DC Electoral College rights

[RetiredGySgt]

What dishonest pukes we have for Congress critters. They KNOW that to give DC this right requires an amendment to the Constitution yet they keep trying to do it through an act of Congress.

An actual Amendment WAS submitted for this very purpose and failed to get the needed support to be ratified.

 

[xotoxi]

And...?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

List of amendments to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Unsuccessful attempts to amend the U.S. Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment proposed in 1978 (96th Congress), which—had it been ratified—would have repealed Amendment XXIII and granted to the people of Washington, D.C. the full voting rights in Congress of a U.S. state. It expired unratified in 1985, well short of the necessary approval by legislatures of three-fourths of the states.

The latest attempt included Congress granting some unspecified Red State an extra Vote while giving DC a vote in the Electoral College and a voting member of the House of Representatives.

Completely illegal unless created via an Amendment.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

And...?

Perfect example of why we have problems with over reaching Government, people that jst do not give a rats ass that the Government is operating illegally outside the power granted it by the Constitution.

 

[Luissa]

so what is your point? People live in Washington DC, shouldn't they have representation?

 

[Bill O'Olberman]

so what is your point? People live in Washington DC, shouldn't they have representation?

Cause they're not a state so the Constitution doesnt give them that right. Of course in a nation founded on the mantra of "no taxation without representation" those who oppose such an Amendment (OMGZ 4n0ther bloo state ahhhh!!1one!!1!1) are a large lot of hypocrites.

And the thread title seems misleading... D.C. already has voting rights in the electoral college as per the 23th Amendment, right? but not the voting rights in Congress.

 

[xotoxi]

And...?

Perfect example of why we have problems with over reaching Government, people that jst do not give a rats ass that the Government is operating illegally outside the power granted it by the Constitution.

Are you favoring not giving the people of the District of Columbia a right to vote for President?

 

[American Horse]

so what is your point? People live in Washington DC, shouldn't they have representation?

If that is the aim, amend the constitution, remove the District of Columbia (the political/administrative district) from being a stand alone district and give it to Virginia or Maryland. They will then have the same representation as the citizens of the rest of the country. It would be an injustice to give such a small district, made up of politicians and their hangers on to make it equal to a state. With that in view one can see why adding it to VA or MD would give either of them too much power, and therein lies the problem.

But as the OP implies, they should show a little respect for our first document and do the right thing; amend the Constitution.

 

[Si modo]

And...?

Perfect example of why we have problems with over reaching Government, people that jst do not give a rats ass that the Government is operating illegally outside the power granted it by the Constitution.

Are you favoring not giving the people of the District of Columbia a right to vote for President?

We can vote for president. WE don't get an electoral college vote.

Giving us one of those requires an amendment. That's his point - our congresscritters know this (or should know this) and they waste time each time they introduce it.

 

[American Horse]

Perfect example of why we have problems with over reaching Government, people that jst do not give a rats ass that the Government is operating illegally outside the power granted it by the Constitution.

Are you favoring not giving the people of the District of Columbia a right to vote for President?

We can vote for president. WE don't get an electoral college vote.

Giving us one of those requires an amendment. That's his point - our congresscritters know this (or should know this) and they waste time each time they introduce it.

But Si, all this has a greater implication than the voting rights of citizens of the district. If they can write legislation to nullify the constitution without amending it, they will have openly set a precedent that will in effect nullify any part of the Constitution they desire in the future and thereby make a statement as to it’s certitude as a set of rules.

The ability to do that, if not challenged and overturned, will then be a reflection on the Supreme Court, and it's willingness to accept laws passed willy-nilly over the certain rules laid out in the Constitution.
Do we want that to come to pass?

 

[Bill O'Olberman]

It would be an injustice to give such a small district, made up of politicians and their hangers on to make it equal to a state.

The population of D.C. is greater than that of Wyoming and rather close to the populations of states such as Vermont and North Dakota. By this logic it would be an injustice to continue to allow Wyoming to function as a state since it is so small.

And speaking as a Virginian, I dont D.C.

 

[American Horse]

It would be an injustice to give such a small district, made up of politicians and their hangers on to make it equal to a state.

The population of D.C. is greater than that of Wyoming and rather close to the populations of states such as Vermont and North Dakota. By this logic it would be an injustice to continue to allow Wyoming to function as a state since it is so small.

And speaking as a Virginian, I dont D.C.

That has nothing to do with it; Those are duly chartered as states. The status of DC is well known and from the start has been the ruling district and seat of government, and a city. If you or others want it changed, there is a legitimate way to change it. Simply follow the Constitution. According to the Constitution, the "states" have the right to pass on this one way or the other, not just self serving politicians of the moment.

 

[Si modo]

Are you favoring not giving the people of the District of Columbia a right to vote for President?

We can vote for president. WE don't get an electoral college vote.

Giving us one of those requires an amendment. That's his point - our congresscritters know this (or should know this) and they waste time each time they introduce it.

But Si, all this has a greater implication than the voting rights of citizens of the district. If they can write legislation to nullify the constitution without amending it, they will have openly set a precedent that will in effect nullify any part of the Constitution they desire in the future and thereby make a statement as to it’s certitude as a set of rules.

The ability to do that, if not challenged and overturned, will then be a reflection on the Supreme Court, and it's willingness to accept laws passed willy-nilly over the certain rules laid out in the Constitution.
Do we want that to come to pass?

Hell, no, we don't want that. But this is not the first time Congress has attempted introducing this particular proposal that is unconstitutional. Off hand, I can't think of any other unconstitutional bills they've considered, but I don't think that is anything new.

But, this is the beauty of separation of powers and checks and balances. IF they don't work, I'll worry about that aspect of this topic. But, right now, the aspect of the topic that annoys me is the inefficiency of it. Why the hell lawmakers either don't know the fundamentals of our laws, or do and willfully waste time is my issue with it right now.

Scarlett O, here: I'll worry about a potential failure of checks and balances tomorrow (or whenever I need to worry about it). For now, the waste of time annoys me and obviously I must often be annoyed with Congress.

 

[Big Black Dog]

What dishonest pukes we have for Congress critters. They KNOW that to give DC this right requires an amendment to the Constitution yet they keep trying to do it through an act of Congress.

An actual Amendment WAS submitted for this very purpose and failed to get the needed support to be ratified.

You know, for a long time I have had the feeling that the people we have in Congress were dishonest pukes - or maybe even worse - but I could never come to actually believe it. You have changed my mind. They are dishonest pukes! Thanks. As far as DC getting a seat in the Electoral College, I don't support it because they are not a State and it was not the intention of our founding Fathers for Washington, DC to be a State. DC should just suck it up and be grateful for all the other perks Congress gives them every year.

 

[American Horse]

We can vote for president. WE don't get an electoral college vote.

Giving us one of those requires an amendment. That's his point - our congresscritters know this (or should know this) and they waste time each time they introduce it.

But Si, all this has a greater implication than the voting rights of citizens of the district. If they can write legislation to nullify the constitution without amending it, they will have openly set a precedent that will in effect nullify any part of the Constitution they desire in the future and thereby make a statement as to it’s certitude as a set of rules.

The ability to do that, if not challenged and overturned, will then be a reflection on the Supreme Court, and it's willingness to accept laws passed willy-nilly over the certain rules laid out in the Constitution.
Do we want that to come to pass?

Hell, no, we don't want that. But this is not the first time Congress has attempted introducing this particular proposal that is unconstitutional. Off hand, I can't think of any other unconstitutional bills they've considered, but I don't think that is anything new.

But, this is the beauty of separation of powers and checks and balances. IF they don't work, I'll worry about that aspect of this topic. But, right now, the aspect of the topic that annoys me is the inefficiency of it. Why the hell lawmakers either don't know the fundamentals of our laws, or do and willfully waste time is my issue with it right now.

Scarlett O, here: I'll worry about a potential failure of checks and balances tomorrow (or whenever I need to worry about it). For now, the waste of time annoys me and obviously I must often be annoyed with Congress.

They are trying to wear us down. They will know they have succeeded when they do it and no one raises a fuss. These inroads against the Constitution take place all the time in states rights, religious rights, free speech issues, gun rights. They are attempting to show the Constitution to be a dysfunctional document, and then go from there.

 

[Bill O'Olberman]

That has nothing to do with it; Those are duly chartered as states. The status of DC is well known and from the start has been the ruling district and seat of government, and a city. If you or others want it changed, there is a legitimate way to change it. Simply follow the Constitution. According to the Constitution, the "states" have the right to pass on this one way or the other, not just self serving politicians of the moment.

My point was that size isnt a factor. I stand by my earlier statement:

Cause they're not a state so the Constitution doesnt give them that right. Of course in a nation founded on the mantra of "no taxation without representation" those who oppose such an Amendment (OMGZ 4n0ther bloo state ahhhh!!1one!!1!1) are a large lot of hypocrites.

 

[Si modo]

That has nothing to do with it; Those are duly chartered as states. The status of DC is well known and from the start has been the ruling district and seat of government, and a city. If you or others want it changed, there is a legitimate way to change it. Simply follow the Constitution. According to the Constitution, the "states" have the right to pass on this one way or the other, not just self serving politicians of the moment.

My point was that size isnt a factor. I stand by my earlier statement:

Cause they're not a state so the Constitution doesnt give them that right. Of course in a nation founded on the mantra of "no taxation without representation" those who oppose such an Amendment (OMGZ 4n0ther bloo state ahhhh!!1one!!1!1) are a large lot of hypocrites.

And, I find the most powerful rebuttal to this point is the founders' principle of not having the seat of the federal government in any state so as to keep all states and their people as equal as possible.

Both sides of the debate have virtue and very strong points, IMO.

Bottom line, though, Congress cannot just pass a bill and make it so. This is bigger than that.

 

[Navy1960]

DC residents seek Statehood because it is the most appropriate mechanism to grant the US citizens who reside in the District of Columbia the full rights privileges of American citizenship. These rights would include not only full voting rights in the US House of Representatives and US Senate, but also full control over its own local affairs.

The United States is the only nation in the world with a representative, democratic constitution that denies voting representation in the national legislature to the citizens of the capital.
DC Government Resource Center: DC Statehood

Full statehood for D.C. could arguably be achieved by an act of Congress by exercising the powers granted by Article Four, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution, although there is some debate about whether the consent of Maryland would be required.

Some aspects of the D.C. statehood agenda were achieved with the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, passed in 1973. Still more were encompassed in the District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment, which passed Congress in 1978 but failed to be ratified by a sufficient number of states to become an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The deadline for ratification of the D.C. Voting Rights Amendment passed on August 22, 1985.

Two years later, in 1980, local citizens passed an initiative calling for a constitutional convention for a new state. In 1982, voters ratified the constitution[1] of the state. Since that time, legislation to enact this proposed state constitution has routinely been introduced in Congress, but has never been passed.

"New Columbia" is the name of the proposed U.S. state that would be created by the admission of Washington, D.C. into the United States as the 51st state according to legislation offered starting in the 98th Congress in 1983 and routinely re-introduced in succeeding Congresses. The Congressional legislation was triggered by the provisional D.C. Statehood constitution that Washington, D.C. voters adopted in November 1982.

D.C. statehood movement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress"


"To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles [16.1 km] square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings"


It would appear that if D.C. actually wanted to become a state there are many problems with this. First it would need the consent of the Virginia and Maryland legislatures as D.C was originally established from land from those states. The other would be the issue posed in the constitution as to the purpose that this "federal district" is for. In order to change this, you would need IMHO a constitutional amendment that negates the establisment of both of those clauses in the constitution in order for D.C. to achieve statehood. The only problem you have with that is, then other states can use the same amendment to break themselves down geographically and then you have not only a 51st state but rather many more states. D.C. residents are represented locally, as well as nationally and know by living in a federal district what the restrictions of living there are.

 

[Si modo]

Virginia already has it's chunk of DC - Arlington County.

 

[Luissa]

so what is your point? People live in Washington DC, shouldn't they have representation?

If that is the aim, amend the constitution, remove the District of Columbia (the political/administrative district) from being a stand alone district and give it to Virginia or Maryland. They will then have the same representation as the citizens of the rest of the country. It would be an injustice to give such a small district, made up of politicians and their hangers on to make it equal to a state. With that in view one can see why adding it to VA or MD would give either of them too much power, and therein lies the problem.

But as the OP implies, they should show a little respect for our first document and do the right thing; amend the Constitution.

most of those politicians do no vote in DC along with most of their hanger ons.