2010 EV seat after the DC bill is passed

[RIP Robert H Bork]

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.

By that logic, any people under 18 that work shouldn't have to pay taxes either.

Taxation without representation!!!!!!

No, because they are representation, their senators and congress(wo)men, they just can't vote yet. Unlike DC they don't have a senator or congress(wo)men representative.

Nor should they. DC is not a federal district, not a state.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

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.

By that logic, any people under 18 that work shouldn't have to pay taxes either.

Taxation without representation!!!!!!

No, because they are representation, their senators and congress(wo)men, they just can't vote yet. Unlike DC they don't have a senator or congress(wo)men representative.

Nor should they. DC is not a federal district, not a state.

The only reason why Republican oppose this is because they know that DC would elected a Democrat in office. And that is more then likely why you oppose it. I could care less if they voted a republican or a democrat. This people have to pay taxes, but yet the government tell them they can't get rep in congress or the senate. It is wrong!

DC always going Democrat is not even part of the reason for my opposition. I do oppose it because it is the only reason for the Republicans' Democrats' opposition support.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

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.

Exactly, if the writers of the Constitution wanted the federal district to have a vote in Congress, then there is no reason to suppose that they would not have included just that.