|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
February 26, 2009, 08:27 PM | #26 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2008
Location: Oregon
Posts: 236
|
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.
__________________
The parting shot...
"Those who hammer their guns into plows, will plow for those who do not." Thomas Jefferson |
February 26, 2009, 08:30 PM | #27 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 28, 2005
Location: Montana
Posts: 9,443
|
Quote:
__________________
If it were up to me, the word "got" would be deleted from the English language. Posting and YOU: http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/posting |
|
February 26, 2009, 08:57 PM | #28 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,903
|
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.
|
February 26, 2009, 10:05 PM | #29 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 22, 2006
Posts: 2,459
|
Quote:
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. |
|
February 26, 2009, 10:07 PM | #30 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 15, 2009
Posts: 298
|
I don't think Maryland wanted it back.
|
February 26, 2009, 10:15 PM | #31 | |
Junior member
Join Date: May 16, 2008
Posts: 9,995
|
Quote:
Azhred beat me to the punch, but I can't believe more peopl;e don't feel this way. |
|
February 26, 2009, 10:25 PM | #32 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 22, 2006
Posts: 2,459
|
Quote:
Basically they should have made the district smaller. Oops. |
|
February 26, 2009, 10:34 PM | #33 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,903
|
Quote:
|
|
February 26, 2009, 10:38 PM | #34 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 22, 2006
Posts: 2,459
|
That's another perfectly reasonable alternative, I suppose. Though really I think finding a way to give them voting representation is preferable.
|
February 26, 2009, 11:18 PM | #35 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 16, 2008
Posts: 1,184
|
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. |
February 27, 2009, 12:29 AM | #36 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
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. |
February 27, 2009, 12:49 AM | #37 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 16, 2008
Posts: 1,184
|
Quote:
No one is forcing them to live in DC. |
|
February 27, 2009, 09:55 PM | #38 |
Member
Join Date: February 12, 2009
Location: MN
Posts: 15
|
Still Unconstitutional
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. |
February 28, 2009, 01:26 PM | #39 | |
Junior member
Join Date: September 28, 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 6,465
|
Quote:
Too bad you're not a Senator... All of ours (well, at least 61) are stupid or deliberately intent on gerrymandering themselves a permanent incumbency. |
|
March 3, 2009, 08:41 PM | #40 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,903
|
Firearm Provision Blows Up D.C. Voting Rights Bill
Quote:
|
|
|
|