Osler's Razor

Well, I suppose I should vote for Argbf... again.
 

Is that true about DC? Ick, I think the Razor is now my primary source for news.
 

IpLawGuy. He already lives there, he doesn't seem to need a "stimulus package", and could start the IpLawToddler and IpLawBaby dynasty.

Mrs. CL
 

First, I agree. DC should have representatives. I don't care if they are Democrats, Republicans, or pandas. However, I think this bill is a joke.

The constitution could not be more clear on this point. Article I, Section 2 provides:

"The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states"

D.C. isn't a "state." The Constitution makes this clear as well in Article I, Section 8, which refers to D.C. as "the seat of the government of the United States."

Proponents of representatives for D.C. recognized this constitutional hurdle in the past when they attempted to amend the constitution in order to allow representatives for D.C. That amendment failed to get the support of a sufficient number of states.

So, now, instead of amending the constitution, Democrats in the congress are apparently going to just ignore it and pass this goofy bill. I hope Obama vetoes it. And I hope when he does he says that he took an oath to protect the constitution and he refuses to sign a bill that so blatantly flies in the face of the language of that document.

And then I hope he proposes another constitutional amendment to grant D.C. representatives in the House.

Of course, I doubt he will do any of those things.
 

Ain't gonna happen.
 

Well, as a resident of DC, I would like to have some representation. I agree, it'd be better to do it correctly (i.e. amend the Constitution to make DC a state, which it probably wasn't envisioned to be when the Constitution was written . . . hmm, I wonder if they considered it part of either Maryland or Virginia then??)

But it needs to be done. We did at least get 3 electoral votes in the presidential election, as many as Alaska and some other low-population states. in fact aren't there even states that have like 2 electoral votes? so the population is definitely comparable to the population of some states. That 's a lot of people to go unrepresented.
 

Oh, and I'm voting for Grar since Lane is voting for Argbf.
 

I vote for Argbf; Grar has flame throwers and many fire arms. Argbf has bamboo spears.

I think DC should have some representation (I'm glad you had electoral votes). I don't think the compromise should be giving Utah another vote - huh. How about taking a vote or two away from Michigan or a State with a dwindling population.


RRL - if this passes I select you to file the law suit and fight it all the way to the Supreme Court. Amending the Constitution is the way to handle this and I think most people would vote for it. Heck, I suspect most US citizens, outside of DC, don't realize there is no representation and that DC isn't considered part of Maryland or Virginia.
 

I agree, Christine; I don't really get the Utah thing . . . I think it's purely because DC is so ultra-Democrat (94% of DC residents voted for Obama; I never saw a McCain yard sign until I drove into the farther reaches of NoVA) that they want to balance what will likely be a Democratic "state" in perpetuity with a heavily Republican one.
 

I second the motion by Mrs. CL for Iplawguy.

But then, I hide pureed spinach in my son's sloppy joe's. SO I have no integrity.

"Not gonna eat your vegetables, huh??? Oh, You'll eat em, pal. You WILL BE eating them..."

On second thought it should be IPLAWIFE. Or MRS. CL She is probably a sneaky mom too. I think a sneaky mom is just the ticket.
 

Go UTAH! Who cares about DC?
 

Sir-
I respectfully dissent from giving Washington, DC, voting representation in Congress. The Constitution is explicit on such grounds- as RRL said. Please let us honor that document, rather than trying to "amend it without having to go through the difficult task of amending it." The Constitution provides a vehicle to change this- and it is not Congressional fiat. See 23rd Amendment for guidance. Also, I vote for Grar (with the flamethrower)- he is a real American, from real America.

- Chicago
 

Yes, but Chicago, and RRL, and Craig: there are real PEOPLE who live in DC. American citizens. More people than live in some states. A bigger population than probably Wyoming or Idaho or Rhode Island.

Why should they--we-- not be represented?

Yes, ideally it should be by amending the Constitution. But if that's not realistic, isn't it a travesty for Americans not to be represented in the US House and Senate?

Craig, I admit I don't know all the ins and outs of why Utah is being given an extra seat to soften the blow of giving DC representation. Maybe there are more people now in Utah than there used to be. If so, then of course they deserve another House seat.

But come on, people! There are a few million real live US citizens living in DC who are not represented in the US Senate or House. Is that fair?
 

US citizens paying DC and federal taxes, I might add. Which is why the DC license plates say "Taxation without representation."
 

Swissgirl, perhaps yo have a case for not paying your Federal taxes. Trust me that thought would cross my mind if I lived in DC.

Better yet, you could designate your Federal taxes to provide more bamboo for the residents of Woodley Park!
 

Why not just redraw a Maryland and Virginia congressional district to include 1/2 of the city for representation purposes. Never actually claim that it is a state or belongs to either of the two, just that the people who happen to live there fall into the district?
 

Could be a good plan,last Anonymous.
 

I agree with the complaints about constitutionality. Also, it's no big deal for Utah, as it was most likely to get another seat anyway after the next census (but at the expense of some other state).

It seems to me, however, that litigation would have a hard time overcoming the standing and political question doctrines. Isn't Congress the sole judge of the qualifications of its members?
 

If it is no big deal for Utah, then they will get their additional seat through the normal and time held process and should wait. Michigan will gladly give one of it's seats up when the time comes.

The suggestion of putting half the residents in Maryland and half in Virginia is one of the more sane suggestions I have ever read on the topic. Although they will argue for eyars as to where the boundry belongs. Common sense doesn't normally rule the day.