Wednesday, February 25, 2009

Senate Moves Towards Giving DC a Vote in Congress

As with most liberal propositions, it feels so good.  Let's give those poor deprived souls in the Federal District "full voting rights".  Let's give them "representation".  Well, the Senate appears to be on its way.

Well how can you possibly oppose giving the people of DC full representation?  It's easy.  It's wrong and it's probably unconstitutional.

The only reason the District of Columbia has any electoral votes in a presidential election is because of the 23rd Amendment.  That OK, because the people of this country agreed to amend the constitution.  It doesn't matter whether I agree with it or not.  However, Congress doesn't have the authority to give seats in Congress to non-states.  The constitution is pretty clear about that one.  Of course, the constitution also says that we're supposed to COUNT the population every ten years and liberals want to estimate.

Assuming that Congress gives DC a full seat in the House (and that's a pretty safe bet), it's logical that they'll get two seats in the Senate as well.  Why not?  It's just another form of "stuffing the box" and the Dems aren't shy about doing that.

People live in DC by choice.  If don't want to live in a Federal District then they don't have to.  However, there is an alternative that will address their concerns:

Give the District back to Maryland.  Virginia already took her part back.  It's called Arlington County.

The only problem - Maryland doesn't want it.  I can't blame her.  Still, that doesn't justify an unconstitutional act on the part of Congress and the Obama administration.

Oh ... Who am I kidding?


Duke hoops fan said...

G.A -

I'm kinda hoping that Montgomery and Prince George's counties secede from the rest of Maryland and join the district in forming our newest state - Columbia.

Then perhaps we can balance out the general assembly in Annapolis and finally retire Babs, Gentle Ben, and Steny from Capitol Hill.

Daniel said...

I will vote for that.

warpmine said...

I can't wait until the first suit is filed against this unconstitutional act. If they want statehood let them file the petitions toward it. Will it then be a free state or a welfare state?

P. Kenneth Burns said...


Allow me to play advocate, double time.

1. Do you think that the citizens of Washington D.C. (where I was born) should have representation in congress.

2. Other than the constitutional issues (which can be amended, and in my case it's a good thing that it was,) Give me one good reason why they should NOT have representation in congress, especially since Congress gave them home rule.

G. A. Harrison said...

To My Fellow Duke Fan -
Interesting idea.

Kenny -
Should they? Short of a constitutional amendment, NO.

My reason is simple - DC was set up as a "Federal District". It is not a state. Therefore it cannot be given seats in Congress. Home rule is immaterial.

Should DC be made a state? No. It is and should be a Federal District UNLESS, Maryland wants to take back the territory which she so graciously donated all those years ago.

Phillip said...

When one has spent their entire Careers as Most Democrats have, subverting the US Constitution, why should that stop them now?

P. Kenneth Burns said...


I am 50/50 with you. They should amend the constitution if they want to give DC a voice in congress, they should amend the constitution. Especially when you consider that a law can be easily repealed and DC can be voiceless again. I should also note that no one in any party has kept to the constitution (especially in the Supreme Court where there are too many 5-4 votes on stuff that is freaking obvious.)

I do not think that DC should be turned into a state, but what the hell does "it was set-up as a federal district" mean? Because it's a federal district, does that mean that people should not live or work in DC? Why should Maryland have to take back DC for it to gain congressional representation?

I'm not going to use the argument that conservatives do not want any more liberals on Capitol Hill, I think that is far fetched to begin with. I will say that this seems like a hindsighted farce of our founding fathers to not give the residents in DC a voice in congress.

D.C. is not a territory like Puerto Rico or Guam, especially since the residents there are allowed to vote for president. People who were born in DC, like myself, are natural born citizens.

I understand the basic constitutional issues surrounding this move as well as most oppose what Congress is doing, but I'm sorry, I have not heard a valid reason on why anyone should not try to give DC residents a voice in congress.

I do not agree with the bill because it does do a roundabout on the constitution, but I'm going to need a little bit more than "it's a federal district" to keep a DC congressperson out and "D.C. residents should ask to rejoin Maryland" as a solution, especially in 2009 where we know that we had to amend the constitution to make things fair for everyone.

Duke hoops fan said...

G.A. -

Last night was a good night to be a Duke fan. Once again there was no joy in Mudville, er College Park.

G. A. Harrison said...

Kenny -

You are correct in almost everything you say. However, DC was set up as a federal district (the only one in the country) for a reason. Way back when, Maryland and Virginia gave up a small portion of their land so that the federal government would not be seated in any one state. Consequently, DC is not a state; nor was it ever intended to be.

Let's face it. Dems want to get this bill through so that they can then demand two seats in the Senate. It's a political ploy. They could care less about the actual citizenry.

I'm opposed to this AND to amending the constitution. However, I would have to accept such an amendment if it was adopted.

If this is so important to Citizen X living in the District they can move. I know that sounds harsh, but DC was never intended to be a state OR to have seats in EITHER house of Congress.

I'm sorry. I need a better reason to change something than "it feels fair".

P. Kenneth Burns said...

This is probably my fault for not being specific enough, but you have not addressed as far as residency. If it wasn't intended for people to have representation, then why have residents there in the first place?

Just like you need a better excuse than "it's feels fair," I need a better reason to deny residents a voice in congress. For the record, I am not talking about the bill in congress, I am talking about in general.

DC is a Federal District, not a territory. I do not see a valid reason to deny them a vote in congress or a pick for president.

Specifically, let's rewind the clock back to before the 1960s. Give me a reason why the District of Columbia should not be allowed in the electoral process for president or to have a voice in Congress. Hopefully, this will give a pure argument, if not at least a historical perspective.

Chester Peake said...

Walt Disney wanted EPCOT to be a real Experimental Prototype City (or Community) of Tomorrow, not a theme park. Heavily influenced by our own Rouse, he wanted it to have real workers and residents. He even got two counties in Florida to give up sovereignty to his company-controlled Reedy Creek Improvement District. However, residents equals voters and he would lose ultimate control. Thus EPCOT would never be what the old man wanted. Only two "towns", of about 9 trailers each, inhabited by Disney employees have voting rights. When the planned community of real residents called Celebration was formed, the land was seceded from Reedy Creek's voting rolls.

The problem with a district is what do you do with these pesky residents who want to vote? Disney's answer is to not let anyone (or just a hand-picked few who you can evict) live there. Maybe that's what DC should have done. Keep the businesses, Federal buildings, parks, museums and agencies, but no residents. An alternative would be to remove any residential tracts from the District proper. Don't they already do this for embassies, as they are considered foreign soil?

Fools Rush (and Hannity) In said...

Either let them vote for a representative of congress or do not federally tax the residents of
D.C. Does the phrase "taxation without representation is tyranny" ring a bell?

G. A. said...

No, give the District back to Maryland.