DC Representative

[Padfoot]

Did anyone notice that the DC Voting Rights Act of 2007 passed the House last month?  I don't seem to recall hearing this in the news.  I don't really want to resurrect the debate on this issue but how do you think it will fair in the Senate?  Here is the breakdown of party traitors on this issue, note that 3 Pennsylvania Democrats voted no and 3 PA Republicans voted yes.  Very strange IMO.

Democrats voting no:
    *  Dan Boren (OK)
    * Nancy Boyda (KS)
    * Christopher P. Carney (PA)
    * Tim Holden (PA)
    * Paul E. Kanjorski (PA)
    * Gene Taylor (MS)
Republicans voting yes:
    *  Dan Burton (IN)
    * Chris Cannon (UT)
    * Michael N. Castle (DE)
    * Tom Davis (VA) — the bill’s cosponsor
    * Charles W. Dent (PA)
    * Jo Ann Emerson (MO)
    * Phil English (PA)
    * Michael Ferguson (NJ)
    * Wayne Gilchrest (MD)
    * Darrell Issa (CA)
    * Ray LaHood (IL)
    * Steven C. LaTourette (OH)
    * Mike Pence (IN)
    * Todd Platts (PA)
    * Jon Porter (NV)
    * Rick Renzi (AZ)
    * Paul Ryan (WI)
    * Jim Saxton (NJ)
    * Christopher Shays (CT)
    * Chris Smith (NJ)
    * Fred Upton (MI)
    * Frank Wolf (VA)

Also interesting to note is that Rob Bishop (R-UT) voted present.

Here are the not voting members:

    *Howard Berman (D-CA)
    *John Boehner(R-OH)
    *Eric Cantor (R-VA)
    *Barbara Cubin (R-WY)
    *Jo Ann Davis (R-VA)
    *Fattah (D-PA)
    *Brian Higgins (D-NY)
    *Steve Israel (D-NY)
    *Nick Lampson (D-TX)
    *Juanita Millender-McDonald (D-CA) -vote occurred 3 days before her death
    *Collin Peterson (D-MN)
    *Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA)
    *Jim Walsh (R-NY)
    *Roger Wicker (R-MS)

I find it interesting that 2 Virginia lawmakers didn't vote.  Also I find the minority leader's absence particularly interesting.  Could it be that he personally supports the bill but opted not to vote in order to avoid an embarassing situation for his party?

[MODU]

Yes.  I already sent my letter to Tom Davis in disgust.

[Sam Spade]

Unconstitutional.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Ugh. WAshington D.C. is the one place in the country where I'd have retained Jim Crow. Its THAT corrupt and kleptocratic.

[Padfoot]

So what will the Senate vote look like?  I don't think it will be purely partisan.  I expect both Utah Senators to vote yes.  Are there any other Republicans who might vote yes?  Are there any Democrats who are likely to vote no?

[Joe Republic]

I often wonder just how many congresspeople have actually read (and understood) the United States Constitution.

[nclib]

Democrats voting no:
    *  Dan Boren (OK)
    * Nancy Boyda (KS)
    * Christopher P. Carney (PA)
    * Tim Holden (PA)
    * Paul E. Kanjorski (PA)
    * Gene Taylor (MS)
Republicans voting yes:
    *  Dan Burton (IN)
    * Chris Cannon (UT)
    * Michael N. Castle (DE)
    * Tom Davis (VA) — the bill’s cosponsor
    * Charles W. Dent (PA)
    * Jo Ann Emerson (MO)
    * Phil English (PA)
    * Michael Ferguson (NJ)
    * Wayne Gilchrest (MD)
    * Darrell Issa (CA)
    * Ray LaHood (IL)
    * Steven C. LaTourette (OH)
    * Mike Pence (IN)
    * Todd Platts (PA)
    * Jon Porter (NV)
    * Rick Renzi (AZ)
    * Paul Ryan (WI)
    * Jim Saxton (NJ)
    * Christopher Shays (CT)
    * Chris Smith (NJ)
    * Fred Upton (MI)
    * Frank Wolf (VA)

It is interesting that a reasonable number of conservative Republicans (Burton, Emerson, Pence, Platts, etc.) support this.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

I often wonder just how many congresspeople have actually read (and understood) the United States Constitution.

Read it, understood it, want to toss out most of it and revise the parts that are kept.

[MODU]

I often wonder just how many congresspeople have actually read (and understood) the United States Constitution.

[DuEbrithil]

I often wonder just how many congresspeople have actually read (and understood) the United States Constitution.

meh, not very many of them

[Verily]

So what will the Senate vote look like?  I don't think it will be purely partisan.  I expect both Utah Senators to vote yes.  Are there any other Republicans who might vote yes?  Are there any Democrats who are likely to vote no?

My prediction would be:

Democrats voting no:
Mary Landrieu
Joe Lieberman

Republicans voting yes:
Bob Bennett
Chuck Hagel
Orrin Hatch
Arlen Specter

Republicans voting present:
John Warner

[12th Doctor]

I am very disappointed with the way Phil English has been acting lately.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

I often wonder just how many congresspeople have actually read (and understood) the United States Constitution.

meh, not very many of them

ANY of them understand it?

[StateBoiler]

I often wonder just how many congresspeople have actually read (and understood) the United States Constitution.

Shouldn't all taxpayers have the right to vote on their own taxation? Are we declaring the Declaration of Independence null and void because of the Constitution? This might sound weird coming from a libertarian, but the Declaration of Independence holds as much weight as the Constitution.

If a person believes in the principles behind how our country was founded, I don't see how said person cannot come to the non-partisan solution of either D.C. should have voting rights or they should become a state/part of another state. If one does not think they have any right to vote, than they should not be taxed at all by the federal government, like (fellow U.S. citizens) Puerto Ricans.

To the earlier comment, is D.C. corrupt? Of course, as are several thousand other places in the U.S., but they still pay taxes.

[Emsworth]

Are we declaring the Declaration of Independence null and void because of the Constitution? This might sound weird coming from a libertarian, but the Declaration of Independence holds as much weight as the Constitution.

While you are certainly entitled to the view that the Declaration deserves to be respected, it is an indisputable legal fact that the Constituion (and not the Declaration of Independence) is the "supreme law of the land."

Furthermore, I don't really see why there must necessarily be a connection between representation and taxation. Immigrants are taxed, but do not vote. The same can be said of children.

[Sam Spade]

Who cares what the constitution says!!

It is just a piece of paper.. sheesh

Yep, it's really only good for wiping your ass with, isn't it?

[Padfoot]

Are we declaring the Declaration of Independence null and void because of the Constitution? This might sound weird coming from a libertarian, but the Declaration of Independence holds as much weight as the Constitution.

Furthermore, I don't really see why there must necessarily be a connection between representation and taxation. Immigrants are taxed, but do not vote. The same can be said of children.

But immigrants and children are counted when apportioning House seats and although they may not vote for the person who represents the district they live in, they are still considered to have full representation.

I was hoping this thread would focus more on the possible Senate scenarios this bill could take but since it has devolved into another discussion on the issue of whether or not DC deserves representation I'll throw my two cents in as well.  Most people I've heard that argue against representation for DC do so with either frivilous statements like "DC is corrupt and therefore unworthy of representation" or they cite Article One  of the Constitution which establishes the legislative branch.  The former arguement has absolutely no merit as we would have to deny representation to half of America (or more) if we followed its logic.  The latter arguement however does have some merit but I still find it lacking.  The Constitution is not an infallible document.  It was written by man who is clearly fallible.  This fallibility is further evidenced by the fact that our country has found great enough need to amend the Constitution 27 times since it was written.  In fact, the very purpose of one of those amendments was to expand the voting rights of DC residents.  So, to argue that DC residents shouldn't get representation because it isn't outlined specifically in the Constituion is ridiculous.  It is clearly within our power to grant it to them and as full US Citizens they deserve the right to participate equally in their government.

However, those that cite the Constitution solely for the purpose of striking down the current DC voting rights act are well within their bounds.  Because DC is not a state, it would be in violation of Article One if we granted DC representation through any means other than a Constitutional Amendment.  This is the unfortunate reality of the situation.  I find it extremely unfortunate that our government has become so partisan in its thinking that such an amendment will probably never come to pass.

[they don't love you like i love you]

Immigrants CAN vote. Illegal immigrants can't, but they don't pay taxes. Since when do children pay taxes? They get their parents' tax cuts.

[MODU]

Immigrants CAN vote.

Not at the moment.  They use to in the past, but voting regulations were focused down to citizens only following WWI.  Today, immigrants can vote in some local and state elections.  There are a few movements in the work right now to reinstate full immigrant voting, especially in states where over a quarter of the population are legal immigrants.

[they don't love you like i love you]

When someone obtains US citizenship, they get full voting rights with it.

[MODU]

When someone obtains US citizenship, they get full voting rights with it.

Citizenship doesn't have anything to do with the rights set aside for states.  We've already discussed citizens living in territories.

[Emsworth]

But immigrants and children are counted when apportioning House seats and although they may not vote for the person who represents the district they live in, they are still considered to have full representation.

If my congressman represents me even though I don't have the right to vote, then why can't we say that all 435 congressmen collectively represent the District of Columbia, even though the citizens of DC do not have that very same right? Clearly, it would be absurd to reach such a conclusion. It is far more logical to conclude that neither immigrants, nor children, nor DC residents are represented in Congress.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The argument is not that DC residents should remain unrepresented. The argument is that passing a law (as opposed to a constitutional amendment) is not an appropriate means of granting them representation.

[Padfoot]

But immigrants and children are counted when apportioning House seats and although they may not vote for the person who represents the district they live in, they are still considered to have full representation.

If my congressman represents me even though I don't have the right to vote, then why can't we say that all 435 congressmen collectively represent the District of Columbia, even though the citizens of DC do not have that very same right? Clearly, it would be absurd to reach such a conclusion. It is far more logical to conclude that neither immigrants, nor children, nor DC residents are represented in Congress.

If you are going to argue that non-voting residents of a district are not represented in Congress then you need to start apportioning House seats based on the number of registered voters rather than counting all the state's residents.  Also, I highly doubt that any congress person would agree with the fact that the only people they represent are the ones allowed to vote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The argument is not that DC residents should remain unrepresented. The argument is that passing a law (as opposed to a constitutional amendment) is not an appropriate means of granting them representation.
[/quote]

I know, perhaps you didn't understand me when I said essentially that same thing here in my post above:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

   However, several people on this forum seem to think that since the Constitution didn't grant DC representation we should never give it to them.  They say that the founding fathers wouldn't want to give the 500,000 people living in DC the right to vote.  Many of these same people also believe we should repeal the 23rd amendment and I find them repulsive.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Admit DC as a state, problem solved.

[Emsworth]

If you are going to argue that non-voting residents of a district are not represented in Congress then you need to start apportioning House seats based on the number of registered voters rather than counting all the state's residents.

Even this logic does not, in my opinion, make much sense. For example, a person who is born a little while after a census is conducted is not going to be counted for another ten years. Yet, under your theory, we would not say that he is unrepresented for those ten years.

I would say that, in order to be represented, one must actually be allowed to vote. Being counted in a census is not being represented; nor is merely living in a particular region.