2010 EV seat after the DC bill is passed

[Josh/Devilman88]

I used this link(Table E), I believe I did it right. Since UT will already have 6 seats they are out of the running for gaining a seat. With the new bill, if I read it right the number of reps in house would be 437 not 435. So that means seat 436 and 437 would be added.

Last five in(in order): TX(36), NY(28), SC(7), OR(6), WA(12)
Last five out(in order): NC(14), MN(8 ), MO(9), IL(19), CA(54)

[Josh/Devilman88]

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.

[Josh/Devilman88]

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.

[Josh/Devilman88]

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!

[Josh/Devilman88]

I thought they go back to 435 in 2012 once they draw the new districts.

No, not in this bill:

Sec 3 of the bill:

SEC. 3. INCREASE IN MEMBERSHIP OF HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

(a) Permanent Increase in Number of Members- Effective with respect to the 112th Congress and each succeeding Congress, the House of Representatives shall be composed of 437 Members, including the Member representing the District of Columbia pursuant to section 2(a).

(b) Reapportionment of Members Resulting From Increase-

(1) IN GENERAL- Section 22(a) of the Act entitled `An Act to provide for the fifteenth and subsequent decennial censuses and to provide for apportionment of Representatives in Congress', approved June 28, 1929 (2 U.S.C. 2a(a)), is amended by striking `the then existing number of Representatives' and inserting `the number of Representatives established with respect to the 112th Congress'.

(2) EFFECTIVE DATE- The amendment made by paragraph (1) shall apply with respect to the regular decennial census conducted for 2010 and each subsequent regular decennial census.

(c) Transmittal of Revised Apportionment Information by President-

(1) STATEMENT OF APPORTIONMENT BY PRESIDENT- Not later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall transmit to Congress a revised version of the most recent statement of apportionment submitted under section 22(a) of the Act entitled `An Act to provide for the fifteenth and subsequent decennial censuses and to provide for apportionment of Representatives in Congress', approved June 28, 1929 (2 U.S.C. 2a(a)), to take into account this Act and the amendments made by this Act and identifying the State of Utah as the State entitled to one additional Representative pursuant to this section.

(2) REPORT BY CLERK- Not later than 15 calendar days after receiving the revised version of the statement of apportionment under paragraph (1), the Clerk of the House of Representatives shall submit a report to the Speaker of the House of Representatives identifying the State of Utah as the State entitled to one additional Representative pursuant to this section.

[Josh/Devilman88]

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.

No, you are just stupid if you believe that, because in this bill it would give UT a new CD too, which would most likely have a Republican Congress(wo)men.