D.C. Voting Rights Bill: A Raw Deal for Republicans
Republicans hope that the courts will invalidate the legislation, though it is not clear who would have legal standing to challenge the district’s unlawful representation. But if the courts don’t hold that D.C.’s voting member is a violation of the Constitution, Democrats could well move to enfranchise Puerto Rico. The Constitution, after all, gives Congress the power to legislate exclusively over the territories of the United States just as it does for the District of Columbia. With nearly four million people, the island territory would likely be entitled to six or seven seats, which would blunt the advantage the GOP is likely to gain from reapportionment.
Following their largest electoral victory in over 40 years, Democrats are eager to solidify their power and ensure that by the time the political pendulum swings away from the left it will be too late for the right to recover. The Democrats’ major policy initiatives thus far have been geared toward securing their political future. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, for example, went well beyond the its stated purpose of extending the statute of limitations for pay discrimination cases by eliminating statutory caps on damages in employment discrimination lawsuits, which will ensure a plush plaintiffs’ bar — and ample donations to congressional Democrats — for years to come. Likewise, the billions of dollars appropriated for ACORN by the stimulus bill should keep the voter rolls inflated in coming election cycles.
Looking down the road, the coming battle over the secret ballot in union elections will determine whether millions of Americans will have compulsory dues taken from their paychecks to promote Democratic political campaigns. After the failure of “comprehensive” immigration reform in 2007, the Democrats are likely to move forward with a series of mini-amnesties starting with the “Dream Act,” a bill which will grant amnesty to illegal aliens who attend college. And most troubling, the White House’s coup against the previously non-partisan census is an invitation to unimaginable mischief. Each of these initiatives is a hedge against a Republican electoral resurgence.
In order to regain an electoral majority in Congress, the GOP will have to convince the American people that the Democrats have failed to address the nation’s economic and security challenges and that Republicans deserve another chance to right the ship. If history is any guide, that time will come. In the meantime, Republicans must ensure that the Democrats do not scratch out the 50-yard line and repaint it further down field. If the D.C. Voting Rights Bill is any indication, they are not off to a good start.
Our constitution is going by the wayside. -What some lefties will call “the fodder of old men”…
-
“And most troubling, the White House’s coup against the previously non-partisan census is an invitation to unimaginable mischief”
-
Darling, we are already there. The magic maker in mischief is dismantling our country in record time.
“The great divider” is parting the way to ultimate class warfare and when the middle class is ruined only the elites and impoverished will exist henceforth.
If we don’t bitch and moan and be HEARD then we truly are a country SCREWED.
Ignore ALL trolls who come here. LET YOUR VOICE RING TRUE and OVERPOWER the pathetic drivel from the left who fear us.
STAY STRONG but OWN YOUR FEAR because fear is reality and fear is a warning…
“Democrats are working hard to make it impossible for the GOP to recover.”
Wow. That’s exactly what the GOP did to dems during the last eight years. I guess you guys can dish it out, but can you take it? What a bunch of whiners!
What the Republicans should do is propose the Constitutional Amendment to give DC two senators and one representative. Then we take the moral high ground while being true to the Constitution.
Sandy Sanders
If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way, which the constitution designates.
But let there be no change by usurpation; for, though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield.
~Washington’s Farewell Address
Of course the real prize is two senators for DC, both of whom will be Democrats. And of course again such a move is unconstitutional. We see some resistance growing to O’s (and the dem’s) power grabs so we may see correct actions by the courts too.
Someone75: Republicans did what Democrats do. They used the political system to gain the upper hand. All’s fair in love, war and politics. Gerrymandering is as American as apple pie. But this isn’t about politics. This is about a direct attack on the Constitution. Many Republicans and conservatives opposed giving a seat on committees to D.C. because it violated the Constitution. Well, no it didn’t. The House is the determiner of its own rules, and that is sanctioned by the Constitution. No matter how foolish I may think it was, it was political, and it didn’t offend the Constitution.
Giving D.C. an actual vote in Congress is quite another matter. Arcane rules are no longer the issue. It’s one thing to give D.C. a vote on a committee “as if it were a state.” It’s quite another to give it full state voting rights in the House when the Constitution clearly declares that only a state (not “as if it were a state”) may have representation in either house of Congress.
Sandy Sanders has said that Republicans can gain the moral high ground by proposing a constitutional amendment granting D.C. two Senators and a proportional vote in the House. I don’t agree that “moral high ground” really has anything to do with it. But she is certainly correct in that it is the only Constitutional method of granting D.C. any votes in Congress whatsoever. And she touches on the very reason I so strongly oppose the unconsitutional granting of the voting power of a state to D.C. in the House.
The Senate vote on D.C. representation in the House was a Faustian bargain struck with short-sighted Senators led by Ted Kennedy’s good buddy, Republican Orrin Hatch of Utah. At its base is politics as usual. D.C. gets a vote in the House in exchange for another seat for Utah. Aside from its unconstitutionality, the sheer stupidity of it is staggering. rr is right: Once Utah and D.C. both get a new seat in the House, and if the Supreme Court challenge that will follow fails, Utah has screwed itself and every other state. How? If a seat in the House can be created out of whole cloth, and the District is treated “as if it were a state,” it is inevitable and completely logical that it is also entitled to not one, but two seats in the Senate. Does Utah then get two more seats in the Senate? Not unless we not only ignore the Constitution, but burn it in a public ceremony. So for one cheap seat in the House, self-serving Orrin Hatch has helped to create a situation where Utah loses three-to-one. I won’t even begin to discuss the ultimate effect on the electoral college. And the dismantling of the Constitution continues apace.
So back to the original topic. This is not just another attempt by Democrats to keep the Republicans from recovering. It is also a direct assault on our very form of constitutional government. If anybody actually believes that this is really about the people of D.C. lacking representation, then there is a constitutional remedy. It’s called “amending the Constitution,” and there’s a whole legitimate format for that remedy. And that format sure as hell isn’t a simple political vote in the Congress.
#6 LawhawkSF – Yours is the complete and final word. Very nice.
Lets not pretend that the Republicans don’t gerrymander any less than the Dems do every election cycle. While it is a sad state of politics in general, I’d like two things.
First, ANYONE propose and pass a law that governs gerrymandering so that we don’t redraw neighborhoods every few years for their own personal benefits.
Second, and this is the hard one for you guys, allow the folks in DC to vote. Yes, I’m a Dem, so you guys don’t care about my viewpoint as it does advantage Dems, but seriously…it’s just unfair that they don’t get the MOST important right the rest of us enjoy…representation. I won’t go on, because that’s really what it comes down to…taxation without representation. I’m sorry that it benefits us Dems in this case, but wow, how can any American say that this is right??
And I will also say that the current plan to throw additional Dem seats in as well is total garbage. Put up a bill that is just about DC and then I can vote for it. Otherwise, the Dems themselves are obviously cheating here and I think it’s wrong, and frankly contrary to their supposed beliefs to care about the DC people.
Jack
2. Someone75:
“Democrats are working hard to make it impossible for the GOP to recover.”
Wow. That’s exactly what the GOP did to dems during the last eight years. I guess you guys can dish it out, but can you take it? What a bunch of whiners!
I think the current makeup of the government makes a lie out of your statement. You also forget that the last two of those 8 years Congress was controlled by Democrats, or does only the President’s party count?
In fact many of the procedural rules put in place in Congress (by the GOP) that gave the minority (then the Dems) greater influence on legislation have been tossed by Pelosi and Co. since taking power – purely to minimize and marginalize the GOP. The GOP played a much more fair game than the Democrats are now, I guess we’re the fools for believing they had principles when they clearly have none but the accumulation of power in themselves and their party.
Why would any self-respecting, resonabaly intelligent Republican vote to give DC voting rights? This is just giving Democrats more clout in the Congress and Senate. And again they might want to consider the Constitution. I do not know why they would want to consider that but look at the intent of the Founding Fathers.
I am so upset at the blindness of my fellow American voters. And I hope we can turn it all around at some point. But I called my two Democratic US representatives and they could not hang up on me quick enough. One of them Lives in Boulder, what can I expect?
Jack,
This has been a “prblem” for nearly as long as we’ve have a Republic. Why is it such a problem now? Why is it so gosh darn important when our economy is crashing, our enemies are openly mocking us, and our friends are wondering if we’re up to the challenge anymore?
There are many ways in which this can be solved, from a Constitutional amendment to simply apportioning their votes to a neighboring district in Maryland or Virginia. That actually has been done before for a similar situation. This plan they’re pushing is pure ass, and unconstitutional to boot.
Apparently “Jack” didn’t read my earlier post. In the first paragraph I made it clear that I definitely did not “pretend that the Republicans don’t gerrymander any less than the Dems. . .” Gerrymandering is, indeed, for the benefit of the parties in control of the gerrymandering. I, too, wish to see it stopped. That said, it isn’t a matter of “redrawing neighborhoods every few years.” It is a Constitutional mandate to re-draw districts based on the census in order to account for shifts in population. That’s how the representation in the House of Representatives is supposed to be determined. Gerrymandering is a misuse of this mandate. And now Obama, for the first time in history, has taken the matter of the census away from one of the Departments and put it into his own hands. You don’t like local gerrymandering? Obama is planning on national gerrymandering, controlled by his White House.
It isn’t hard for me or anyone else who understands the Constitution to “allow the folks in DC to vote” by virtue of a Congressional act. It is impossible. I explained carefully in my final paragraph how it can be accomplished. Apparently, you also failed to understand the “extra votes.” What extra votes? Try reading what I wrote again, and argue it intelligently instead of calling it “garbage.”
It is not “extra votes.” It’s TWO seats EXACTLY, and not in the House, but in the Senate. As the matter presently stands, the Democrats gain nothing since the one seat in the House is offset by a Republican seat from Utah. It’s not just the one seat we’re challenging, since it’s a draw–one seat pickup for the Democrats, and one for the Republicans. The reason we challenge it is twofold: 1. It is unconstitutional, and 2. It opens the door for a further unconstitutional Congressional act granting DC two seats in the Senate. Do you understand now? Not garbage, but distinct possibility.
As for your final paragraph, I wouldn’t care if DC were lily-white and Republican. Giving them a vote in the House using a Congressional act is still unconstitutional. Your lack of understanding of the Constitution is precisely how the Democrats rammed this bill through in the first place. “. . . put up a bill that is just about DC and then I can vote on it.” How exactly do you plan on doing that? Do you have a vote in Congress, or do you plan on having Congress invent a national plebiscite so you can vote on it? Bill, schmill, that’s not how it works.
If you really want to vote on the issue, you can’t, but here’s how it’s done: You convince enough genuine Congressional representatives (House and Senate)to propose a bill making DC a state (or simply giving its citizens the right to have two Senators and a proportional number of House members). When that bill has the necessary two-thirds votes in both houses, it must then be sent to the states where three-quarters of the genuine state legislatures must vote in favor of it. The President, by the way, has no part in this process. Alternatively, you could convince two-thirds the state legislatures to call a constitutional convention, but since that method has never been used, it’s a little unlikely.
Creating a Congressional vote for DC by amendment is an arduous process. The Founding Fathers intended it to be that way. But it can be done. The Democrats simply chose a shorter, illegitimate and unconstitutional way to get what they wanted (and to set the stage for the two Senate seats).
Maybe require everyone in DC to declare a state, and district. That way they get their own representatives in Congress and everything else.
I don’t see any need for them to pay local taxes, but state (income, etc.) taxes is reasonable. With electronic voting everyone can have the correct ballot without sending in for an absentee ballot.
If they don’t declare, they default to Maryland, everybody wins.
Oh wait, it was never about giving members of DC representation was it…
Oh, in addition the same could go with any US citizen living in a US territory. Pick a state and a district and you’re golden. If you want Puerto Rico to be represented in Congress then write a State Constitution and make it one as provided in the US Constitution. Otherwise, entities that are not a State do not deserve the rights and privileges of a State.
Jeff and e: You are correct that residential portions of the District can be ceded back to the corresponding states that they were carved out of. It is even theoretically possible to reduce the District simply to the federal buildings, and nothing else. The Constitution requires only that it be the seat of government, nothing more. The reality is that this isn’t about “taxation without representation” and everybody knows it. It’s about creating a new heavily Democratic faux state without the bother of doing what the Constitution requires. Your solutions are both good and valid, but they would clearly not accomplish the underlying Democratic goal. They don’t just want votes, they want “votes plus.”
In the unlikely event that the residents of DC could actually succeed in getting the approval of two-thirds of Congress and three-quarters of the states for making DC a state, the whole current Democratic political plan would be thwarted. They want all the benefits and none of the burdens of being a state. With Marion Barry and his gang in charge, how would the state of Columbia (sorry, “Washington” is already taken) fund itself? It is almost entirely dependent on federal money, and even California hasn’t gone that far. The only thing that would be accomplished would be the creation of the poorest and most dangerous state in the union. But if the Democrats succeed in their current plan, they get votes in the House and later the Senate without ever having to demand that the District become a responsible, independent state. And they can continue to buy the District’s votes with the tax money from all the other states.
#11 Jeff Weimer – I wasn’t proposing a specific remedy, just that there should be one (yes, a Constitutional one). I know some feel there is a Constitutional issue, others interpret the Constitution differently, but in time, that will get sorted out (provided the courts ever get around to it).
Regardless of how long this has been a problem or the actual shape and form of the remedy, I stand by my statement that this needs to be fixed. If you want us to wait until DC becomes predominantly Republican or perhaps another say 80 years so you guys can get your sea legs back, just let us know.
#12 LawHawk – You assume to much if you think my comments were directed at you (or your comments), they weren’t. Relax. I hadn’t even read your post.
Jack
We have to do as much as we can to install liberal policies and agendas while we have the power. To make sure we are focused on helping the middle and lower classes get a bigger piece of the American pie. And to make sure taxes are raised on those that can afford it.
Well then, there is only one action we can take. The Republicans must work harder!
The majority of Democratic voters are ignorant and easily dazzled by melanin. The Democratic politicians are pandering to that ignorance in an effort to keep their jobs.
If a theater is filled to capacity and only one person yells, “Fire”, the others are going to hear it and react in some manner. Likewise, millions of people are yelling about Obama’s reckless leadership but no one is reacting at all. The Americans are being railroaded by those in power who care only about remaining in their jobs.
You people that talk about the Constipation as if it was a holly docuement, give me a break; the Constipation is trash; it was never written or amendmented to include African Americans. It is like all laws written by this government trash; trash that only gave rights to life and liberty to whites. The constipation is back wash that comes out of your rear end…..it is pure words on old paper..pure trash; it probably will not burn good!!!! Read it from an African Americans view.