2010 EV seat after the DC bill is passed

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.