2010 EV seat after the DC bill is passed

[Nixon in '80]

DC, aside from the areas immediately surrounding the White House, the Capitol Building, and certain national monuments should be annexed by Maryland.

It solves everything, it's fair, DC residents would also gain representation in the Senate, and I've never heard an argument against it.

Does anybody have one?

[Gravis Marketing]

It solves everything, it's fair, DC residents would also gain representation in the Senate, and I've never heard an argument against it.

Does anybody have one?

1. Neither Maryland nor D.C. want to be in that marriage.
2. D.C. has been an independent political entity for a lot longer than most states. North Dakota and Delaware as independent states doesn't make much sense, but we're stuck with them because of history and they've developed their own regional identities.
3. D.C. would lose self-government by being subordinated to Maryland.

[Rococo4]

The DC bill will be overturned in Court, making it's effects void.

Good.

lol Ben.

The Constitution is clear that DC should not have a member of Congress.  This Bill should be struck down.

At one time the Constitution was clear that women could not vote. Your point is?

That is fine....if they want to pass an amendment, go ahead and try.  The bill should be struck down, and i think it is likely it will, though the supremes have surprised us all before.

[True Federalist]

The Constitution is clear that DC should not have a member of Congress.  This Bill should be struck down.

At one time the Constitution was clear that women could not vote. Your point is?

Actually that's not the case.  The Constitution never denied women the vote, though until Amendment XIX, it didn't require them to have the vote either.

Conversely, Article I Section 2 Clause 3 makes it explicit that only States have Representatives.  There are only three ways for the district to vote for Representatives constitutionally:
1) Retrocession to Maryland
2) Admission as a State
3) Pass a Constitutional Amendment

Neither Maryland nor DC is in favor of retrocession and while the consent of DC is not needed, that of Maryland is.

DC is simply too dependent on the Federal Government to be granted Statehood

The Constitutional Amendment route was tried once before, but only 16 States approved it before the Amendment expired.  Still it could be tried again perhaps without a seven-year limit to let the idea percolate longer.

[yoman82]

I believe that both DC and Puerto Rico should become states, no taxation without representation, right? (I know they don´t pay income tax, but they do pay some federal taxes) They hold a combined 9,000,000 people. It´s ridiculous.

[Gravis Marketing]

I believe that both DC and Puerto Rico should become states, no taxation without representation, right? (I know they don´t pay income tax, but they do pay some federal taxes) They hold a combined 9,000,000 people. It´s ridiculous.

Puerto Rico has voted on statehood many times and it always loses to the status quo. Also, I think the population is closer to 4,000,000, with D.C. much smaller than that.

[True Federalist]

Puerto Rico has been repeatedly been offered the choice of Statehood, but chosen primarily for financial reasons to reject it.  Apply the full set of Federal taxes to Puerto Rico and I think they'd quickly clamor for Statehood and the six Representative they'd have.

[Senator Ben]

I would support an Amendment, or giving all non-Government buildings back to Maryland.  Until one of those things happens, DC cannot get a Representative.  Ioppose the current Bill, because it violates the Constitution.

[The Mikado]

So...to everyone saying that the Courts will overturn this...who has standing to sue?  Who is the damaged party here?

[Rococo4]

So...to everyone saying that the Courts will overturn this...who has standing to sue?  Who is the damaged party here?

I would think I would be damaged as an ordinary resident of Ohio who now techincally sees my representative holds less power because there is one more vote in the House and that extra vote is unconstituional. 

[Nixon in '80]

1. Neither Maryland nor D.C. want to be in that marriage.

Yeah, but that doesn't mean it's not the best solution.

2. D.C. has been an independent political entity for a lot longer than most states. North Dakota and Delaware as independent states doesn't make much sense, but we're stuck with them because of history and they've developed their own regional identities.

Well I really don't care about D.C. pride... they'll still be a city, and they can still consider themselves a separate cultural entity... I don't care.

3. D.C. would lose self-government by being subordinated to Maryland.

D.C. has never really had self-government... sure, since 1973 they've had most of the privileges of a city, but I don't see how being subordinate to Congress is better than being subordinate to Maryland.

[cinyc]

The DC bill will be overturned in Court, making it's effects void.

No, it will not be overturned in court. And if so then the people that live in DC shouldn't have to pay taxes.

Why won't it be overturned in court?  The Constitution is pretty clear that only States get representatives in the House, and that DC is not a state.

[True Federalist]

The DC bill will be overturned in Court, making it's effects void.

No, it will not be overturned in court. And if so then the people that live in DC shouldn't have to pay taxes.

Why won't it be overturned in court?  The Constitution is pretty clear that only States get representatives in the House, and that DC is not a state.

That's if it gets to court.  There is a potential problem in finding someone who has standing to sue.  Assuming Muon's estimate for how the 2010 census will go is correct, then the party with the strongest standing would in theory be Washington State, as by his estimate they would get the 437th Representative if DC doesn't get one.  OTOH, if the size of the HoR was left at 435, Texas would be the State most aggrieved by the change.  However, since the increase in size is linked to the addition of a representative for DC, it might be enough for the Court to find a lack of standing immediately.

However, all is not lost, there are two other ways for there to be a clear case of standing, but it'll likely take a while for the situation to occur.

1)  If an act passes the House only because of the Representative for DC and/or a Representative from the State that gets the 436th seat being among the ayes, then someone who would be adversely affected by that act could sue claiming that the law was never passed Constitutionally.

2) Since S. 160 as written when I last looked at it also gives DC Article V powers, an amendment that stalls at 38 States approving it with DC not approving would present a potential case.  (With 51 States, 39 are needed to pass an amendment instead of the current 38)

Both are quite unlikely but they would give a way for the bill to be challenged.

Since so few bills

[cinyc]

The DC bill will be overturned in Court, making it's effects void.

No, it will not be overturned in court. And if so then the people that live in DC shouldn't have to pay taxes.

Why won't it be overturned in court?  The Constitution is pretty clear that only States get representatives in the House, and that DC is not a state.

That's if it gets to court.  There is a potential problem in finding someone who has standing to sue.  Assuming Muon's estimate for how the 2010 census will go is correct, then the party with the strongest standing would in theory be Washington State, as by his estimate they would get the 437th Representative if DC doesn't get one.  OTOH, if the size of the HoR was left at 435, Texas would be the State most aggrieved by the change.  However, since the increase in size is linked to the addition of a representative for DC, it might be enough for the Court to find a lack of standing immediately.

However, all is not lost, there are two other ways for there to be a clear case of standing, but it'll likely take a while for the situation to occur.

1)  If an act passes the House only because of the Representative for DC and/or a Representative from the State that gets the 436th seat being among the ayes, then someone who would be adversely affected by that act could sue claiming that the law was never passed Constitutionally.

2) Since S. 160 as written when I last looked at it also gives DC Article V powers, an amendment that stalls at 38 States approving it with DC not approving would present a potential case.  (With 51 States, 39 are needed to pass an amendment instead of the current 38)

Both are quite unlikely but they would give a way for the bill to be challenged.

Since so few bills

And a sitting Congressman whose vote has been diluted wouldn't have standing because?

[Senator Ben]

Is there any chance Obama would veto it?  Presidents were originally only supposed to veto bills that went against the Constitution; might Obama do that?

[True Federalist]

And a sitting Congressman whose vote has been diluted wouldn't have standing because?

The size of the House of Representatives is a political question which the Supreme Court tries to avoid, and the expansion to 437 is purely political (the linkage to giving DC a representative is not enough to create a tort out of the issue of individual dilution.  Given that in Raines v. Byrd, the Supremes overturned a lower court injunction against the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 sought by Senator Byrd on the basis of a lack of standing I'm certain that the Supremes will find that Congressmen will not have standing on this issue.  It wasn't until the line-item veto was used and those adversely affected by the use of the veto sued that the Supremes took the case and in Clinton v. City of New York ruled the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 unconstitutional.  Similarly, we may have to wait for a similar case in which the vote of the DC Representative was essential to the passage of an act before the Supremes find someone has standing to sue.

Is there any chance Obama would veto it?  Presidents were originally only supposed to veto bills that went against the Constitution; might Obama do that?

He might choose to let it pass without his signature and leave it to the Supreme Court to rule on, but I can't imagine him vetoing a bill that is such political red meat to his base.

[Gravis Marketing]

Is there any chance Obama would veto it?  Presidents were originally only supposed to veto bills that went against the Constitution; might Obama do that?

There are few bills Obama is less likely to veto. I'm sure he completely supports it.

[Senator Ben]

Is there any chance Obama would veto it?  Presidents were originally only supposed to veto bills that went against the Constitution; might Obama do that?

There are few bills Obama is less likely to veto. I'm sure he completely supports it.

I'm hoping the lawyer in him will recognize how unconstitutional this bill is, and that will lead him to veto it.

[blagohair.com]

Is there any chance Obama would veto it?  Presidents were originally only supposed to veto bills that went against the Constitution; might Obama do that?

There are few bills Obama is less likely to veto. I'm sure he completely supports it.

I'm hoping the lawyer in him will recognize how unconstitutional this bill is, and that will lead him to veto it.

I'd take fair over constitutional any day of the week.  Your argument is so ridiculous.

[cinyc]

Is there any chance Obama would veto it?  Presidents were originally only supposed to veto bills that went against the Constitution; might Obama do that?

There are few bills Obama is less likely to veto. I'm sure he completely supports it.

I'm hoping the lawyer in him will recognize how unconstitutional this bill is, and that will lead him to veto it.

I'd take fair over constitutional any day of the week.  Your argument is so ridiculous.

The only thing that's ridiculous is ignoring the Constitution because someone thinks the result is fair.  The only thing that's fair to all of us is to follow the Constitution, lest it be ignored on a whim due to somebody's arbitrary view of fairness. 

If DC wants a voting House member, amend the Constitution.

[Senator Ben]

Is there any chance Obama would veto it?  Presidents were originally only supposed to veto bills that went against the Constitution; might Obama do that?

There are few bills Obama is less likely to veto. I'm sure he completely supports it.

I'm hoping the lawyer in him will recognize how unconstitutional this bill is, and that will lead him to veto it.

I'd take fair over constitutional any day of the week.  Your argument is so ridiculous.

Following the Constitution?  If Bush had passed a bill that ignored the Constitution the way this bill does, people would be screaming about it.  If they want to give DC a Congressman, then amend the Constitution the traditional way - by passing an Amendment.

[blagohair.com]

Is there any chance Obama would veto it?  Presidents were originally only supposed to veto bills that went against the Constitution; might Obama do that?

There are few bills Obama is less likely to veto. I'm sure he completely supports it.

I'm hoping the lawyer in him will recognize how unconstitutional this bill is, and that will lead him to veto it.

I'd take fair over constitutional any day of the week.  Your argument is so ridiculous.

The only thing that's ridiculous is ignoring the Constitution because someone thinks the result is fair.  The only thing that's fair to all of us is to follow the Constitution, lest it be ignored on a whim due to somebody's arbitrary view of fairness. 

If DC wants a voting House member, amend the Constitution.

Oh give me a f**** break.  DC not only wants a voting House member, but they deserve one as well.  Would you like it if someone deprived you of the right to be represented in Congress?  The Constitution was written at a time when Washington DC didn't even exist.  Get over it already.

[cinyc]

Is there any chance Obama would veto it?  Presidents were originally only supposed to veto bills that went against the Constitution; might Obama do that?

There are few bills Obama is less likely to veto. I'm sure he completely supports it.

I'm hoping the lawyer in him will recognize how unconstitutional this bill is, and that will lead him to veto it.

I'd take fair over constitutional any day of the week.  Your argument is so ridiculous.

The only thing that's ridiculous is ignoring the Constitution because someone thinks the result is fair.  The only thing that's fair to all of us is to follow the Constitution, lest it be ignored on a whim due to somebody's arbitrary view of fairness. 

If DC wants a voting House member, amend the Constitution.

Oh give me a f**** break.  DC not only wants a voting House member, but they deserve one as well.  Would you like it if someone deprived you of the right to be represented in Congress?  The Constitution was written at a time when Washington DC didn't even exist.  Get over it already.

Deserve one?  No.  It's not in the constitution.  Your same "fairness"  non-argument could be used to claim that D.C. also "deserves" two Senators, or New York "deserves" 29 times more Senators than Wyoming. 

Nobody is forced to live in Washington D.C. at gunpoint.  If they want voting representation in the House and Senate, they could move across the Potomac to Virginia or up the Metro to Maryland.  Anyone who lives in or moves to D.C. knows that they don't get a voting representative in Congress. 

Contrary to your assertion, the Framers of the Constitution very well anticipated that the federal government might create a federal district that would become the seat of the government.  References to it were included in the Constitution (See Article I, Section 8, Clause 17).  The Framers very well could have said that that District would be treated as the same as a State and be represented in the House and Senate.  They didn't.  Why?  Because the District was never intended to be a sovereign state.  It is an outpost of the federal government run by the federal government.

Moreover, the Constitution has been amended to give DC residents electoral votes for President.  It could be amended again to give it representation in the House.  That's the only fair way to do it.  Mere acts of Congress don't trump the Constitution.

[blagohair.com]

You're acting as if people have never been born in DC...

[Senator Ben]

Moreover, the Constitution has been amended to give DC residents electoral votes for President.  It could be amended again to give it representation in the House.  That's the only fair way to do it.  Mere acts of Congress don't trump the Constitution.

Exactly.  I'm all for DC getting Congressman and Senators, but only by amending the Constitution.  The Founders weren't infallible; they knew that some things would need to be changed, so that's why they included a process for doing so.  We cannot ignore the Constitution, just because something isn't fair.