2010 EV seat after the DC bill is passed (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 27, 2024, 08:24:12 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Geography & Demographics (Moderators: muon2, 100% pro-life no matter what)
  2010 EV seat after the DC bill is passed (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: 2010 EV seat after the DC bill is passed  (Read 10493 times)
justfollowingtheelections
unempprof
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,766


« on: February 24, 2009, 07:29:56 PM »

I thought they go back to 435 in 2012 once they draw the new districts.
Logged
justfollowingtheelections
unempprof
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,766


« Reply #1 on: February 25, 2009, 01:03:42 PM »

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.

That sucks.  I really don't like it when the number of representatives increases because that's two more salaries we have to pay.
I would like to see the Territories get a vote in Congress too.
Logged
justfollowingtheelections
unempprof
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,766


« Reply #2 on: February 28, 2009, 09:50:28 PM »

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.
Logged
justfollowingtheelections
unempprof
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,766


« Reply #3 on: March 01, 2009, 01:25:31 AM »

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.
Logged
justfollowingtheelections
unempprof
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,766


« Reply #4 on: March 01, 2009, 05:03:07 AM »

You're acting as if people have never been born in DC...
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.021 seconds with 12 queries.