By JIM ABRAMS, Associated Press Writer 49 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - The House on Thursday took up legislation, shadowed by a presidential veto threat, that would give the people of the District of Columbia a vote in the chamber denied them for the past two centuries.
ADVERTISEMENT
The bill would also create a new at-large seat for Republican-leaning Utah, offsetting what would be a safe Democratic seat in D.C., and increasing House membership to 437. The House has had 435 voting members since 1960.
The House bill, a bipartisan effort by D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton (news, bio, voting record), a Democrat, and Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., is likely to pass the House in a vote scheduled for later Thursday.
But prospects are uncertain in the Senate, where Utah Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch (news, bio, voting record) has voiced concerns about the constitutionality of the new at-large seat in his state.
Under the bill, the House would stay at 437 after the 2010 census, with D.C. assured of a seat. Utah, which narrowly missed picking up a fourth seat after the 2000 census, is also expected to gain a seat after 2010.
The White House, in a statement issued earlier this week, said
President Bush would be advised to veto the legislation if it reaches his desk because the Constitution specifically says that the House should be comprised of members chosen by "the people of the several states." The District of Columbia is not a state and congressional representation would require a constitutional amendment, the White House said.
Norton said she talked to a White House official and asked why Bush "would take it on himself to prejudge the constitutionality of the bill and be perceived here and around the world as personally denying a basic right to D.C. residents who are fighting on the ground in
Iraq and
Afghanistan and others who are paying federal taxes."
Norton and others say there is a constitutional basis for the D.C. seat, citing Article I, Section 8, which empowers Congress to "exercise exclusive legislation" over the federal capital. They argue that Congress can, if it chooses, give D.C. voting rights.
The bill not only meets constitutional standards but lives up to the spirit of the Founding Fathers that "taxation without representation is tyranny," said Rep. Michael Arcuri (news, bio, voting record), D-N.Y.
But Republican Leader John Boehner (news, bio, voting record), R-Ohio, said, "There are constitutional ways of ensuring every American citizen has voting representation in Congress, methods that avoid the inevitable legal challenges and electoral problems this bill presents."
Norton has full voting rights at the committee level and, like delegates from territories such as Guam and American Samoa, can vote on amendments on the House floor as long at the votes do not change the outcome.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 4:01 am Posts: 19477 Location: Brooklyn NY
good, Utah is a breeding ground for far-right fruitcakes
_________________
LittleWing sometime in July 2007 wrote:
Unfortunately, it's so elementary, and the big time investors behind the drive in the stock market aren't so stupid. This isn't the false economy of 2000.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:14 am Posts: 37778 Location: OmaGOD!!! Gender: Male
I don't know how I feel about an "at large" seat in a state with three reps already. I wonder if there is any precedent for such a thing. If it were just temporary until 2010 when redistricting happens, I'd probably be OK with it.
invention wrote:
they really need to figure out something for puerto rico and guam as well, they're sort of in constitutional limbo.
Well, PR and Guam are territories. PR's political status is very complicated and interesting actually.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 7:19 pm Posts: 39068 Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA Gender: Male
_________________ "Though some may think there should be a separation between art/music and politics, it should be reinforced that art can be a form of nonviolent protest." - e.v.
well thats what i meant, its a territory but its got no representation and even though they have a referendum or whatever it actually means squat unless congress decides to do whatever it wants.
puerto ricans have citizenship, yet they have no say in congress or the electoral college, while DC does have a vote in the electoral college. what happens if PR votes for statehood? should congress incorporate it as a state? what would the reasons be for not doing it?
PR's status as commonwealth means congress can give whatever constitutional rights it wants to, as well as take them away.
well thats what i meant, its a territory but its got no representation and even though they have a referendum or whatever it actually means squat unless congress decides to do whatever it wants.
puerto ricans have citizenship, yet they have no say in congress or the electoral college, while DC does have a vote in the electoral college. what happens if PR votes for statehood? should congress incorporate it as a state? what would the reasons be for not doing it?
PR's status as commonwealth means congress can give whatever constitutional rights it wants to, as well as take them away.
Well, they don't have to pay Federal Taxes, right? And yet they are eligible for certain Federal benefits. It sucks that they don't have a voice, but at least they don't have to suffer the injustice of taxation without representation.
well thats what i meant, its a territory but its got no representation and even though they have a referendum or whatever it actually means squat unless congress decides to do whatever it wants.
puerto ricans have citizenship, yet they have no say in congress or the electoral college, while DC does have a vote in the electoral college. what happens if PR votes for statehood? should congress incorporate it as a state? what would the reasons be for not doing it?
PR's status as commonwealth means congress can give whatever constitutional rights it wants to, as well as take them away.
Well, they don't have to pay Federal Taxes, right? And yet they are eligible for certain Federal benefits. It sucks that they don't have a voice, but at least they don't have to suffer the injustice of taxation without representation.
well they're pretty much a colony. we say they're autonomous but they're subject to the whims of congress, which they have no representation in. i'd rather be taxed.
well thats what i meant, its a territory but its got no representation and even though they have a referendum or whatever it actually means squat unless congress decides to do whatever it wants.
puerto ricans have citizenship, yet they have no say in congress or the electoral college, while DC does have a vote in the electoral college. what happens if PR votes for statehood? should congress incorporate it as a state? what would the reasons be for not doing it?
PR's status as commonwealth means congress can give whatever constitutional rights it wants to, as well as take them away.
Well, they don't have to pay Federal Taxes, right? And yet they are eligible for certain Federal benefits. It sucks that they don't have a voice, but at least they don't have to suffer the injustice of taxation without representation.
well they're pretty much a colony. we say they're autonomous but they're subject to the whims of congress, which they have no representation in. i'd rather be taxed.
They're internally autonomous. They elect their own local government. They have a Consititution (that makes itself subject to the authority of Congress). They're US citizens, which is more than I can say for cono.
_________________ Unfortunately, at the Dawning of the Age of Aquarius, the Flower Children jerked off and went back to sleep.
House Democrats pulled a bill to grant voting rights to Washington, D.C., after Republicans offered a motion that would repeal the gun ban for the District.
The move is a clear signal that Democrats have lost control of the House floor on the voting rights issue after minority Republicans presented the Democratic majority with a politically unpalatable motion that their conservative members would be forced to support for fear of angering the gun rights community.
Fifty-two Democrats voted with Republicans on a similar measure to repeal the gun ban in 2004. That would be more than enough support for Republicans to add a repeal to the voting rights bill - something a majority of Democrats would vehemently oppose.
Republicans have taken great pride in offering motions to recommit during their time in the minority, an often over-looked legislative procedure that has allowed them to amend various bills on the House floor.
Democratic Rep. Ellen Tauscher of California, who served as chair when the House began consideration of the motion, called the postponement at the request of the Democratic leadership, saying the speaker has complete discretion to postpone consideration of any legislation at any time.
Democrats scrambled to remedy the situation on the floor but were eventually forced to pull the bill to begin debate on a controversial wartime funding measure that is expected on the floor Friday.
Republicans could offer a similar procedural motion to slow consideration of that measure whenever it comes to the floor.
The House was expected to approve the bill to grant Washington, DC, a vote in the House by a wide margin, with several Republicans expected to vote in favor of the legislation.
_________________ Unfortunately, at the Dawning of the Age of Aquarius, the Flower Children jerked off and went back to sleep.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 7:19 pm Posts: 39068 Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA Gender: Male
I don't get why DC residents aren't just counted in Virginia or Maryland's census, so that they have representation in Congress.
_________________ "Though some may think there should be a separation between art/music and politics, it should be reinforced that art can be a form of nonviolent protest." - e.v.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 7:19 pm Posts: 39068 Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA Gender: Male
punkdavid wrote:
B wrote:
I don't get why DC residents aren't just counted in Virginia or Maryland's census, so that they have representation in Congress.
Because they don't live in Maryland or Virginia?
smug dick.
_________________ "Though some may think there should be a separation between art/music and politics, it should be reinforced that art can be a form of nonviolent protest." - e.v.
D.C. Representation Bill on Fast Track to Senate Floor in June By Michael Teitelbaum | 10:35 AM; May. 16, 2007
Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, I-Conn., says he plans to have the District of Columbia voting rights bill (S 1257) marked up and delivered to the full Senate by early June.
Lieberman, chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, made the comments during the first Senate hearing Tuesday on the bill that would give the District a full voting member of the House and award a fourth congressional seat to Utah.
The measure has the important backing of Sen. Orrin G. Hatch, R-Utah, but still faces an uphill battle in the Senate, where a number of lawmakers are opposed on constitutional grounds to giving a non-state a full voting member of Congress. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has already signaled trouble ahead.
“This proposal, in order to go forward, would need to be a constitutional amendment,†McConnell has said.
But the threat of a potential filibuster hasn’t derailed the drive by supporters. In written testimony Tuesday, former Rep. Jack Kemp, R-N.Y. (1971-1989), cautioned Republicans about voting against a measure designed to give D.C. residents, the majority of whom are black, an elected House representative. Continued opposition, he said, would confine the party “to a minority status in perpetuity among people of color.â€
_________________ Unfortunately, at the Dawning of the Age of Aquarius, the Flower Children jerked off and went back to sleep.
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 5:06 am Posts: 2402 Location: Freedonia
Is there any good reason that they don't just make DC part of Virginia or Maryland?
_________________ "Do you realize that even as we sit here, we are hurtling through space at a tremendous rate of speed? Think about it. Our world is just a hanging curveball." -Bill Lee
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:14 am Posts: 37778 Location: OmaGOD!!! Gender: Male
Ozymandias wrote:
Is there any good reason that they don't just make DC part of Virginia or Maryland?
I'd guess that it's because the founders determined that it would not be wise to have the national capital be subject to the laws of a state's legislature. So they created a seperate federal district. Many countries have done this including Mexico, Australia, and South Africa.
_________________ Unfortunately, at the Dawning of the Age of Aquarius, the Flower Children jerked off and went back to sleep.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 7:19 pm Posts: 39068 Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA Gender: Male
I would guess Americans would support a Constitutional Amendment.
_________________ "Though some may think there should be a separation between art/music and politics, it should be reinforced that art can be a form of nonviolent protest." - e.v.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
