Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
Reddit
In 2007, the 600,000 disenfranchised residents of Washington, DC were just three votes shy of overcoming a Republican filibuster and passing legislation to give them a voting representative in Congress for the first time. On Tuesday, the House took up the fight to strengthen our democracy once again, as Congressman Jerry Nadler chaired the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties hearing on the "District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2009."
The room was packed with citizens from the District--so many were there that they were ushered to a spillover room down the corridor where proceedings could be viewed on closed-circuit TV. The Mayor of DC, Adrian Fenty, was on hand even though he wasn't a witness, as was Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton.
There were a slew of witnesses advocating for this bill--as there should be for something so key to our forming a more perfect union-- including: Majority Leader Steny Hoyer; former Republican Congressman Tom Davis; President of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, Wade Henderson; US Army Guard Captain and Bronze Star recipient--and native of the District of Columbia -- Yolanda Lee; and Viet Dinh, an Assistant Attorney General under that guy who thankfully is back in Crawford. Also entered into the record were letters of support from twenty-five leading constitutional scholars and Judge Kenneth Starr--yes, that Kenneth Starr.
Hoyer told the subcommittee he intends to bring the bill to the floor for a vote "in the very near term."
"Out of all the world's democracies," Hoyer said, "Washington DC... is the only capitol in the free world whose citizens do not have a voting member in their Parliament. This bill is about setting that blight right... As our nation's story tells us again and again, a vote means dignity."
Republican opponents of this bill--all of whom claimed that they support voting representation for District residents--said that Congress can't give the District a seat in the House because the Constitution says that is reserved for representatives of states. Former Congressman Davis pointed out that by that logic the federal government wouldn't be able to tax District residents because it isn't a state; District residents wouldn't have a right to a jury trial; and Congress wouldn't be able to regulate the District as part of interstate commerce.
"If Congress has the authority to [protect and enforce] constitutionally granted rights and duties," Davis said, "there should be no question it has the same authority to protect the most sacred right of every American--to live and participate in a representative republic."
Indeed, former Assistant Attorney General Dinh pointed out that "the Constitution grants Congress the broadest possible legislative authority over the District of Columbia," a power "described as majestic in scope."
Proponents know that if the bill is signed into law it will face a legal challenge and probably end up before the Supreme Court. "But whichever side we come down on, I think we can agree that legal arguments are best sorted out in the courts," Majority Leader Hoyer said. "At this point in the debate, we should make our case on principle, not technicalities. If you oppose this bill, you need to tell us: Just what does our country gain by treating the people of Washington, DC differently from America's other 300 million?"
That "different treatment" was perhaps best captured by fourth generation Washingtonian and former Iraq combat logistical patrol commander, Captain Lee, who said, "I am proud to be an American. I am proud to be a Washingtonian. And I am proud to be a soldier. That will never change. But I ask you to change my status as an American citizen who pays taxes and serves in war and peace, but is entitled only to a non-voting delegate in the US House of Representatives."
The hearing wasn't lacking in the bizarre. Texas Republican Congressman Louie Gohmert is against this bill, but said repeatedly that he is really moved by DC's "Taxation without Representation" license plates and the plight of the District residents. His solution? He's offering a bill that would end federal taxes for District residents. Screw the representation, end the taxation. (Definitely not a great move for the country at this moment--DC pays the second highest per capita federal income taxes.) The other idea repeatedly offered by Republicans: give the District to Maryland.
After the hearing, (non-voting) Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton made the keen observation that all of these Republicans so concerned about the constitutionality of this bill seem to have no questions whatsoever about the constitutionality of simply handing the District over to Maryland. She also addressed my concern about President Barack Obama's recent comment to the Washington Post that he supports a voting representative for the District, "But this takes on a partisan flavor, and, you know, right now I think our legislative agenda's chock-full."
"I talked to them afterwards to make sure I hadn't misunderstood," she said. "The President co-sponsored the bill. That comment came up in terms of his own priorities... economic stimulus priorities. [They tried] to throw him into the mix of something that he has no responsibility for. All I need him to do is sign the bill.... We don't want him in that part of the mix [in Congress]--because it's getting real partisan over here.... As far as I'm concerned he's already signed it, because he's a cosponsor of the bill."
Ilir Zherka, Executive Director of the education and advocacy organization DC Vote, also attended the hearing. He's been working on this bill for six years and told me he's optimistic about its chances. "Ultimately, elections matter," Zherka said. "And what happened last year was that there were a bunch of very important elections--most of them broke our way, we have more support in the Senate as a result, and of course we have President Barack Obama who will sign this into law."
But Zherka also said the bill's "opponents are both smart and determined to stop us." They will try to introduce amendments that are "poison pills", and then there are the delay tactics of Senate Minority Leader Dr. No (my nickname for McConnell, not Zherka's). Zherka would like to see President Obama help build momentum for the bill by switching the tags on his motorcade to DC's "Taxation without Representation" plates--which he feels would receive media coverage nationwide and worldwide--and take the opportunity on Lincoln's birthday to speak to "the incomplete democracy that we have in the nation's capitol, and how important it is to finish the work of Lincoln here in Washington, DC."
DC Voting Rights were well represented in Congress yesterday, but this fight is just beginning--once again. You can tell President Obama that you hope he will do what he can to support this effort by clicking here.
With reporting from Capitol Hill by Greg Kaufmann, a freelance writer living in his disenfranchised hometown of Washington, DC.
Share this article
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Thoughts on politics, current affairs, riffs and reflections on what’s in the news and what’s not--but should be.
RSS
Actually, a vote for DC residents doesn't mean dignity, Katrina. It's a political power play to give 500,000 people, most of them wards of the state either directly or indirectly, the same reliably knee-jerk liberal Senatorial representation as the entire state of California. But you're a smart woman, you knew that already.
Posted by pontificus at 01/28/2009 @ 10:08am
his rehash has already been discussed and solved the las 12 times it has been brought up here...
Let them vote in Virginia or Maryland...
But the real desire is a permanent Dem, black, seat in the house and senate until the second coming and beyond....for democracy of course..oh, yeah, and fairness.
Posted by YourJomamma at 01/28/2009 @ 10:10am
Yawner to firast 30 times. Muyst be recicle time again...I think a pattern is begining to emerge with some of these perinial topics and articles...
Kinda like summer reruns....
Just as boring as the first time around.
Posted by YourJomamma at 01/28/2009 @ 10:13am
Sorry for typos...can't find my glasses..
Posted by YourJomamma at 01/28/2009 @ 10:14am
Ms vanden Heuvel, what exactly IS the problem with folding DC into Maryland?
Posted by Mask at 01/28/2009 @ 10:22am
send 'em back to africa, ¿right john?
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/28/2009 @ 10:25am
"It's a political power play to give 500,000 people, most of them wards of the state either directly or indirectly, the same reliably knee-jerk liberal Senatorial representation as the entire state of California."
Agreed. If they're going to vote against right-wing concerns, they definitely shouldn't be allowed to. Democracy can't survive without minorities being disallowed from participating. Unless of course, they're participation furthers anything but perceived "reliably knee-jerk liberal Senatorial representation."
That is, democratic representation is okay for people so long as they vote how I want them to. Otherwise, fuck 'em.
Posted by oog_of_ulams at 01/28/2009 @ 11:08am
Posted by oog_of_ulams at 01/28/2009 @ 11:08am
I think political reality intrudes in this matter, oog.
We can't pretend that DC statehood (and let's not pretend THAT is not what this is eventually about) doesn't have some pretty clear partisan ramifications....and blatent advantages for the Democratic Party.
It's not just a "unforeseen side effect"....anymore than allowing Utah to split into two states or Texas split into four states wouldn't have some obvious advantages for Republicans.
And I've never heard a really good explanation for why DC can't be folded into Maryland.
It allows the DC residents to vote for Congressional representation (as a Congressional district or even TWO districts of Maryland)...and they are represented by the 2 US Senators from Maryland. Thus democracy is granted, but it allows no "freebie Senators" for one party. Any problems on domestic spending on MD's part (to cover the new citizens), can be resolved with a Congressional aid package for 10 years or whatever seems fair.
The fact that this proposal (quite fair and democratic) gets immediately shot down (as it was by Ms vanden Heuvel) would make even a non-Republican a bit suspicious of the true motives.
Posted by Mask at 01/28/2009 @ 11:17am
If most of DC's 600,000 residents were white evangelicals, do you think Katrina would care about giving them voting representation? Please. We know what this is about.
Posted by jimmylove at 01/28/2009 @ 12:22pm
but isn't nebraska's first congressional district an all-white, all republican district since like forever.?
hey!
that's fair.
make d.c. part of nebraska!
that'll spice things up.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/28/2009 @ 12:35pm
i demand equal representation for guam, northern mariana islands, puerto rico, the u.s. virgin islands and, of course, american samoa.
what say you?
oops, more brown people.
hey!
make them part of nebraska, too.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/28/2009 @ 12:38pm
and help the homeless!
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/28/2009 @ 12:39pm
and help the homeless!
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/28/2009 @ 12:39pm
Be careful mentioning the homeless or she's gonna bitch you out again. Not many of those in Morningside Heights.
Posted by Benchrest at 01/28/2009 @ 1:03pm
Posted by Benchrest at 01/28/2009 @ 1:03pm
Lets not degenerate into personal attacks on KVH. It just so happens that people of means like Roosevelt, the Kennedys & others have championed average income Americans, as well as the poor & disenfranchised.
You may well be seen by a homeless person as inordinately wealthy.
And I've never seen FZ bash KVH.
Posted by Sorelish at 01/28/2009 @ 1:49pm
What an interesting post based on obvious partisanship. That's cool. Too bad that concern over the "the 600,000 disenfranchised residents of Washington, DC" doesn't extend to the voucher program. Well, at least Obama's kids support public education and go to a public school. Wait a sec...
Another thing in KvH's article that sticks out is her assumption that, given the power to vote, all eligible DC voters would hit the polls? I wonder how many of the 600,000 would be self-disenfranchising...
This isn't really about the citizens of DC. It is about power. I wonder why KvH tries so hard to package it otherwise.
Posted by freiheit1 at 01/28/2009 @ 2:00pm
Those attacking DC's rights are missing the point. We live in a democracy, and as such our elected officials need to gain the support of the people. Having grown up just across the border in MD I can say that DC is a unique and special place and should not be annexed by MD or VA or anyother state for that matter. Washingtonians are not like people from VA or MD, and their individuals voices, views and opinions should be valued in the very government that they live directly under. It should be able to maintain its own unique character. Having said that, if Republicans fail to gain the support of Washingtonians than that is their own fault. Kerry lost the 2004 elections because, among other reasons, he failed to make a serious campaign in many Republican states. On the flipside, Obama could not have won had he not gained the support of Republicans in states like NC or Iowa. Any Republican bitter over the idea that DC would always go Democratic is a fool and fails to understand how our democracy functions. It doesn't always have to be such if Republicans value their fellow citizens in places like DC and appeal to them.
Posted by Blanky at 01/28/2009 @ 2:01pm
it was a joke, that's all.
i'm sure ms. vanhalen hovel (just kidding -- your name has too many vowels. are you a terrorist?) has done plenty to help homeless folks.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/28/2009 @ 2:02pm
Any Republican bitter over the idea that DC would always go Democratic is a fool and fails to understand how our democracy functions.
Posted by Blanky at 01/28/2009 @ 2:01pm
fuctionsish.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/28/2009 @ 2:05pm
"We live in a democracy"
Thanks Blanky. All this time I believed we lived in a republic! wow!
Posted by freiheit1 at 01/28/2009 @ 2:09pm
hey frei,
look at this:
http://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2009/1/25/
saupload_cm_capture_15_thumb1.jpg
eek!
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/28/2009 @ 2:14pm
"The cost of the bailout ($4.6165 trillion) exceeds the inflation adjusted cost of the Marshall Plan, New Deal, S&L Bailout, Nasa's Lifetime Budget, the Korean, Vietnam, and Iraq wars and also the Lousiana Purchase, combined ($3.92 trillion). "
oops ;+], wrong thread.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/115525-the-scariest-
chart-ever?source=article_sb_popular
<<<<>>>>
frei, check out the scariest chart ever.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/28/2009 @ 2:16pm
Hi Frosty, yeah, we're past the point of no return.
Like the psychologist in the Sixth Sense, we just don't know it yet.
C'est la vie.
Posted by freiheit1 at 01/28/2009 @ 2:34pm
The principles of full suffrage were clearly laid out by George Mason in the Virginia Declaration of Rights, June, 1776: "6. That elections of members to serve as representatives of the people in assembly ought to be free; and that all men, having sufficient evidence of permanent common interest with, and attachment to, the community have the right of suffrage and cannot be taxed or deprived of their property for public uses without their own consent or that of their representatives so elected, nor bound by any law to which they have not, in like manner, assented, for the public good. "
Those rights of suffrage are timeless, indestructible, INALIENABLE; ie, innate, inherent, intrinsic. They cannot be bought, sold, taken away, or traded, whether for a bowl of pottage or for freedom from taxes. At most, they may fail to be recognized or respected...that is what has been happening for the last 200-plus years with regard to DC.
Please note also, that Senator Steny Hoyer, representing the people of the state of Maryland, made absolutely no effort, to my knowledge, to advance the idea of retrocession of DC to Maryland.
Posted by citizenw at 01/28/2009 @ 2:46pm
Posted by Blanky at 01/28/2009 @ 2:01pm
So Washingtonians are somehow "culturally different" from Marylanders or Virginians?
What are they an Amish enclave...or Mormon polygamists or something?
I'd like a little honesty first and foremost, is it-
1. I want Congressional representation by legitimate democratic voting for the citizens of the District of Columbia, and that's it.
2. I want DC statehood and this is just a step in the proces.
If # 1, then Maryland annexation solves that quite nicely.
If # 2, don't pretend that the LARGE Senatorial advantage that that would give to one political party is just a "Well, what do you know about that? It WOULD give two pretty-solid and nearly-unbreakable Senate votes for the Dems. What a surprise!"
The Right is right on this one. If there was a "Federal district" in UTAH....and the conservatives were pushing for its statehood and claiming "What? It's JUST about democracy for those poor folks in 'Deseret District'! And they are 'distinctly different' from the people in Provo and Salt Lake City!"...
nobody would buy that.
Posted by Mask at 01/28/2009 @ 3:01pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/28/2009 @ 3:09pm
Not that "transcendent"....We POLITICALLY agree on abortion, Larry...though you'd be loathe to call it an "agreement".
As far as re-criminalization of it, we both oppose it. I have no problem with you trying convince people it's wrong and "win hearts and minds"...free speech.
I don't think it is...but as you aren't calling for banning it...we got no problem.
That may be about it though...heheh
Posted by Mask at 01/28/2009 @ 3:52pm
so is the only argument against dc being represented in the house that it would be favorable for democrats??? i'm not sure i understand why it would be such a huge deal for them to be a part of the process-especially since they are effected by what the house decides, just like all of us "staters." if someone would please indulge me and explain, i would be much obliged-in a non-biased way... please.
Posted by caelsia at 01/28/2009 @ 3:55pm
Mask, They are not an amish enclave or anything like that. To even insinuate something is rubbish and missing my point altogether. Perhaps cultural difference is the wrong word. Regardless, my point is that what is so great about American is that different people from different places can voice their own unique opinions, views, and understanding to help shape and influence legislation. Washingtonians are distinct in that they live in a city and face challenges that come with living in an urban environment. MD and VA are people who go home after work and stay in the comfort, security, and isolation of their home. That distinction is enough to influence a different view and understanding of the world and how people relate to each other.
I am for voting rights and DC statehood. Retrocession to MD would not suffice. To include them in MD would be disrespectful to Washingtonians who have created their own local community and culture.
Additionally, you conveniently ignored my other point which is that yes, if it gained statehood than yes there would be more Democrats in Congress, giving them an advantage. BUT SO WHAT! That would only be currently. In the next election they would be fair game for Republicans to gain new constituents and a new seat in Congress.
As for the Utah question, that is absurd because that is neither here nor there. But just to entertain the idea, I would support the issue in the same why I support DC Rights. I would then compel Democratic candidates to work hard to win their support over Republicans.
Instead of crying about not having their support why don't Republicans do something to win their support.
It is embarrassing that we fight for democracy in places like Iraq and Afghanistan but can't even uphold those values in places like DC.
Posted by Blanky at 01/28/2009 @ 5:01pm
it's good to see that racism is alive and well on this thread. you know who you are.
Posted by emile duBois at 01/28/2009 @ 5:02pm
Why is The Nation afraid to criticize Andy Stern and his corropt and autocratic regime? Are the democratic rights of union members to determine the direction of the union not as important as anyone else's rights? Or is The Nation enthralled by Stern's phony image as a visionary labor leader?
Posted by Charlie R at 01/28/2009 @ 5:23pm
>>>If most of DC's 600,000 residents were white evangelicals, do you think Katrina would care about giving them voting representation? Please. We know what this is about.
Posted by jimmylove at 01/28/2009 @ 12:22pm<<<
In fairness to KVH, I think she WOULD support voting rights to DC even if it was inhabited by Palin types.
Posted by Metteyya at 01/28/2009 @ 5:46pm
how bout you give us d.c. - and we'll let you gerrymander the shit out of a state equal in size.
Posted by urmygyro at 01/28/2009 @ 6:01pm
<i>Posted by freiheit1 at 01/28/2009 @ 2:00pm </i>
In fairness to Obama on this one, I've heard that one motivating consideration for their schooling arrangement was actually security. No, not "those people in private schools are less dangerous to us," but that they were choosing a school based partly on how easily it would be logistically to make sure nothing happened to either Sasha or Malia.
<i>Posted by Blanky at 01/28/2009 @ 5:01pm </i>
This feeds right into Mask's post. By your reasoning, every city which had acquired some identity should obtain separate and independent representatives in the US Congress. You completely concede his Utah example, which you kind of have to, but in the process are forced to accept a completely absurd conclusion. We don't need a Congress where every big city gets a completely separate vote.
Also...cities ARE currently represented in governing processes, thanks to a lovely thing known as federalism. Their particular interests can get heard in state government, just as the interests of rural regions do. Our constitutional system, however, is one that reasonably chooses to allocate representation in the national government by state, not by "particular parochical locale."
So...outside of "maybe there's something special about DC," you've made no convincing argument why retrocession to Maryland or Virginia is at all a bad idea.
Posted by Thrawn at 01/28/2009 @ 6:02pm
forget amending the constituiton - the bible actually calls for d.c. voting rights. let's finally let the bible have it's day in the sun, it's been ignored for too long.
Posted by urmygyro at 01/28/2009 @ 6:05pm
<i>Posted by urmygyro at 01/28/2009 @ 6:05pm </i>
You know, that's actually a really good point. I'd forgotten about that. Here's the excerpt, if you were looking for it:
And to thy District of Columbia, thou shalt provide representation that is equal and holy before the Lord. - Levicitus 590:98-99
I...concede immediately.
:D
Posted by Thrawn at 01/28/2009 @ 6:55pm
nostradamus predicted it too...so it's not even worth fighting
Posted by urmygyro at 01/28/2009 @ 6:57pm
And even if it were...only till 2012.
Posted by Thrawn at 01/28/2009 @ 7:05pm
But the real desire is a permanent Dem, black, seat in the house and senate until the second coming and beyond....for democracy of course..oh, yeah, and fairness.
Posted by YourJomamma at 01/28/2009 @ 10:10am | ignore this person | warn this person
So much for the leftist and Undemocrats returning us to "constitutional rule"! Just another strictly partison attempt to garner locked in votes for Undemocrats and more representation for them! I think they really want a DICTATORSHIP but are too GUTLESS to be honest!!!
Posted by comancheamerican at 01/28/2009 @ 7:15pm
Posted by urmygyro at 01/28/2009 @ 6:05pm
"forget amending the constituiton - the bible actually calls for d.c. voting rights. let's finally let the bible have it's day in the sun, it's been ignored for too long."
Well, if the BIBLE says so...then it must be right. I've changed my mind. I didn't mind being against the "dignity of 600,000 people" (and Katrina will take the two Democratic Senators, too, thank you very much) but I ain't about to buck the word of God!
Posted by pontificus at 01/28/2009 @ 9:25pm
Posted by Thrawn at 01/28/2009 @ 6:02pm
"So...outside of "maybe there's something special about DC," you've made no convincing argument why retrocession to Maryland or Virginia is at all a bad idea."
Retrocession to VA makes no sense. VA's contribution to DC (Arlington) was taken back by VA a long time ago. Maryland ceded the property that is now DC, and that's where DC's voters should be enfranchised, if at all. I am well-familiar with the population of DC, being as it were consisting of 99.99% lawyers and lobbyists, government employees, and welfare recipients, and they'll make a fine addition to the State of Maryland, my home state and former place of residence.
Posted by pontificus at 01/28/2009 @ 9:35pm
The difference between DC and any other city in America is that DC is an island of a city. It developed its identity and city separate from a larger state. It is a city that has no larger state to turn to voice itself to about its problems. It is controlled by Congress, of which it does not vote for. An example of how this works against the city's interest. DC is the only city in the country that does not have a needle exchange program. At the end of 2007 DC was named the city with the highest rate of HIV /AIDS infection. 13% of all newly reported cases of HIV/AIDS were a result of sharing bad needles. That number is far too high and unnecessary with a needle exchange program. It is the federal government that prevents the city from using tax dollars to fund needle exchange programs. If there was taxation with representation in DC than I can guarantee you that the city would have a needle exchange program.
DC is not MD or VA and should not become part of any other state. Would it be ok to all of a sudden say combine CT and RI just because those states are really small and no one cares about them? No. It is too late in time for us to start redrawing state and district (of columbia) lines. People, cities, and states have formed their own identities and are proud and happy to live in the states and cities that they do. Washingtonians are proud to be Washingtonians. They pay their taxes and deserve to live with the government of their choosing.
Posted by Blanky at 01/28/2009 @ 9:37pm
Posted by Blanky at 01/28/2009 @ 9:37pm
"They pay their taxes and deserve to live with the government of their choosing."
Dude, DC already has their own local government, voted by their own citizens. We're talking about giving 600,000 people, most of whom have a direct personal interest in expanding the government, the exact same Senatorial representation as the State of California. This is the whole reason why the entity of DC was created without Congressional representation in the first place. DC is absolutely NOTHING without the federal government except swampland. I think most people know that the only reason why it's even being considered is because the Dems have the opportunity to pack the Congress with a few more reliable votes, and they just may take it...and all for 'Dignity', of course!
Posted by pontificus at 01/28/2009 @ 9:53pm
Posted by Blanky at 01/28/2009 @ 5:01pm
Blanky, again "DC is 'different'" is not a valid argument. Baltimore is 'different' from Annapolis.
Posted by Mask at 01/28/2009 @ 10:11pm
Would the congressmen representing all the states in the union, be reprsented by a congressman or senator from DC...?
...and if the congressman representing the other states who now live in the state of DC, be a resident of DC and therefore could not be a resident of the state they are representing in Congress..be thrown out of congress for not fitting the requirements for office from the state they used to represent?
Would state of DC draw more cash from Fed govt than they do now , or would it start out more broke than California since 600,000 lawyers, lobbyists, and welfare recipients can't raise enought taxes to support a state on any level, therefore become an even BIGGER drain on the rest of the US?
Leave the mess we know alone lest we create an even bigger mess we do not want.
Posted by YourJomamma at 01/28/2009 @ 10:27pm
Lets see,
We have had a story on DC rights again...
a story on women and birth rights to federal money with no comments allowed again..
a story on the tomatoe workers again...
a story on Iraq again...
a story on Global warming/cooling/what ever it is this time again...
a story on how to help the unions again...
a story on health care should be next,
followed by a story on impeachment and crimal charges for Bush/Cheney again...
Seems we are either in a rut..or summer reruns..
or...this Nation is getting old with nothing new to write...
Posted by YourJomamma at 01/28/2009 @ 10:32pm
a story on women and birth rights to federal money with no comments allowed again..
Posted by YourJomamma at 01/28/2009 @ 10:32pm
Katha has rather delicate sensibilities and easily hurt feelings apparently.
When she does that, it only makes her look like she can dish it out but can't take it.
However, people can change. Look at Chris Hayes and how he did a 180. He stays busier than John Nichols now, and consistently allows comments. Way to go Chris!
Katha, BOOO!
Posted by Benchrest at 01/28/2009 @ 10:55pm
The front page subheadline on my screen for this blog says DC residents don't have the right to vote. They have it and they vote, but they don't have a Congressional rep with full power. The contents of the blog make this clear but the headline is misleading.
There was an article on the front page here a few weeks ago by an intern, I think, about inclusion of gays in the Episcopal church and other churches. That was good and there should be more like it, dispelling the notion that all Christians are anti-gay and that the Episcopalian anti-gay defectors are a major constituency.
And speaking of articles that don't allow comments, it's just as well Pollit's blog about Obama and contraception has blocked comments. I have very little patience with her on such subjects after her endorsement of Obama over Clinton. What does she expect from Mr. "You're likeable enough, Hillary"?
Posted by RLawrence at 01/28/2009 @ 11:29pm
Posted by RLawrence at 01/28/2009 @ 11:29pm
"The front page subheadline on my screen for this blog says DC residents don't have the right to vote. They have it and they vote, but they don't have a Congressional rep with full power. The contents of the blog make this clear but the headline is misleading. "
You have a firm grasp of the obvious, my friend. But of course, as anyone with more than an inch-deep appreciation of the subject knows, the issue is much more complicated than 'gee, the government colony in DC doesn't have Congressional representation! How undignified! They need two Senators right away!" Come back when you're up to speed.
Posted by pontificus at 01/29/2009 @ 07:16am
Back in the day, a ten-mile square was about an hour's ride at full gallop from the boundary to the Capitol. Today, an hour's ride by common ground transportation (automobile) is more like 45-50 miles (neglecting rush hour). So we should update the Constitution by re-sizing the District, to protect Congress from potential tank attacks originating in Maryland or Virginia, by expanding the boundaries of the District to roughly a fifty-mile radius from the Capitol.
We've already spent a half-billion dollars to create an underground bunker cleverly called a "Visitor's Center" just east of the Capitol (in case Delaware should try aerial attacks??).
Posted by citizenw at 01/29/2009 @ 11:07am
Back in the day, a ten-mile square was about an hour's ride at full gallop from the boundary to the Capitol. Today, an hour's ride by common ground transportation (automobile) is more like 45-50 miles (neglecting rush hour). So we should update the Constitution by re-sizing the District, to protect Congress from potential tank attacks originating in Maryland or Virginia, by expanding the boundaries of the District to roughly a fifty-mile radius from the Capitol.
We've already spent a half-billion dollars to create an underground bunker cleverly called a "Visitor's Center" just east of the Capitol (in case Delaware should try aerial attacks??).
Posted by citizenw at 01/29/2009 @ 11:07am
How about "DC is different because it has not had representation for over two centuries"?
If DC were to get a vote now in the House, 200 years from now, DC would have averaged roughly one-half a vote for the first roughly four hundred years of the republic.
Posted by citizenw at 01/29/2009 @ 11:14am
"In fairness to Obama on this one, I've heard that one motivating consideration for their schooling arrangement was actually security."
Thrawn, seriously, I wasn't trying to be unfair to Obama. But the security excuse doesn't fly. Obama voted against school vouchers. Securing a public school environment is the same as a private school.
But imagine the impact having the daughter of Barak Obama in your class if you were any kid, but especially a low income minority kid in DC in a public school. Talk about a positive influence, all the way through the parents and surrounding community. It would raise the tide for every kind in that school. I feel this was a lost opportunity for the Obamas to walk the talk.
Amy Carter went to a public school, didn't she?
Interesting how so many of you will do anything to cover for Obama.
Posted by freiheit1 at 01/29/2009 @ 12:10pm
Posted by freiheit1 at 01/29/2009 @ 12:10pm
So, by your own standard, you supported busing?
Posted by Mask at 01/29/2009 @ 12:21pm
Wow...
Just when I thought I'd seen all the most radical luft-wing views who are given their daily, wide open forum on MSNBC (aka YOU-PROVDA), I found you this morning, Katrina, when I flipped over to "Morning Joe" during a brief period of filler programming on one of the morning shows people actually DO watch.
The segment opened my eyes as to just how bad an idea the current stimulus package really is. Could you have done a worse job of hiding your liberal ideological bias? Because those watching could really tell by how much economic logic was missing. You were trying way too hard to push the agenda which will do nothing to stimulate private sector jobs being recalled by businesses. It only makes government bigger, which we already know you like, and makes citizens more dependent on government. You must be giddy. "Free market capitalism has failed", you said. Is that what your degree got you? If only there were just one more hourly spot open on MSDNC daily programming for you to have your own show to spew your propaganda...What? Not even a half hour is open that is not already filled with liberal opinion programming? Damn...well perhaps Rachel Madcow will give you a nightly mini-segment. Good luck with your future in the Federal Assembly...
Posted by Mayzee7 at 01/29/2009 @ 12:21pm
Posted by Mask at 01/29/2009 @ 12:21pm
Nope. Mask, do all of your red herrings stain your hands?
Posted by freiheit1 at 01/29/2009 @ 12:36pm
<i>Posted by freiheit1 at 01/29/2009 @ 12:10pm </i>
Not necessarily. Again, I'm operating with only limited information so I can't exactly give you comparative security profiles, but I don't think it's unreasonable to think that it could be easier. Could be precise location, could be the relative size of the school, and the general point that there are fewer variables. Even if the difference isn't vast, the huge risks involved to young kids of any President, much less the first African-American President, could be pretty big.
Look, I hear what you're saying and definitely think that the inspirational point is a really good one. I'm just asking us to think twice before we make assumptions (and yes, many times I need to do that as well).
And no, I'm not out here to defend Obama at any cost. I voted for him, but I imagine there will be a lot of things that I disagree with him on. One big one, from what I can tell, will be judges. He probably won't appoint originalists, and I strongly disagree with that choice. I'm also leery about the sheer quantity of government spending that he's proposing, because adding debt onto more debt is a good idea ONLY if it's an investment that will minimize debt in the long-run. I feel like this can be said of only a few of the programs he's proposing.
Posted by Thrawn at 01/29/2009 @ 1:27pm
Also...let the record show that there has yet to be any good argument advanced that favors statehood over retrocession. "They haven't had a vote" isn't one, both because no city has EVER had its own vote in Congress and because retrocession solves the vote problem just as well. "DC is different" isn't even approaching a good argument.
I live here and have yet to see any good argument for DC having a unique vote.
Posted by Thrawn at 01/29/2009 @ 1:29pm
Some pretty hateful comments here, from people who get to take voting for granted. This is the greatest democracy in the world?
Posted by Woodrich at 01/29/2009 @ 2:15pm
DC is not a state. The people can vote but if they want congressional representation they can be folded into an adjacent state like Maryland or Virginia. This whole tired effort is a recurring political power play and has been rightly rejected each time it is brought up. Why someone would want to live in DC is beyond me. The whole thing should just be taken over by the federal government and used for that purpose. Move all the current residents to Maryland. It would give a bunch of liberal activists something to do for ten years or so.
Posted by pyeatte at 01/29/2009 @ 2:24pm
Posted by freiheit1 at 01/29/2009 @ 12:36pm
"Red herring", FREI? Let's look at your post-
"But imagine the impact having the daughter of Barak Obama in your class if you were any kid, but especially a low income minority kid in DC in a public school. Talk about a positive influence, all the way through the parents and surrounding community. It would raise the tide for every kind in that school."
Do you believe that? If so, why not include the impact of middle-class and upper class white kids going into a low income minority public school...aka "busing"?
What's the difference in that application of your theory???
Posted by Mask at 01/29/2009 @ 2:27pm
Posted by Woodrich at 01/29/2009 @ 2:15pm
"Some pretty hateful comments here, from people who get to take voting for granted. This is the greatest democracy in the world?"
Not only are we hateful (shouldn't there be a law against that?), we're against DIGNITY too! We have no shame!
Posted by pontificus at 01/29/2009 @ 3:00pm
Simple, Mask. Those middle and upper class white kids aren't the children of the first african american President of the United States since Bill Clinton.
Do you think that a group of white middle class and upper class kids being bused into a DC public school would have the same impact as the Obama daughters attending? The media presence? The security and dicipline, the sense of being part of something big? Only in your mind could that be the same.
I know you're intelligent enough to fully understand the point of my previous post, but you enjoy your little mental pilates. You seem more driven to be thought of as clever (by that I mean superficially ingenious or witty) than right. You appear to me to live more for the "gotcha" than to be guided by principle.
I hope that's working out for you.
Posted by freiheit1 at 01/29/2009 @ 3:12pm
I can't believe fellow Americans want to deny other citizens the right to representation. Are we back to the old Jim Crow days? Why shouldn't the residents of D.C. get congressional representation? States with smaller populations get 2 senators and a congressman. If these were white evangelicals, you know quite well that the GOP would have already given them full equal rights. If Republicans fear DC will become a Democratic enclave, then they might as well exclude most major cities from voting. Give these Americans the right to vote, then lobby for those votes, if you have something to offer. Are Republicans afraid of democracy?
Posted by reyes, g. at 01/29/2009 @ 3:17pm
"Are Republicans afraid of democracy?"
any political party is afraid of losing power. c'mon, grow up. dems, repubs, they're all part of the same, we're richer and smarter and better than you class.
Posted by urmygyro at 01/29/2009 @ 3:29pm
"Give these Americans the right to vote, then lobby for those votes, if you have something to offer."
Hmmm, I can see where Blagojevich gets it. Democrats are all about being offered something from their politicians. "Don't represent me, offer me shit dude. Like free health care, free shit, you know. Gimme it."
Beautifully disingenuous post reyes, g. Nice one.
Posted by freiheit1 at 01/29/2009 @ 3:32pm
frei--yeah, republicans don't want anything from their politicians. you're an ignoramus.
Posted by urmygyro at 01/29/2009 @ 4:44pm
frei--yeah, republicans don't want anything from their politicians. you're an ignoramus.
Posted by urmygyro at 01/29/2009 @ 4:44pm
And you're obviously illiterate. I didn't imply nor say republicans don't want anything from their politicians. They do. If you're going to insult me as usual urmy, can you at least show some modicum of integrity that you display in some of your other posts?
Naw, never mind.
Posted by freiheit1 at 01/29/2009 @ 5:38pm
"Democrats are all about being offered something from their politicians."
hmmm...so 'republicans' was implied, right?
moron.
Posted by urmygyro at 01/29/2009 @ 6:14pm
Thanks to those who respect DC and its citizens for your messages.
Overall, reading this thread is a depressing reminder that there are plenty of Americans will full political rights who just don't give a damn about my community (DC) or our rights. They got theirs, screw us. We've heard all the arguments: we're too liberal, we all work for the government, we're too poor or we're all on welfare, we're "not representative" (too black and brown). The lies make me want to puke.
For over 200 years, our citizens have contributed just like citizens in other states--from taxes to fighting wars, we've contributed more per capita than most. Our people have been born and died, never having the right to vote. For many years people threatened to move the capital so locals shut up and waited. There is always a new reason. So we've waited and waited. For 25 years my consent has not been given on anything this government has done. And yes - I am angry about it.
I have done my part locally to try to win equal rights - yes EQUAL rights, not anything less than other Americans have. I don't want a crumb from your table-I want to sit at the table as an equal. A vote in the House only? How dare you Democrats! Most of our people are thinking it might be better than nothing – we're clearly desperate. I'm tired.
Maryland citizens don't want DC plopped into their state, shifting the balance of power, and DC doesn't want that either. We take care of our own state functions. So while retrocession seems politically expedient to people who don't want DC to vote because it is liberal, it isn't ok with DC. Most would rather keep waiting.
I've lost hope and I'm thinking of selling and moving. But I WILL raise hell with my new Senators about DC equal rights.
Posted by DCcolonyman at 01/31/2009 @ 5:15pm
The article raises two issues: can Congress create by statute a house seat for DC, and is the alternative of a Maryland-based solution legitimate?
The District clause gives Congress exclusive legislative control over the District. It is this power that gives Congress the power to apply federal legislation to the District of Columbia -even consitutional rights that are reserved for the people of the States. However, it does not give Congress the power to pass unconstitutional laws in the District.
Providing a House seat for the District of Columbia will be declared unconstitutional because all House seats are from States and are apportioned by population every ten years. The Supreme Court is unlikely to allow the Congress to violate the Construction Clause of the Constitution for DC, as Congress would then be able to create Representatives and Congressional Districts (let alone Senators) for other federal enclaves and territories.
A consitutional and much better solution is for Congress to restore the right of District residents to vote as part of an apportioned Congressional District from Maryland. DC residents used to vote in Maryland. It can be legally argued that DC is a federal enclave in Maryland. These rights that Congress took away by statute can be restored by statute.
This approach has the added benefit that Congress would allow the residents of the District of Columbia to vote for and be represented by the two existing Maryland Senators. DC residents would thus obtain voting rights equal to those of all other Americans.
Federal elections are under the exclusive control of Congress - so Congress can choose to count DC as part of Maryland for this purpose if it so chooses.
John Forster Committee for the Capital City www.CityhoodForDC.org
Posted by JohnForDC at 01/31/2009 @ 10:44pm
By the way, Congress has already such a bill before them.. HR665 - The District of Columbia Voting Rights Restortion Act of 2009 by Rep Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA)
Posted by JohnForDC at 02/01/2009 @ 12:15pm