pill do you swallow, Neo? Red, or Blue?

They're both bitter!

:)


The Senate today passed a bill that for the first time would give the District a full voting member of the House of Representatives. But senators managed to attach an amendment that would scrap most of the District's local gun-control laws.

The 61-37 vote marked the first time in 31 years that the Senate had approved a D.C. voting-rights bill. The addition of the gun language could complicate the bill's passage into law, however, since it will be necessary to reconcile the Senate version of the legislation with the companion bill in the House. Voting-rights supporters hope the gun amendment can be removed in those negotiations.

story continues at the Washington (Com)Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/26/AR2009022601678.html?hpid=topnews

[Wildalaska]

its unconstitutional anyway isnt it?

WildstateAlaska ™

[azredhawk44]

If allowed to stand unmolested, the next move is for DC to have 2 senators.

Totally unconstitutional.

AZRedhawknationalgerrymandering44

[vranasaurus]

If allowed to stand unmolested, the next move is for DC to have 2 senators.

I think that is the ultimate goal. 1 representative doesn't have as much power and it will not in anyway sway the balance of power in this country.
2 Senators on the other hand will drastically shift the balance of power.

This will certainly be challenged in the courts. If the consitution had intended to give DC representatives and Senators it would have done so explicitly.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Not to mention that D.C. is a pretty good source of inane, indefensible federal firearms laws and now that we are working to broaden Heller, the last thing we want to do is help D.C. be more reasonable. In fact, the more outrageous and obstructionist they become, the better it is for us in the long run.

[rantingredneck]

Doesn't this bill actually add 2 representatives to the House, 1 for DC and 1 for the next state in line to increase it's representation based on census growth (Utah, most likely)? Thought I read that somewhere.

On balance wouldn't likely shift the balance of power in the house since the Utah rep would likely be Republican.

Doesn't make it constitutional though..........

[rwilson452]

Giving reps to DC does seem unconstitutional. With that said, if they pass this and the big O signs it, I suspect the Supreme Court would toss that part of the law onto the scrap heap of history. That would leave the gun part standing. Food for thought.

[vranasaurus]

Not to mention that D.C. is a pretty good source of inane, indefensible federal firearms laws and now that we are working to broaden Heller, the last thing we want to do is help D.C. be more reasonable. In fact, the more outrageous and obstructionist they become, the better it is for us in the long run.

Good point.

DC makes an easy target for court challenges to expand and further define the right to bear arms at leadt until incorporation is decided.

[Al Norris]

Article II, Section 1, clause 2:
No Person shall be a Representative who shall not ... when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

Article III, Section 1, clause 2:
No person shall be a Senator who shall not ... when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

Any way you try to read this, the Constitution requires a Representative or a Senator to be a resident of the State from which he was chosen. Any change to this requires a Constitutional Amendment. Mere legislation cannot make D.C. a State. Mere legislation cannot give a Constitutionally defined Federal Enclave representation within the Congress.

[gc70]

The DC Voting Rights Act (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:SN00160:) must have been huge for the Democrats.

The Senate agreed to the following amendments:
S.Amdt. 573 - Fairness Doctrine Prohibited
S.Amdt. 575 - 2nd Amendment Enforcement Act (DC)

They also rejected the following amendments:
S.Amdt. 582 - .50 BMG Sniper Rifle (NFA classification)
S.Amdt. 583 - Foreign Convictions (firearms disability)
S.Amdt. 586 - Misdemeanor Sex Offense Against Minor (firearms disability)
S.Amdt. 589 - AG Firearms Authority re: Terrorists
S.Amdt. 590 - Gun Show Loophole Closing

I think it is particularly important to be familiar with the proposed amendments that were rejected. They represent the "canned" legislation that has not been filed as a separate bill, but are held in waiting to attach to another bill as an amendment. As such, I think they are more dangerous than the separate bill proposals.

[kirpi97]

The District already has a recognized and seated member of Congress. This will only give her voting rights in the House. Something Eleanor has been fighting for for years. I had to listen to Eleanor Holmes Norton for years while living in the District. To think she may actually have a vote to go with her voice is alarming. It should be noted that she was rated the 19th most influential and 16th in legislative power during her stint with the 110th Congress. She did that with no vote.

This bill fell three votes short of the 60 in the senate last year. I wonder what has changed? The gun laws being scrapped???

I hold no promise for the DC District Court to use the Constitution in its ruling of the bill should it become law. So the Supreme Court will have to be the ones to deny millions of their voice in government. Jessie and Al will be out on the front lines for this one.

[Shane Tuttle]

Any way you try to read this, the Constitution requires a Representative or a Senator to be a resident of the State from which he was chosen.

I haven't seen this as an issue yet. Have they already picked a rep if this goes through?:confused:

[gc70]

In S.Amdt. 585, Senator Kyl proposed a substitution for the Voting Rights Act that would have given the District (except for a core of federal buildings around the Mall) back to Maryland.

[JuanCarlos]

I haven't seen this as an issue yet. Have they already picked a rep if this goes through?

I imagine it would still be Norton. Not that it's relevant, as it will never happen.

There is simply no way whatsoever that this can be Constitutional. Here's hoping the Supreme Court honors this simple fact.


I can say that I doubt that when D.C. was established it was predicted that it would become more populous than some states (well, one for now). I think at some point something will need to be done regarding this, because having a half a million people paying federal taxes with no representation in Congress is probably more reprehensible to me than completely ignoring the text of the Constitution.

Still, this is not the way. Amend, or figure something else out, but this is no good at all.

A better solution would probably be to give D.C. residents voting rights in Maryland or Virginia (probably Maryland). Let them vote in federal elections through a proxy state, leave the rest as-is.

Of course, this kinda screws them in the Electoral College, but absent an amendment it seems like the best solution that actually recognizes the existence of the Constitution.

EDIT: Then again, this would probably require the consent of Maryland. Which is unlikely.

[bob.a]

I don't think Maryland wanted it back.

[johnwilliamson062]

The fact that residents of DC have NO representation at the national level is pretty scabrous.
The founding fathers didn't want people to spend a lifetime in politics. They didn't want "politician" to be a job. DC shouldn't get a vote b/c no one worth a damn should be sticking around long enough to need one.

Azhred beat me to the punch, but I can't believe more peopl;e don't feel this way.

[JuanCarlos]

The founding fathers didn't want people to spend a lifetime in politics. They didn't want "politician" to be a job. DC shouldn't get a vote b/c no one worth a damn should be sticking around long enough to need one.

Azhred beat me to the punch, but I can't believe more peopl;e don't feel this way.

This would make sense if a city full of non-politicians hadn't sprung up there.

Basically they should have made the district smaller. Oops.

[gc70]

having a half a million people paying federal taxes with no representation in Congress is probably more reprehensible to me than completely ignoring the text of the Constitution

Senator Coburn proposed S.Amdt. 581 to eliminate federal income taxation for permanent residents of the District. No taxation - no representation.

[JuanCarlos]

That's another perfectly reasonable alternative, I suppose. Though really I think finding a way to give them voting representation is preferable.

[vranasaurus]

The specific intent of the consitution was to have the national capital distinct from any state and not a state itself. When the constitution was written the capital was never considered a permanent place for people to live. It was inteded as the seat of government and nothing more. It was a place for the federal government to conduct it's business and not be dependent upon a state government for it's safety and security. It was probably assumed that those who worked or did business in the district would live and vote in a state.

Why don't we just shrink the size of the district? It was done in the past when Alexandria was given back to Virginia.

[Al Norris]

I don't get it. Some of you seem to think it reprehensible that those who choose to live in a federal enclave, receive no federal representation. Why?

Because the people that live there are ignorant or illiterate? Those are both curable conditions. Even assuming the schools there are as bad as I've heard (or even worse), the finest public library in the nation is located in D.C. So that can't be the reason.

Instead of ranting and raving about this, if you cared, really cared, you would be working for a Constitutional Amendment... I doubt such would pass, but there you are.

Sorry. I have no sympathy at all for the self-inflicted plight of these people. They live where they live out of either choice or sloth. If they wanted representation, they would move.

[vranasaurus]

I don't get it. Some of you seem to think it reprehensible that those who choose to live in a federal enclave, receive no federal representation. Why?

I agree.

No one is forcing them to live in DC.

[Skunk Pilot]

It should go to SCOTUS.

Getting another House member for Utah means what? They actually will have 437 members total, that doesn't make any sense.

What about with the Obama Admin having control (some, or alot?) of the Census Bureau, so that Utah House seat could magically go away.
Why would they need to even be involved in that at all unless they were going to lie about something in the numbers.

[azredhawk44]

What about with the Obama Admin having control (some, or alot?) of the Census Bureau, so that Utah House seat could magically go away.


^^^ Here is wisdom and forethought.

Too bad you're not a Senator...:rolleyes: All of ours (well, at least 61) are stupid or deliberately intent on gerrymandering themselves a permanent incumbency.

[gc70]

Firearm Provision Blows Up D.C. Voting Rights Bill (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/03/firearm-provision-blows-dc-voting-rights/)

For the second time in as many weeks, the House has had to postpone action on a major bill important to Democratic leaders.

The House Democratic leadership Tuesday decided to delay a plan to grant a seat in the House to the District of Columbia. Since it is not a state, Washington, D.C., does not get a vote in Congress.

The Senate approved a similar bill to give the District voting representation. And approval in the House seemed all but assured. But an amendment attached to the Senate version of the legislation by Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., created problems in the House.

Ensign's amendment would give Washington residents better access to firearms. The Supreme Court last year ruled that the District's 32-year-old ban on firearms was unconstitutional.

Passing the District of Columbia legislation was supposed to be easy in the House compared to the Senate. But the National Rifle Association signaled it could make a procedural vote on the issue a test case for lawmakers' Second Amendment voting records.

Nearly every piece of legislation that comes to the House floor must receive what's called a "rule." The rule establishes the guidelines for how lawmakers will handle the measure on the floor. Everything from time allotments to amendments are contained in the rule.

However, the Democratic leadership faced a potential revolt from moderate and conservative Democrats on the vote to approve the rule if the leadership failed to include Ensign's firearms provision.

The House cannot debate a bill if the procedural vote on the rule fails.

So this conundrum forced the Democrats to punt on representation for the District of Columbia for now.

This episode mirrors a scenario two years ago when Republicans forced Democrats to yank a similar bill for Washington, D.C. off the floor when they attempted to make pro-Second Amendment lawmakers to either vote for the legislation or against gun rights.

Last week House Democrats had to postpone a vote on a bill designed to ease the nation's housing crisis. Democrats intended to approve a plan that would grant bankruptcy judges the right to lower mortgage rates and interest payments for struggling homeowners. Concerns about whether there were enough Democrats to support the plan made the leadership delay a vote on that plan until later this week.

It appears that some Democrats are concerned about their Second Amendment voting records.