Senate passes unconstitutional bill granting House voting rights to D.C.
posted at 8:23 pm on February 26, 2009 by Allahpundit
Law professor Ann Althouse says it all. The vote went 61-37, with two Democrats voting no and six Republicans voting yes: Orrin Hatch, Dick Lugar, George Voinovich, and … Collins, Snowe, and Specter.
Ed wrote about the constitutional objections a few days ago. I have a hunch the Supremes are going to drive a stake through its heart when it finally gets there — Kennedy is more reliable on questions of government structure than on questions of rights — but in the meantime I’m more interested in people’s ideas for addressing the District’s legitimate grievance. Taxation without representation is un-American to the core; they deserve either the vote or a tax amnesty, or maybe something else. One creative option would have Congress recognize them as the 51st state, although that would require two seats in the Senate, too. Another creative idea from NRO:
An option to grant Washingtonians a voice in the House, without requiring the high demands of a constitutional amendment, already exists: retrocession. Just as Virginia absorbed a chunk of the District in 1846, Maryland could take in large sections of it now. Let Maryland’s political establishment, including Democratic governor Martin O’Malley and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, explain why this is not acceptable.
Let’s do what D.C. would do: Vote on it!
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
Preach it, Brother! Marion Berry and the Crack Pipes for your listening pleasure.
College Prof on February 26, 2009 at 9:24 PM
Marion Barry for governor, anyone??
AubieJon on February 26, 2009 at 9:24 PM
Silly things those election things………….
………… again.
So who’s your favorite on American Idol this season?
Seven Percent Solution on February 26, 2009 at 9:27 PM
The founders knew what they were doing when they made it a “district” rather than a state. Leave it alone- None of the above. If folks want to have a voting representative, they can move a few miles into VA or MD.
As to Hatch, he’s pushing to get the additional representative the Census may give Utah anyway- unless they “lose” their population growth under Obama’s new Census bureau.
cs89 on February 26, 2009 at 9:27 PM
This is all about the Dems getting more power by getting two additional Dem Senators, from DC. That is the bottom line. They couldn’t care less about the Constitution.
mydh12 on February 26, 2009 at 9:27 PM
Never have. Never will.
DrMagnolias on February 26, 2009 at 9:28 PM
Present.
Jim Treacher on February 26, 2009 at 9:28 PM
DC basically only exists on the the MD side of the Potomac now so it would all go to MD. Sorry. My vote is if they want all of the benifits of living in a state move to a state, and get out of the district.
cobrakai99 on February 26, 2009 at 9:28 PM
Choice #5: Excision.
Excise D.C. from the mainland and let it float down the Potomac and out to sea.
Far, far away…
Never to be seen again…
With all the politicians stranded like those poor polar bears in the blistering arctic…
IrishEi on February 26, 2009 at 9:29 PM
LOL!!!!!!!
I wouldn’t put it past by DC residents.
Lance Murdock on February 26, 2009 at 9:29 PM
The answer is obvious:
National Wildlife Refuge.
/
Christien on February 26, 2009 at 9:29 PM
Eleanor Holmes Norton has never had a “bid for re-election as Mayor or Washington DC” for the simple reason that she never was Mayor of Washington DC. The woman who was Mayor of DC while Marion Barry was in the slammer is Sharon Pratt Dixon (now Sharon Pratt Kelly).
Just another useless factoid.
factoid on February 26, 2009 at 9:30 PM
This is OT but interesting. Thought I would share.
Guardian on February 26, 2009 at 9:33 PM
I’m tempted to say “tax amnesty”, because that would be a phenomenal experiment to gauge the effects of massive tax relief on the economy.
Where would they put all of the people and businesses that moved there?
DaveS on February 26, 2009 at 9:34 PM
That would be totally absurd. The District of Columbia is not a state, it is a city and not even that populous of a city at that. Many actual states have several cities with larger populations, should we give those cities two senators each? Just make D.C. a county in Maryland.
MB4 on February 26, 2009 at 9:35 PM
Abraham Lincoln faced with some thorny issue that could be settled by a twist of language, or an abuse of power, asks his questioner how many legs would a dog have, if we called the dog’s tail, a leg. “Five,” the questioner responds confident in his mathematical ability to do simple addition. “No,” Lincoln says. “Calling a dog’s tail a leg, doesn’t make it a leg.
MB4 on February 26, 2009 at 9:38 PM
I’m with Jimmy on this one. It would solve any number of problems.
trigon on February 26, 2009 at 9:38 PM
How about relocate the residents to cities around the country where they could get real jobs that would be productive to the economy. Then, allow congress to meet for one month a year. The rest of the year the place is open for tourists. Having the government all in one place is a security issue anyway.
flyoverland on February 26, 2009 at 9:40 PM
Individual retirement plans/accounts will be one of the next links in the chain to break. Jim McDermott has already floated a trial balloon to do away with the tax benefits of contributing to a 401k and replace it with a mandatory national retirement program. Obviously the decline of equities is but one more “crisis” worth exploiting.
We’ll all be wards of the state by the time this is all said and done.
moxie_neanderthal on February 26, 2009 at 9:41 PM
Thanks……….
……….. I WAS eating diner.
Seven Percent Solution on February 26, 2009 at 9:41 PM
Why would they want to be a state? States don’t have rights any more.
jgapinoy on February 26, 2009 at 9:43 PM
LOL!
jgapinoy on February 26, 2009 at 9:43 PM
When the District was set up it was envisioned that government was mainly a temporary job, a seasonal thing. Those “permanent” residents of the District were there voluntarily. As government grew and grew and grew…not very temporary anymore. As for the residents, seems today most residents are wards of the state in one manner or another. But that is a matter for another thread on another day.
What the Senate has done is vote in another Democrat district, in defiance of the apportionment of districts as established in the Constitution. It is a clear violation. If there are not Constitutional lawyers lined up in front of the Supreme Court tomorrow morning getting cases set on the upcoming docket to overturn this travesty, then this country, this Congress, this Administration, has indeed taken a great step toward totalitarianism.
If this stands…then what is to prevent the Senate, Congress, or the Administration by fiat, from establishing many many other loyal Democrat districts across America, packing both Houses in such a manner as to make permanent one-party rule for the next many decades?
coldwarrior on February 26, 2009 at 9:44 PM
Welfare reform would clear out DC in a heartbeat.
meci on February 26, 2009 at 9:44 PM
Right! And while we are at it, we should revisit the statehood of so-called “states” like Wyoming, Alaska, Vermont and both Dakotas, each of which are less populous than Columbus, OH. The two Dakotas and Wyoming should be combined into a single (and now viable) state, Vermont should be made part of New Hampshire (nobody can ever remember which one is on the right and which one is on the left anyway) and Alaska should be made a county of the closest real state, Washington. By doing that, we would reduce the number of Senators by eight, creating immense savings to the taxpayers.
factoid on February 26, 2009 at 9:45 PM
Best idea I ever heard!
JellyToast on February 26, 2009 at 9:47 PM
Combination of apples and oranges, ignorance of the founding of the country and it’s Constitution, reductio absurdum and God only knows what else.
Good Job, factoid!!!
MB4 on February 26, 2009 at 9:53 PM
Screw em..if they want to vote let them move to a real state.
Itchee Dryback on February 26, 2009 at 9:54 PM
Ya know, I think this may have just turned my thinking around. As much as I’ve been wanting to try to believe it, I just can’t do it anymore. The Republicans aren’t going to change. I can’t believe I’m thinking this, let alone going to say it. The only way we can even begin to turn this country around is massive protests. Since we already know that most likely won’t have an effect…lord help me…but I think violence will be the only way to do it.
Do I want that to happen? No, of coure not. But there is something in the air and it’s hard to avoid. There is already mass panic over the markets, fear of the loss of jobs and food and record gun/ammo selling. How long is it going to take before small groups band together across the country and finally do something? There are too many perfect storms going on for all this to be just happenstance(sp?). Yeah, ok some of it can be, but all of it? Something’s just not right here.
roopster217 on February 26, 2009 at 9:55 PM
There is no reason to recognize them as a 51st state, the District could simply be given back to Maryland like the Virginia half (Arlington) was given back to Virginia. Then we could move the capital to someplace in Northern North Dakota. That would go a long way toward reducing the lobbyist infestation.
crosspatch on February 26, 2009 at 9:57 PM
if the founders didn’t see a problem with a district without representation, then thats enough for me
Chiasmos on February 26, 2009 at 9:59 PM
MB4 on February 26, 2009 at 10:01 PM
I believe they get way more than what they pay. This is just liberal whining and crying for even more power grabs.
Entelechy on February 26, 2009 at 10:03 PM
Constitution? Constitution?
Johan Klaus on February 26, 2009 at 10:05 PM
Yeah, DC is growing with dem government workers.
How many electoral votes do they get?
getalife on February 26, 2009 at 10:07 PM
The founders didn’t see a problem with slavery or the lack of voting rights for women either. How do you feel about those issues?
factoid on February 26, 2009 at 10:07 PM
As long as the new capital is also a district and not technically part of North Dakota, count me in.
FloatingRock on February 26, 2009 at 10:08 PM
Brilliant; Solves the illegal immigration problem at the same time.
Johan Klaus on February 26, 2009 at 10:09 PM
We don’t need no stinking Constitution! -Democrats
FloatingRock on February 26, 2009 at 10:10 PM
Hello, knock, knock, is anyone home?
That is what amendments to the constitution are for.
MB4 on February 26, 2009 at 10:10 PM
Surely since you know so many “facts” you know not all the founders believed in all those things right? Come on, I went to a public school and even WE were taught that.
roopster217 on February 26, 2009 at 10:10 PM
And, I guess that your OK with abolishing the second amendent also.
Johan Klaus on February 26, 2009 at 10:11 PM
Exempt them from Federal taxes – this would help make Washington the beautiful and prosperous city it once was.
fiatboomer on February 26, 2009 at 10:18 PM
Has anyone bothered to explain this to this President and this Congress? They are proposing taxation, but they sure as heck aren’t practicing any representation.
jimmy2shoes on February 26, 2009 at 10:20 PM
I’m for no mooching without taxation. Who will second this?
Entelechy on February 26, 2009 at 10:30 PM
And for not voting without taxation
Entelechy on February 26, 2009 at 10:31 PM
Amnesty, for sure. Absolutely… Jonah Goldbergs POV from 2000: http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=MmE3YTExZWFhMmZkMWRjZDU2MWRhNGY1NGM1NjQwNTQ=
scoromastel on February 26, 2009 at 10:35 PM
There are many counties larger in population and size than DC. Even the King Ranch in Texas is larger in size. Like the “bailout”, where does it stop?
diogenes on February 26, 2009 at 10:35 PM
Count me in.
Johan Klaus on February 26, 2009 at 10:37 PM
I am already signed up several times but yes sign me up again por favor.
NoBordersJose on February 26, 2009 at 10:39 PM
Two brilliant comments in a row.
Johan Klaus on February 26, 2009 at 10:39 PM
Oh forget it. I thought you said mooching without taxation.
NoBordersJose on February 26, 2009 at 10:40 PM
You left off my choice for the DC residents: leave ‘em exactly the way they are, like the CONSTITUTION (remember that?) states.
This has nothing to do with “taxation w/o representation.” It has ONLY to do with getting the Dhimms 2 more Senators and more Reps…..what an absolute disgrace.
American Revolution II … coming to a neighborhood near you.
ex-Democrat on February 26, 2009 at 10:43 PM
Hmm. Lots of people stating that this is unconstitutional with a great deal of confidence. Not sure where that confidence is coming from, but anyway.
At the time of the ratification, Washington DC wasn’t the capital. DC is not a territory, so it doesn’t fall under that category, but it’s not technically a state either.
There are a lot of ways to read the Constitution here; one possible way is that the Constitution is supposed to provide representation in Congress to all US citizens. That kind of approach would suggest that DC should *at least* get a House member, and possibly two Senators. You could make the argument that DC deserves a House member but NOT two Senators, because the House was intended to directly represent the people, but the Senate was designed to represent the States.
Maybe it’s not an argument I agree with, but it’s a coherent argument.
On the other hand, because it surely means another Democrat in Congress, this seat is wrong and should not exist. Great, that makes things easy, huh.
Proud Rino on February 26, 2009 at 10:46 PM
Constitution doesn’t state that. Re-read and check back.
Proud Rino on February 26, 2009 at 10:49 PM
Retrocession would be great, but they can’t take in all the residents of DC. So again you get taxation without representation. So I say grant them tax amnesty. DC was set up by the founding fathers to be free from the strains of statehood and the politics that go with it. Besides, it would be a glaring example to all those big spending politicians in DC that cutting taxes ensures prosperity and growth. They’d have to see it everyday on their way from the bar to Capitol Hill.
chicagojedi on February 26, 2009 at 10:52 PM
Twist things around. Great, that makes things easy, huh.
MB4 on February 26, 2009 at 10:52 PM
Most of what is D.C. should go to Maryland, as a county, just keep the governmental part of D.C. as D.C. as that would make a whole lot more sense.
MB4 on February 26, 2009 at 10:54 PM
In the 1960s (under Kennedy I think?) they tried to amend the Constitution to give DC a vote. If they felt the need to amend the Constitution, doesn’t that sort of indicate that they saw it as unconstitutional? I think this is pretty ridiculous and doubt it’d get upheld by the Supreme Court.
However, I’m a little worried the Supreme Court may refuse to hear the case because nobody has “standing” to bring a suit.
joe_doufu on February 26, 2009 at 10:55 PM
People change the Constitution all the time without using the formal amendment process. You’ll search in vain for anything saying we have to have a two party system, and the executive branch’s expansive power in foreign affairs is nowhere to be found in the Constitution either.
Also, you’ll see nothing about “Terry” stops, “reasonable suspicion,” or the ability of Congress to delegate legislative authority to administrative agencies, yet all of these things exist and are considered constitutional by the Court.
Proud Rino on February 26, 2009 at 10:58 PM
It’s already been said. It’s a power grab. That’s it, nothing more. I agree that All parts of D.C. should go back to Maryland except for the FG grounds. I wonder when the constitution will be taken out of the shredder? Or will it?
roopster217 on February 26, 2009 at 11:01 PM
Why is there not a poll choice for THIS????
Then let it go back into being a literal swamp as God intended it to be (rather than the figurative swamp it has become).
Build the New seat of Government in rural Kansas, Rural North Dakota or perhaps Point Barrow.
LegendHasIt on February 26, 2009 at 11:01 PM
And some people take money from banks all the time without using the formal withdrawal process.
MB4 on February 26, 2009 at 11:02 PM
these people are called ………. ?
MB4 on February 26, 2009 at 11:03 PM
Democrats
roopster217 on February 26, 2009 at 11:04 PM
And we have a winner already!!!
MB4 on February 26, 2009 at 11:07 PM
Roopster217, If I could I would offer you a position in the Obama administration, however I somehow don’t think you would make it through their vetting process.
MB4 on February 26, 2009 at 11:09 PM
I’d be for no vote if your on the dole, but I wouldn’t want it to apply to the unemployed, for example.
FloatingRock on February 26, 2009 at 11:11 PM
One of the reasons many of us were angry in Va., because Gov. Kaine let inmates vote… But as we all know Dems don’t really think taking money from anyone is a problem. Be it banks, children, elderly, little furry animals. You name it, they’ll get money from it. But that ‘s old news, sorry.
roopster217 on February 26, 2009 at 11:12 PM
I don’t know about that. Wouldn’t we all have standing?
FloatingRock on February 26, 2009 at 11:15 PM
Thank you, but even though I need the money I would rather my name not be dragged in with the Chicago filth that resides there. Although I would love to get some nice shots at the new DHS Sec. for being such a…what’s word I’m looking for? Lier? No, no, I want something more harsh than that.
roopster217 on February 26, 2009 at 11:17 PM
:)
FloatingRock on February 26, 2009 at 11:18 PM
I would think that the obvious solution is not let any of those in the district vote. Point of order: Look at the choices made thus far. Crackhead for mayor wins re-election and then city council after release from prison. No thanks, more stupid people perpetually making more bad decisions that will affect my voting franchise. Let them meld back into MD, it’s already a one party hole infested with corruption second only to Chicago.
larvcom on February 26, 2009 at 11:21 PM
Right. Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and Bush Jr. made the Executive Branch more powerful. Check their party registration.
Proud Rino on February 26, 2009 at 11:22 PM
About time.
Terry Silver on February 26, 2009 at 11:22 PM
1. I don’t think you know what “Point of Order” means.
2. The American people elected Nixon, who was completely corrupt. Then we elected Jimmy Carter.
Maybe none of us should be able to vote.
I can’t think of a state that hasn’t made some questionable electoral choices at some point. It’s unfair to pick on DC.
Proud Rino on February 26, 2009 at 11:26 PM
Your right and it’s late for me. Don’t forget they elected the current usurper, Obama, without really knowing anything about the creep other than he looks good in the clothes he wears.
Point is the majority of people in this country are ignorant of it’s constitution, it’s history, it’s location and what their favorite color is but they’re up to date on Idol’, Lost etc……You get my drift, right.
Anyway, good night all.
larvcom on February 26, 2009 at 11:33 PM
I’m ok with this
ICBM on February 26, 2009 at 11:34 PM
You truely have the RINO part right.
roopster217 on February 26, 2009 at 11:34 PM
I guess when you can’t make an argument in response, you have to make ad hominem attacks. That’s kind of depressing.
Proud Rino on February 26, 2009 at 11:37 PM
RINO’s. The pimples on the ass of the republican party.
csdeven on February 26, 2009 at 11:43 PM
Stay classy.
Proud Rino on February 26, 2009 at 11:46 PM
Hahaha..love that name…oh, was that “ad hominem”? My bad.
AUINSC on February 26, 2009 at 11:49 PM
You consider that an attack? This is why this country is in the state it’s in. It’s you people who play the victim card without being a real victim who are helping us go down the toilet. Everything I have ever read that you have posted has been something against actual Republicans and standing up for Democrats. Can you explain this to me?
As to some of the things you’ve stated above:
1. Nixon was a saint compared to today’s politicians.
2. You talk of changing the constitution by going about it another way, yet MOST of us think it should be followed or at least be amended to where something like this can be done.
3. OTOH how am I suppose to respond to this:
When I can’t even tell what arguement you’re trying to make with all these statements? You can’t argue with someone when they themselves don’t seem to have an answer to what the arguement is about.
4. I believe what most of the guys/gals here are saying, that’s why I didin’t say more.
But, please, do go on with all your republican in name only garbage. It’ll only take the US farther down the road to heck.
roopster217 on February 26, 2009 at 11:52 PM
Or communism. Whichever comes first I suppose.
roopster217 on February 26, 2009 at 11:58 PM
That’s for sure.
Johan Klaus on February 27, 2009 at 12:02 AM
I like the make it part of Maryland idea. If they don’t like the idea of being a federal district then they become part of a state. No middle road with the privledges of both and no 3 electoral votes they combine with Maryland’s to make maybe 1 more electoral vote fro Maryland.
Conan on February 27, 2009 at 12:14 AM
I also find it funny that you didn’t like me calling you by what you seem all to “Proud” to be. Ironic isn’t it? Of course if you’re a liberal I wouldn’t expect you to, Democrat Socialists don’t seem to understand humor.
roopster217 on February 27, 2009 at 12:25 AM
*to understand Sorry, it’s late.
roopster217 on February 27, 2009 at 12:29 AM
I ‘vote none of the above’.
eforhan on February 27, 2009 at 12:39 AM
More worrisome is the pattern of Obama Trolls hijacking threads. I have noticed this everywhere on Conservative blogs, Gun Blogs, Inventor Blogs, etc. It isn’t a true disagreement or even a principled discussion, but a venom filled hateful attack just to dislodge the conversation.
This is new to me. It is like having a conversation with a few friends and suddenly having 4 people step out of the crowd and start screaming at you. They call it “filling the column”.
GunRunner on February 27, 2009 at 12:57 AM
Do they deserve representation?
WisCon on February 27, 2009 at 1:03 AM
How about a seperate seat at the U.N.? I’ll vote for that.
Limerick on February 27, 2009 at 1:12 AM
Here’s an option: those who feel like they’re not being represented in D.C. can move a few miles away into Maryland or Virginia. Solves the whole “taxation without representation” complaint, and no one has to pass a new law or amend the constitution.
ThereGoesTheNeighborhood on February 27, 2009 at 1:16 AM
Clearly what they want is two more permanent Democrat Senators! Since DC isn’t a state and it never will be, what the Democrats are doing is unconstitutional which is nothing new for them. Retrocession to one of the surrounding states makes more sense. Then they they’ll get a voting Representative which they deserve, but not Senators! What they’re doing now isn’t right and there seems to be a new outrage everyday from this administration or congress!
CrusaderPatriot on February 27, 2009 at 2:11 AM
I’m OK with the Democrats annexing the D of C as long as we can annex Taiwan and Israel and make them states, too. Why not?
joe_doufu on February 27, 2009 at 2:58 AM
Tax amnesty would create the biggest migration into DC we’ve ever seen.
frode on February 27, 2009 at 3:38 AM
Please do not even try to use the taxation without representation argument for DC and no more bend over compromises that’s what got us into this Socialist mess in the first place. If the people who live in DC want a rep so bad then I suggest they move elsewhere. It is what it is, live with it.
Done That on February 27, 2009 at 5:38 AM
So does that mean that any legislation that passes the senate while DC holds a seat is unconsitutional and also rejected?
triumphus on February 27, 2009 at 5:59 AM
Oh, great…so maybe Marion Berry will be their Rep?
Constitution, Shmonstitution…who needs it?
“natural born citizen”-So what. In these times of crisis, we need a strong leader even if he were born on Mars.
“Emoluments Clause”-So what. Hillary’s the best SoS ever, and in these times of crisis, blah blah blah.
“abridging the freedom of speech”-Just applies to the newspapers and TV stations…uh, who support Leftist agendas.
“right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”-Just the police and government agents…they’re ‘people’ after all, aren’t they? Besides, guns are a threat to
governmentnational security.“against unreasonable searches and seizures”-Unless the nice officer has (what he says is) just cause, and besides, it’s your word against his, so open that trunk, scumbag, because you might have drugs or a dead body in there.
“nor excessive fines imposed”-Unless the IRS says so.
Dr. ZhivBlago on February 27, 2009 at 6:04 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »