 sj |
||
|
||
BS: The cost of voting rights in Wash DC
|
|
|
Subject: BS: The cost of voting rights in Wash DC From: Bill D Date: 20 Apr 10 - 10:01 PM It seems the long struggle to get some sort of representation in Congress for Wash. DC has hit another small snag "House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) abandoned the long-sought legislation with the blessing of Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.), who had pushed for the measure. Hoyer said they pulled the bill because of an amendment that would have repealed most of the District's gun-control laws.... ...Norton said the "egregious changes" by Reps. Travis Childers (D-Miss.) and Mark Souder (R-Ind.) would "directly proliferate guns throughout the District," in addition to eroding support for the bill among liberal Democrats, particularly in the Senate. Norton said that legislation would have restricted the District from prohibiting concealed or openly carried firearms." -----------------------------------------------------------------------\ It is rather fascinating to me that these congressmen have such an interest in ensuring that it is easy to pack a weapon in out nation's capital....and that they would use this nasty form of blackmail to do it. I suppose that it was inevitable that SOMEONE would be chosen to pull this stunt. The NRA no doubt has a list to choose from. NO ONE would be 'protected' by such a measure... it would only allow idiots & Have I given the impression I am royally pissed off at this crap? Oh, good! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The cost of voting rights in Wash DC From: mousethief Date: 20 Apr 10 - 10:18 PM The one thing we can't do is to allow local munipalities the right to determine their own gun laws. States' rights end at the barrel of a gun. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The cost of voting rights in Wash DC From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 20 Apr 10 - 10:22 PM I've always felt that the US madness of putting any sort of unrelated junk in as an 'amendment' to any bill is highly destructive to the democratic process. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The cost of voting rights in Wash DC From: Bobert Date: 20 Apr 10 - 10:26 PM Well, I may be the only Mudcatter who was actually born in DC (DC General) and I earned my performing name "Sidewalk Bob" from playin' on the streets of DC and I have followed DC politics all my life... So here's the deal... First of all, DC is a colony of the United Sates... I don't think it can be argued any other way... Congress oversees the District... There is an entire House Comittee that is involved in nothin' but governing DC... Here's the rub with the "voting rights" bill... The Repubs and the NRA decided that they would attach an ammendment to the bill that would void DC's "gun control" laws, one of them being not allowing teenagers to own semi-automotic assault rifles, another requiring people actaully have some knowledge of gun safety by taking a course on, ahhhhhh, gun safety... Okay so the Repubs and their bed-buddies, the NRA attached this stinky ammendment to the bill where DC would just be a good little colony and never ever ennact any sane gun controls in their city... Operative word here, folks, is "their"... Meaning, the residents of DC!!! My, what a noval concept... People being able to pass laws for their own communities??? And here's the other rub... Had the Dems gone along with this there was a good chance that voting rights for DC would have been found unsconstitutional by the Supreme Court leaving Utah with one extra Repub safe seat in the House and and DC losing two for two... This was a no-brainer... The voting rights for CD should stand alone as a bill... Up or down... I mean, we outlawed slavery... We fought a war for independence over taxation without representation... We collectively look down on Third World practices yet we have one right here in our midst... The people in DC pay federal taxes... They enlist in our armed services and they die on battlefields... Yet they have no vote??? I have heard the arguments from the Repubs... Geeze, we'd love to give you a vote but the constitution won't allow us to do that... Well, geeze... If we can't figuure this one out then we are a doomed country 'cause then we can't figure out squat... I mean, voting rights for DC should be a no brainer... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The cost of voting rights in Wash DC From: mousethief Date: 20 Apr 10 - 10:46 PM No need to contravene the constitution. Either: 1. Create a new state, or 2. Reabsorb DC into either Maryland or Virginia. If it could be constitutionally calved off, it can be constitutionally reabsorbed (Alexandria County was). Leaving DC without federal voting rights is a mockery of democracy. It's gone on far too long. But the Repubs will never allow either because the district is notoriously liberal (hence the gun laws). Tea Party my ass. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The cost of voting rights in Wash DC From: Rapparee Date: 20 Apr 10 - 11:16 PM Turn DC into a museum and the home of the Supreme Court. Move the capital to the geographic center of the country. Congress telecommutes from their home districts/states. Departments and agencies are spread around the country -- you wanna work for the NSA, you move to, oh, say North Dakota; if Agriculture, say Kansas. GREAT national security, because one li'l ole nuke doesn't wipe out the government. Of course, the folks who did the electing can keep a close eye on their elected officials, too. No problem, constitutionally, in doing this. And these days the House and the Senate don't need to meet in one building. Oh, maybe for the opening session of a Congress as a formality, but there's no reason they all have to be in the same place anymore that any major corporation needs such a structure. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The cost of voting rights in Wash DC From: artbrooks Date: 20 Apr 10 - 11:29 PM Makes no difference, anyway. Everyone living in DC is black, and they don't get to vote...do they? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The cost of voting rights in Wash DC From: Skivee Date: 20 Apr 10 - 11:37 PM Bobert, ol' pal, A minor correction:"Well, I may be the only Mudcatter who was actually born in DC" ahhhhh, nope. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The cost of voting rights in Wash DC From: artbrooks Date: 21 Apr 10 - 12:15 AM Arlington, me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The cost of voting rights in Wash DC From: Nancy King Date: 21 Apr 10 - 12:18 AM Yeah, I was born in DC too, as were both of my sons. This whole business about the voting rights fiasco really gets my goat. It might even be funny if it weren't so sad. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The cost of voting rights in Wash DC From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 21 Apr 10 - 12:36 AM "these days the House and the Senate don't need to meet in one building. Oh, maybe for the opening session of a Congress as a formality" And these days now that stage coaches are out, you don't need that voting 'circus' called preselection - do all those on ONE day! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The cost of voting rights in Wash DC From: mousethief Date: 21 Apr 10 - 12:47 AM Do we really need congress? Why not just hand the reins of government over to the megacorporations. They're calling the shots anyway. Cut out the middleman. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The cost of voting rights in Wash DC From: Bobert Date: 21 Apr 10 - 08:18 AM Well, well, well... Great to see some other DC-born Catters... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The cost of voting rights in Wash DC From: Rapparee Date: 21 Apr 10 - 09:49 AM My wife was born there -- not, however, in St. Elizabeth's as the rumor says. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The cost of voting rights in Wash DC From: Bill D Date: 21 Apr 10 - 10:16 AM Ferrara was born in DC. The Repubs push for easy gun laws for various reasons, but they have serious concern about EITHER allowing DC 1 or 2 votes, OR merging it with Maryland or Virgina, as that would shift voting blocs to those *gasp* liberal, socialist (and often gay) Democrats. It is purely a calculated power move to continue to deprive several hundred thousand folks of the ballot. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The cost of voting rights in Wash DC From: mousethief Date: 21 Apr 10 - 01:13 PM All the while wailing that the Democrats want to take away rights. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The cost of voting rights in Wash DC From: GUEST,b Date: 22 Apr 10 - 05:02 AM Ok, now the UK has some wierd voting rules, but does what has been posted mean that people who live Washington / DC have no vote ? Just the senate - not congress ? B |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The cost of voting rights in Wash DC From: Suffet Date: 22 Apr 10 - 10:51 PM The District of Columbia was once larger than it is today, and included he City of Alexandria, DC. (George Town, DC, as it was called at the time, was also a separate city at that time.) In 1845, Congress gave the portion of the District south of the Potomac back to Virginia. It could do something similar today, giving what's left of the District back to Maryland, keeping only the actual government buildings, the monuments, and the Mall under Federal jurisdiction. Maryland would pick up about 600,000 new residents, which would certainly give it one more member of the House of Representatives the next time they are apportioned. --- Steve |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The cost of voting rights in Wash DC From: Bill D Date: 22 Apr 10 - 11:12 PM They 'could' ...but the Republicans would fight it hard. Residents of the District can vote for mayor and city council...and one non-voting 'delegate' to congress....currently Eleanor Holmes Norton. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The cost of voting rights in Wash DC From: Nancy King Date: 23 Apr 10 - 12:39 AM Just for the record, Alexandria VA is a very old city, but it was never part of DC. What is now Arlington County, VA, on the other hand, was included in the original territory of the District of Columbia, but was ceded back to Virginia. Georgetown is another old city, predating the establishment of the District; it was included in the original District, and is still part of DC. The "give it back to Maryland" idea has been floating around for years, but it's not as simple as it seems. For one thing, Maryland apparently doesn't really want it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The cost of voting rights in Wash DC From: Suffet Date: 23 Apr 10 - 12:48 AM Nancy, I believe you are mistaken. Alexandria, Virginia, was incorporated into the original District of Columbia in 1791, and you can find early 19th century stampless folded letters that were postmarked Alexandria, D.C. Alexandria was retroceded to Virginia in 1846. Please see the Wikipedia article regarding Alexandria's status. --- Steve |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The cost of voting rights in Wash DC From: Bill D Date: 23 Apr 10 - 11:42 AM I'm sure Maryland sees only extra bureaucratic problems, infrastructure costs, and little increase in the tax base from such a 'gift'.The only REAL answer would be to make DC a 51st state by giving it part of Virginia and 'some' of Maryland and making just part of downtown into the 'federal enclave'. But that would cause many OTHER hassles. (Does anyone know of any other country whose capital is divided this way and has similar issue? Why is it deemed a good idea here?) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The cost of voting rights in Wash DC From: Nancy King Date: 23 Apr 10 - 11:46 PM OK, Steve -- you're right; I was wrong. Sorry about that. Must be some flaw in my DC education.... Or maybe my attention during said education. Anyhow, thanks for setting me straight. Nancy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The cost of voting rights in Wash DC From: artbrooks Date: 23 Apr 10 - 11:56 PM BillD: the capitol of Israel has FAR greater problems deciding who has jurisdiction over what. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The cost of voting rights in Wash DC From: Bobert Date: 24 Apr 10 - 07:41 AM Just for the record, mouse, it ain't the Dems who don't wnat DC to having voting rights... It's just that every time this comes up the Repubs load the bill with stupid stuff... This time, not only another sure Republican representative from Utah but also the stripping of the new gun controls that DC has put in place... What next??? Manditory sterilization of the black resisdents of DC??? B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The cost of voting rights in Wash DC From: mousethief Date: 24 Apr 10 - 12:39 PM Bobert: Just for the record, mouse, it ain't the Dems who don't wnat DC to having voting rights Actually I knew that. I must not have been speaking clearly if I made it appear otherwise. Here in Washington State (the "other" Washington), the eastern half of the state, mostly agricultural and far more conservative than the western half, wants to break off and form its own state, to be called, unimaginatively, Lincoln. (In part because they fondly believe that their tax dollars are spent over on the west side and they are getting the raw end of the deal; in fact nearly all the eastern counties are net revenue sinks. But that's neither here nor there for the national question.) How about we allow DC to become a state, and allow these yokels to break off and become a state. Then we'd add 2 conservative senators and 2 liberal senators, one conservative representative and one liberal representative. Fair and balanced. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The cost of voting rights in Wash DC From: Bill D Date: 24 Apr 10 - 01:36 PM "How about we allow DC to become a state, and allow these yokels to break off and become a state." About the only real support you'll get for that is from flag manufacturers. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The cost of voting rights in Wash DC From: Bobert Date: 24 Apr 10 - 09:24 PM Yes, mouse, yes!!! It should be a state!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The cost of voting rights in Wash DC From: Riginslinger Date: 25 Apr 10 - 09:22 AM If it was a state it would have two senators. If you think there's a lot of insider trading going on now,... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The cost of voting rights in Wash DC From: Bill D Date: 25 Apr 10 - 03:15 PM I do NOT think it should be a separate state, even though it would help several of my personal political concerns. It just does not function as a state in many important ways. I think all of it except the "Federal enclave" should either be given to Maryland or just granted extra voting rights for national elections), and everyone who registers to vote from DC should have a choice about in which state their vote is counted( they would vote by absentee ballot).....Maryland, Virginia, their home state...etc. This would avoid direct problems with just adding one huge block to ANY state. Local (DC) elections would continue as they have been for residents. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The cost of voting rights in Wash DC From: artbrooks Date: 25 Apr 10 - 04:10 PM With one exception, Bill...I think that the provision of Federal law that basically says that Congress can overrule anything that the citizens of the District decide needs to go. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The cost of voting rights in Wash DC From: Nancy King Date: 25 Apr 10 - 11:09 PM Agree with that, Art! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The cost of voting rights in Wash DC From: Bill D Date: 26 Apr 10 - 10:12 AM Yep...forgot about that. That needs serious amending... (trying to think...I'm sure there ARE things the congress needs to have jurisdiction over.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The cost of voting rights in Wash DC From: Bobert Date: 26 Apr 10 - 07:52 PM Well, the Congress over-ruled medical marijuna that passed a rteferendum a decade ago... But I digress... The main reason that DC isn't like other states is that it is an entity unto itself, Bill... States have state capitals... Why couldn't DC have a state capital??? I mean, there are lots and lots of areas of DC which are very different from other areas of DC... I'd like to see DC state capital out, what is it, New York Ave., out around the arhboritum... Lotta room out there and some nice areas, as well... And away from the feds, too... B~ |
