why are the Democrats/Congress idiots?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Admiral
Congress can't pass a law giving DC a seat in Congress. However, it is absurd that DC does not have Federal representation. So I'd rather have them give DC a seat illegitimately than have it not get a seat at all.

1) Because of course if something is important we can just ignore the Constitution, right? You go on the idiot list. Especially since I'm sure many/most of its supporters are voting for it knowing full well it would be struck down - and thus [passing] it has no negative consequences.

2) DC has 535 seats in Congress. Why do they need one more?

[Admiral]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


1) Because of course if something is important we can just ignore the Constitution, right? You go on the idiot list. Especially since I'm sure many/most of its supporters are voting for it knowing full well it would be struck down - and thus [passing] it has no negative consequences.

2) DC has 535 seats in Congress. Why do they need one more?

The point of having a seat in Congress is having a representative. Not one of the 535 members of Congress count residents of DC as constituents. Effectively, it means they don't care about the residents of DC. But more importantly, the people who pass laws governing DC are not elected by the residents of DC. Explain to me how that is democratic?

Obviously, the ony way to resolve this finally is an amendment. However, it takes a lot to get the ball rolling on an amendment. Having this measure debated in Congress will go a long way towards accomplishing that.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Admiral
The point of having a seat in Congress is having a representative. Not one of the 535 members of Congress count residents of DC as constituents.

They are residents of DC.

Effectively, it means they don't care about the residents of DC.

Oh, they care all right.

But more importantly, the people who pass laws governing DC are not elected by the residents of DC. Explain to me how that is democratic?

Every single representive of DC already has a tremendous personal interest in the city. It is their home.

Obviously, the ony way to resolve this finally is an amendment. However, it takes a lot to get the ball rolling on an amendment. Having this measure debated in Congress will go a long way towards accomplishing that.

Bull****! Having this measure debated in Congress allows a bunch of Senators and representatives with no principles to get a sweet-sounding empty soundbite with no consequences, since the Supreme Court would strike it down.

And I can't believe you have the gall to suggest that it's okay for Congress to violate the Constitution as long as it's to a good end when, IIRC, you were one of those outraged over Bush's illegal wiretapping.

[LordShiva]

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed.

I wish I wasn't taxed

[Admiral]

The twenty-third amendment implies the right of DC to vote for representatives.

[Kuciwalker]

Only to an idiot. It very specifically gives DC the right to electors for President. If it gave DC the right to a representative (but why not Senators, too? DC gets the electors corresponding to the Senators it would have, by the 23rd), it would say so.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
Why should American citizens be denied congressional representation?

That being said, i agree with the OP -- this is an asinine way to go about it.

In the past, if you were an American citizen residing in a territory not yet recognized for statehood you would not have representation in Congress.

Get over it. If you don't like being unrepresented, move.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Originally posted by Admiral
The point of having a seat in Congress is having a representative. Not one of the 535 members of Congress count residents of DC as constituents.

They are residents of DC.

No, by definition they must be legal residents of the state they represent. They get a loophole in that time spent in DC representing their state doesn't count against residency law restrictions.

[Elok]

I don't know enough to talk about the constitutionality, but the Representatives do NOT represent D.C. They live there, yes (at least for part of the year), but it's not like congresspeople have the concerns of ordinary citizens. They don't have to worry about employment, healthcare, or just about anything else, given their benefits. I know they're not worried about DC's economic growth, its gang problems, or its educational system. And very few laws they passed would have any effect on them in that respect anyway, since they're not technically DC residents.

And, of course, the citizens of DC did not vote for them, so they send all their pork back to whatever state did.

[Kuciwalker]

DC receives more federal funding per capita than any state.

[Ramo]

Every single representive of DC already has a tremendous personal interest in the city. It is their home.

That's absurd reasoning. They also have a median income an order of magnitude or so more than the residents of DC (a disparity that was probably bigger before they entered Congres). The interests of Congress are entirely different from that of DC.

And if we construe this section as giving Congress the power to give a representative to the District, it then has equal power to give any military base represenation, which is absurd.

If they're citizens of the US, they have legal residence in one of the states (unless they're from DC), so have representation in Congress. The same obviously cannot be said of residents of DC.

Anyways, the proposal is probably unconstitutional, but the status quo is pretty morally repugnant. I'd like to see DC's representation folded into VA or MD.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Straybow

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Originally posted by Admiral
The point of having a seat in Congress is having a representative. Not one of the 535 members of Congress count residents of DC as constituents.

They are residents of DC.

No, by definition they must be legal residents of the state they represent. They get a loophole in that time spent in DC representing their state doesn't count against residency law restrictions.

I am using the common, not legal definition of the term "resident."

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ramo
That's absurd reasoning. They also have a median income an order of magnitude or so more than the residents of DC (a disparity that was probably bigger before they entered Congres). The interests of Congress are entirely different from that of DC.

Interests like low crime, good transportation, etc... and one representative will change that?

If DC wants to manage its own problems, that's what the local government is for. The national government has supremacy because the entire purpose of DC is to give it somewhere to function. If the people of DC don't like that, they can leave.

If they're citizens of the US, they have legal residence in one of the states (unless they're from DC), so have representation in Congress. The same obviously cannot be said of residents of DC.

Or unless they're from Puerto Rico.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
2) DC has 535 seats in Congress. Why do they need one more?

Only technically, because Congress is located there. Since they can't vote for a representative, there is no one who's job is on the line if they do stuff that Washingtonians don't like.

D.C. needs a representative. So does Puerto Rico, and the Pacific territories. The Virgin Islands can suck it.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
DC receives more federal funding per capita than any state.

That's because the Federal government is there, and that's where they get their pay.