CQ TODAY MIDDAY UPDATE
Oct. 16, 2009 – 1:53 p.m.
D.C. Voting Measure Could Be Added to Defense Spending Bill
House Democratic leaders are considering floor action on a proposal to give the District of Columbia a full voting member in the House of Representatives.
The provision would be attached to the conference report on the fiscal 2010 Defense appropriations bill, which is expected on the floor within the next few weeks.
The Democrats would be reprising a strategy they used Oct. 8 when they attached legislation expanding the definition of federal hate crimes to the conference report on the defense authorization bill.
Republicans generally opposed that maneuver and are poised to oppose any other move to grant the nation’s capital full representation in the House.
The D.C. voting measure has long been a Democratic priority. A clue to House Democrats’ thinking came Thursday afternoon on the floor during the weekly colloquy about upcoming schedules. Republican Chief Deputy Whip Kevin McCarthy of California asked Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer if rumors were true that the Defense spending bill would include the D.C. vote bill.
“I’ve heard discussion,” replied Hoyer, D-Md. “I will continue to fight to find any way to bring that to the floor.”
The District’s non-voting House delegate, Eleanor Holmes Norton , said the idea originated with Appropriations Committee members. She cautioned, however, that no decision has been made and that she has identified a number of ways that the language could come up for a vote.
Comments
They don't want it because DC would always be Democratic and a district in Utah (SLC for example) will switch so .... Republicans lose. Why do they think it's fair that D.C. dwellers should have no voice?
Both parties have gamed the congressional legislative system and added controversial provisions to "must pass" military authorization and appropriations bills. Both parties were wrong and have abused the system by allowing non-germane provisions to stain other legislation. The "hate crimes/thought crimes" provision snuck into the 2010 Defense Authirization Bill was bad, but sticking the "DC Voting Rights" provision into the 2010 Defense Appropriations Bill is obscene. Why? Because this is a clear attempt to force a clearly unconstitutional provision into a totally unrelated bill. As it so happens, I believe that DC should get a seat in the House. However, the constitutional way to do so, the only way, is to amend the constitution. The founders were very clear in the Constitution that the "seat of government" was NOT to be a seperate state, but a district. If the Dems and other want DC to be a state (I would be against that) or to have a voting member in the House, then do it the right way.
It is clearly unconstitutional to open House membership to representatives of non-state entities. Is there literally anyone who disputes that this bill as written is unconstitutional? The 23rd amendment was added precisely for the reason that an act of Congress accomplishing the same ends would have been unconstitutional. The fact that they wish to insert this bill into a conference report, and deny members the right to debate this bill on the floor is unconscionable and speaks to the arrogance of the Democrat majority.
John- If it was clearly unconstitutional, we wouldn't be having this discussion. As it is, it's not clearly unconstitutional - wanna know who supports it? Kenneth Starr. Yes, the guy who went after Clinton. Let me ask you this: When something is unconstitutional, what does that mean? Obviously, that it's against the constitution - that it goes against the democratic (small d) ideals that this country is based on. How is enfranchising an entire city anti-democratic? Oh, and you talk about the arrogance of the Democrats? What about the arrogance of John Ensign, who tried to block passage of the bill previously by attaching a rider that would have removed any reasonable restrictions on gun ownership in DC. We didn't elect him - why is he meddling in our affairs?
You're right about DC needing to be a state. But DC's civil rights have not been a Democratic priority for 40 years.
It is time that our elected officials stop manipulating the system for self serving purposes. If they want DC to have voting rights the constitution needs to be properly amended. People, whether you are for or against this issue or any other last minute unrelated "provision" to a bill... remember this, all we are doing is corrupting the system. The next unrelated "provision" that is allowed to be added could be something you are against but by allowing this to continue why have a constitution at all? DC was not initially given voting rights for a reason. Right or wrong there is a proper way to make the changes. For a group that claims they were going to change the status quo - be more open - all I am seeing is a constant abuse of power and constant childish behavior. You have a right to your views and opinions - but remember the election was not a populous landslide - so there is at least 48% that did not agree with the policy approach that won (a higher % now). We govern in the middle for a reason and it is time both side remember someone else may just have a valid point.
Once upon a time: Counting non-whites as whole persons was unconstitutional Black men voting was unconstitutional Women voting was unconstitutional 18-21 year old voting was unconstitutional They were all violations, since corrected, to a greater or lesser degree, of the fundamental first principles on which our nation is founded: That just (ie legitimate) power depends on the Consent of the Governed.
"The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress." Frederick Douglass "...[Congress], with an army to enforce [its] tyranny, has declared that [it] has a right (not only to TAX) but "to BIND us in ALL CASES WHATSOEVER," and if being bound in that manner, is not slavery, then is there not such a thing as slavery upon earth. Even the expression is impious; for so unlimited a power can belong only to God." (Slightly paraphrased from "The American Crisis: Number One" by Thomas Paine, Dec, 1776)
Giving representation: i.e. representative with voting power (as opposed to the near powerless delegate) to the District for all intents and purposes makes DC a state. This raises some interesting constitutional questions.
Article 1, Section 8 limits D.C. to ten miles--the framers wanted to be sure no state had a monopoly on the capital so they created a special enclave for the capitol--they also used the word "District" when referring to it.. I'm a firm believer in the the notion that the constitution can be modified and even interpreted to keep current with changing times However, the dichotomy between "state" and "district" makes me suspicious of the constitutionality (absent an amendment, of course) of the voting measures.
Why are so many citizens stupid? If they ever read the constitution rather than purused porn all day they would realize only a STATE can have congressional representation. DC is not a state. DC has been expanded from a federal work place to a residential community. If you want rep go to DC or VA. If this passes it will be overturned in a matters of weeks by the courts. I'll be the first to sue.
POST A COMMENT
Oops! The following errors must be addressed: