An Issue About a Single Vote, and So Much More - U.S. Rep. for D.C.?

[groovedaddy]

WASHINGTON — The District of Columbia took a significant step toward winning a full vote in the House on Tuesday as the Senate cleared the way for legislation that would permanently expand House membership for the first time in almost a century.

The Senate voted 62 to 34 to begin debating a measure that would also grant an additional House seat to Utah, enlarging the House to 437 seats. In 2007 supporters of the bill fell three votes short of overcoming a Senate filibuster against it.

Sponsors of the voting bill were optimistic they could win Senate approval by the end of the week after consideration of changes proposed by Republican opponents. The Senate would then begin to work out differences with the House in hopes of quickly sending a bill to President Obama, who has indicated he would sign it. A court challenge is considered a certainty.

Its backers said the fact that the 600,000 or so residents of the district do not have a voting representative in the House was a continuing injustice similar to civil rights violations of the past.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/25/us/politics/25cong.html?th&emc=th

[Taverner]

1. As odd as it may seem, we can thank Lieberman for this legislation

I don't like him any more than you guys do - but give credit where credit is due..

[TechBear_Seattle]

2. Only states are represented in Congress. DC is not a state

Under the US constitution, the "seat of government" is not and cannot be a state. Changing any of this would require amending the US Constitution.

I sympathize with the people of DC, but I have to (gulp) agree with Senator Kyl: granting representation to the District of Columbia is patently unconstitutional.

[Taverner]

3. I disagree

You're just arguing semantics here

[TechBear_Seattle]

7. No, I am arguing the Constitution

With regards to the House of Representatives, the Constitution is crystal clear. Representatives are elected by "the people of the several states." All people who qualify as "electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature" may vote for Representative. All elected Representatives must be "an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen."

If there is no state legislature, if there no state to inhabit, if there is no state.... :shrug:

This is not just semantics. We are a federated republic of states, and only states are represented at the federal level. The District of Columbia is not a state, nor are Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands or the Marshall Islands. Without granting them statehood, they cannot be represented in Congress as the Constitution now exists.

[Taverner]

10. Then the Constitution needs to be ammended

No taxation without representation and whatnot...

[Tarc]

4. Article I, Section 8, Clause 17

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;

"exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever" would be the Constitutional basis. If D.C. lacks representation, then Congress has within its power to remedy that by legislation.

[TechBear_Seattle]

5. Which allows DC to have delegates. Representatives would require amendment

Specifically, to Article I, Section 2, paragraphs 1 and 2:

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.

Only "people of the several states" may elect representatives. There is no state legislature upon which to base the qualifications of electors. The requirement that a Representative be "an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen" cannot be set aside by Congressional fiat, implying that a citizen who inhabits no state cannot be elected to the House.

[Tarc]

9. It can indeed be set aside

Representation in federal government is currently denied to the population of DC, for no other reason than that they happen to live in an area not incorporated as a "state". I hardly believe that the framers of the Constitution ever intended to disenfranchise American citizens because of the need to create a federal seat of government, separate from state jurisdiction.

It is an unfortunate accident of history that can be righted by an act of Congress alone. Even the American Bar Association (http://www.abanet.org/poladv/letters/electionlaw/060914testimony_dcvoting.pdf) has weighed in in favor of legislation. Forgive me if I set their opinion on the matter a bit above that of a random internet user.

[Igel]

12. It's a new theory.

They've tried getting the Constitution amended a several times and it's failed, for one reason or another. The Constitution was amended to allow them electors for the presidential election.

The issue apparently also came up early. The idea *was* to disenfranchise American citizens: The capital would not be subject to what a state would say or do. Moreover, since the inhabitants would be the federal government should they also vote for it? Remember the times: You wouldn't commute 20 miles, and the city was new. The inhabitants primarily worked as government employees and that gave them a large say over decisions.

What wasn't considered, I don't think, was that the city would grow to be as large as it currently is and that so many people in it wouldn't be working for the government.

My solution is to reprise the early actions DC took wrt Virginia: Just as they didn't need the land the Virgina was ceding and returned it to VA, so most of DC should be returned to MD. Keep a small area around the federal buildings. Voila. Problem solved.

I think the Constitution is clear and should be defended. Rather than amend it by judicial fiat, by reinterpreting what it's been understood to mean for 200 years, amend the text itself. When it was * trying to redefine terms to get around the clear meaning of the text, dems were up in arms--we must defend the Constitution. Now that it's a dem proposal, well, gee, it's just a piece of paper I guess.

And, yes, it is just semantics. A word's semantics is nothing more than the sum of its meanings, and the conventional association of strings of sounds and sentence structure with meaning is at the heart of semantics. It's why "It's just semantics" means what we are generally agreed that it means and not "Well bapple my ding-dong, a horde of militant frogs is trying to build the Chunnel through my septum" or, perhaps, "Obama's collar ears have tomorrow reared pizzles from turkey nation, and the prince was quizzically embittered about it." It's why "unreasonable search and seizure" is rather well defined and isn't generally held to have "since I had a jelly roll for lunch, then the aurispex can have a go at your liver" as a possible meaning.

[Still Sensible]

6. I don't see anything in the bill that would re-classify the district

as a "state." While the constitution does describe how seats are allocated among the "states," it seems to me that the following phrase from the constitution may provide the basis for Congress making this happen:

"The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States;"

or this one:

"To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square)..."

It will be interesting to see, if this does pass, what the SC says about it. I would expect a 5-4 vote and it could go either way.

[TechBear_Seattle]

8. Please see post #5

All of the qualifications and requirements of a Representative and those people who elect Representatives are based on the concept of statehood. These requirements cannot be changed by Congressional action. This is why DC has delegates but not Representatives.

Also, keep in mind that DC is no mere territory: it is the Seat of Government. As such, the Constitution explicitly declares that it is not and cannot become a state.

[crimsonblue]

11. Why the fuck does Utah deserve another House seat?

That is bullshit. Unless designated for a new seat by census reapportioning, no new seats should be given (excluding DC). I think DC deserves full voting status in both houses, and make it a 51st state.