DC Electoral College rights

[Luissa]

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.

none of these politician you say are out for their own interests would be able to vote in DC.
And what about the part of the constitution that says no taxation without representation?
The people who are tax paying citizens of DC have no voting power in congress but they have to pay the taxes that congress passes.

 

[DiamondDave]

Any group of people who continually voted for Marion Barry should lose any rights to vote

 

[Polk]

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.

DC already has representation in the Electoral College as if it were a state.

 

[Luissa]

Any group of people who continually voted for Marion Barry should lose any rights to vote

is marion a city councilman? Nope! So they didn't continue to vote for him.

 

[DiamondDave]

Any group of people who continually voted for Marion Barry should lose any rights to vote

is marion a city councilman? Nope! So they didn't continue to vote for him.

Marion Barry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Today, Barry again serves on the city council, representing Ward 8, which comprises Anacostia, Congress Heights, Washington Highlands, and other neighborhoods.

They have continually, and overwhelmingly voted this criminal crack-head into office

 

[Luissa]

Any group of people who continually voted for Marion Barry should lose any rights to vote

is marion a city councilman? Nope! So they didn't continue to vote for him.

Marion Barry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Today, Barry again serves on the city council, representing Ward 8, which comprises Anacostia, Congress Heights, Washington Highlands, and other neighborhoods.

They have continually, and overwhelmingly voted this criminal crack-head into office

you are right! I thought he lost.

 

[dilloduck]

is marion a city councilman? Nope! So they didn't continue to vote for him.

Marion Barry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Today, Barry again serves on the city council, representing Ward 8, which comprises Anacostia, Congress Heights, Washington Highlands, and other neighborhoods.

They have continually, and overwhelmingly voted this criminal crack-head into office

you are right! I thought he lost.

That's what you get for always backing the underdog (victim).

 

[Tech_Esq]

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

We have a written Constitution. It is written in perfectly legible and and clear English. The Constitution should be obeyed. I know the current fashion is to dodge and cheat the Constitution instead of obeying it, but that is no way to operate a country that claims to follow the "rule of law." In fact, it is THE most fundamental violation of the "rule of law" that can be had.

This has been the "law of the land" for more than 200 years, anyone who came to live in the District knows they can't vote for or have representation in Congress. My recommendation to them is not to live in the District, if this is a problem for them.

 

[Luissa]

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

We have a written Constitution. It is written in perfectly legible and and clear English. The Constitution should be obeyed. I know the current fashion is to dodge and cheat the Constitution instead of obeying it, but that is no way to operate a country that claims to follow the "rule of law." In fact, it is THE most fundamental violation of the "rule of law" that can be had.

This has been the "law of the land" for more than 200 years, anyone who came to live in the District knows they can't vote for or have representation in Congress. My recommendation to them is not to live in the District, if this is a problem for them.

I am not saying there shouldn't be an amendment but DC has a population of people who have no representation. Doesn't it also say in the constitution no taxation without representation?

 

[Big Black Dog]

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

We have a written Constitution. It is written in perfectly legible and and clear English. The Constitution should be obeyed. I know the current fashion is to dodge and cheat the Constitution instead of obeying it, but that is no way to operate a country that claims to follow the "rule of law." In fact, it is THE most fundamental violation of the "rule of law" that can be had.

This has been the "law of the land" for more than 200 years, anyone who came to live in the District knows they can't vote for or have representation in Congress. My recommendation to them is not to live in the District, if this is a problem for them.

Please don't use common sense and logic on this site. It confuses too many people!

 

[bodecea]

Um....Amendment XXIII anyone?

 

[Tech_Esq]

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

We have a written Constitution. It is written in perfectly legible and and clear English. The Constitution should be obeyed. I know the current fashion is to dodge and cheat the Constitution instead of obeying it, but that is no way to operate a country that claims to follow the "rule of law." In fact, it is THE most fundamental violation of the "rule of law" that can be had.

This has been the "law of the land" for more than 200 years, anyone who came to live in the District knows they can't vote for or have representation in Congress. My recommendation to them is not to live in the District, if this is a problem for them.

I am not saying there shouldn't be an amendment but DC has a population of people who have no representation. Doesn't it also say in the constitution no taxation without representation?

If they would like to amend the Constitution to accomplish what they desire, then I have no problem with them and I'll certainly take a look at their proposal. (In all fairness though, Jesse Jackson personally tried to get me to buy into the idea of Congressional voting rights for DC and didn't get too far, so I don't hold out too much hope for their argument.)

And no, it doesn't say in the Constitution, "No taxation without representation" was:

The battle cry "No taxation without representation!" was a great political slogan coined to counter the Sugar Act of 1764. In order to help recoup the debt it incurred during the French and Indian War (or the Seven Years' War), the British Parliament passed the act, which taxed all manner of foodstuffs imported into the colonies.

What's not in the Constitution

 

[Tech_Esq]

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

We have a written Constitution. It is written in perfectly legible and and clear English. The Constitution should be obeyed. I know the current fashion is to dodge and cheat the Constitution instead of obeying it, but that is no way to operate a country that claims to follow the "rule of law." In fact, it is THE most fundamental violation of the "rule of law" that can be had.

This has been the "law of the land" for more than 200 years, anyone who came to live in the District knows they can't vote for or have representation in Congress. My recommendation to them is not to live in the District, if this is a problem for them.

Please don't use common sense and logic on this site. It confuses too many people!

Oh damn! My bad BBD, glad you reminded me. Next time I'll just flame instead.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Um....Amendment XXIII anyone?

It's not clear from the OP, but I believe the point is that point was that they want to give DC 2 senators and a Congress "person" (whether members of congress are people is a matter of some dispute).

The XXIII amendment merely provides that the people in district can cast 3 electoral votes in the presidential election.

 

[bodecea]

Um....Amendment XXIII anyone?

It's not clear from the OP, but I believe the point is that point was that they want to give DC 2 senators and a Congress "person" (whether members of congress are people is a matter of some dispute).

The XXIII amendment merely provides that the people in district can cast 3 electoral votes in the presidential election.

All I did was go from the Thread title which is about the Electorial College...which is ONLY a factor in Presidential elections.

 

[Ringel05]

"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"

Wouldn't that make West Virgina illegal under the constitution?

 

[Tech_Esq]

"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"

Wouldn't that make West Virgina illegal under the constitution?

Truth is the rest of Virginia voted them off the island.


Alright, alright.....sigh....Virginia was in revolt at the time and technically not a part of the Union and (hmmm....funny how when you win you get to make the rules how you like them) and thus, West Virginia only needed Congressional approval at the time it seceded from Virginia. I think there were also 2 or 3 counties in Northeastern Alabama that also seceded from Alabama but nothing permanent came of it.

 

[Polk]

"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"

Wouldn't that make West Virgina illegal under the constitution?

Legally, no, as the legislature of Virginia agreed to West Virginia breaking off. However, the legality of that legislature is itself questionable. Basically, the people in what is now West Virginia set up their own loyalist legislature, which was then recognized by the federal government as the legitimate legislature for the entire state.

 

[Darkwind]

The problem is this.

There are residents in D.C. The District of Columbia should be nothing more then a place where the business of America is conducted. There should be no residents at all.

You want a Electorate voice. Live in one of the 50 States or territories of the United States.

 

[Polk]

The problem is this.

There are residents in D.C. The District of Columbia should be nothing more then a place where the business of America is conducted. There should be no residents at all.

You want a Electorate voice. Live in one of the 50 States or territories of the United States.

The territories don't have the vote either.