why is it that even when trying to do something right...

[acroyear]

...republicans have to tell the constitution it can go fuck itself.

I want DC votes in the House of Representatives just as much as anybody.  No, I don't think they should have a Senate seat, but they should be equal representatives to any other congressional district in the House.

However, this "compromise" (giving Utah an extra seat balancing giving DC a voting seat) is utterly unconstitutional in its premise.  DC is not a state and as such, simply does not have the constitutional right to a vote in the house.  If they really want to give DC voting rights (as opposed to lip service), then get a bipartisan commision together, including DC's current "non"representative, and get an amendment together.

This "well, we'll give you a bone to chew on until 2010" thing is both insulting AND illegal.

Comments

[rsteachout.livejournal.com]

I find it typically hypocritical of the Democrats that they've harped for years about the Republicans opposing a vote for DC, but now that they are attempting to do something about it, they are being condemned as well. And not the current complaint isn't about giving Utah another seat, either (which I can understand); but, after *years* of piling on about giving the DC delegate a floor vote, NOW the Dems are saying DC can't have a vote because of the law. It's petty obstructionism (oppose anything the Repubs propose, not matter what), plain and simple.

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

its called offer to do it right or don't bother to offer at all.

its not the same kind of obstructionism as avoiding the social security issue in order to let Bush shoot the repubs in the foot and then after (maybe) winning back some seats in the senate and house, and THEN turning around proposing exactly what Bush just proposed last week.

THAT'S obstructionism.

yes, a part of me wonders why the Dems didn't just handle this as an amendment in '93 when they ran all three branches, though my guess is that they didn't have the states' support and they knew it.

but there is nothing wrong NOW with saying that the current proposal is unconstitutional and should be ignored. it is and it'll be hit by an injunction in the federal courts in a heartbeat so it was stupid of the republican side to even offer it.

[rsteachout.livejournal.com]

Obstructionism is obstructionism.
Obstructionism is the reflexive rejection of every proposal on the basis that the opposite party has proposed it. It has been the Democratic standard operating procedure for the last four years. It can be window dressed and analyzed any number of different ways, but it still boils down to the essense of knee-jerk opposition. Does arsenic kill any less just because it is slipped into a glass of wine instead of a glass of Kool-Aid?

The issue of whether the proposal is constitutional is an interesting one, and there are arguments supportive and detractive to each position. The number of Representatives total was originally set at 1 per 30,000 citizens but capped at 435 by a law of Congress. The proposal to temporarily increase Congress by 2 to 437 (1 for the "seat of the United States government" and 1 for Utah), thust clearly has precedence as being within the purvue of Congress. The proposal to grant 1 of the representative to Utah also follows precendence as a compromise to enact legislation.

However, there are strong arguments in support of the position that Congress has no authority to grant D.C. full voting rights in either (a) just the House of Representatives; or (b) both chambers of Congress. Likewise is the issue of whether Congress can grant D.C. statehood without a Constitutional amendment. The last amendment that was sent to the states to grant D.C. representation rights in 1978(?) was soundly rejected by the states.

Given the plethora of information on DC representation rights, and given the numerous speeches made by Democrats in support of such rights, the sudden about-face on the issue and the use of the same arguments they derided just a few years ago is stronger evidence of obstructionism than of any true concerns for the preservation of constitutional principle.

[selkiesiren.livejournal.com]

I find that logic disturbing...

If something is wrong, it is wrong. It should not be about *who* did it, and *never* in an argument over what is current should there be commentary about what happened in past (as if to justify it). If I am discussing something that I find upsetting with my Husband, or he with me, neither of us is allowed to say; "Well, you did thus and such in the past". When discussing something now, it's about the issue now. And yes...I feel the Dems should be held accountable to this same rule of conduct. Or, in other words, others poor behaviour should never be used to excuse ones *own* poor behaviour.

If, as Joe asserts, this is against the constitution, then it's against the constitution, and who was in favour of allowing DC some kind of representation in past is a non-issue.

[rsteachout.livejournal.com]

My point exactly. The only reason they are suddenly opposed to allowing DC a voting representative is because the Republicans made the proposal. So they've suddenly changed their minds. To me, that is obstructionism, as well as being hypocritical. It's one thing to say that after a lot of discussion, one is convinced that the opinion held was wrong and change your mind. It's entirely different to change a view allegedly based on one's principles merely because now your opponent might get credit for doing something.

See my reply to Joe for other points regarding the constitutionality of the issue. It's basically a big "it depends" situation.

[selkiesiren.livejournal.com]

But don't you see, your commenting on what Dems did in past *is* being guilty of this same thing.

The issue is; "Is it constitutional or no"...not "Did the Dems/Repubs do something like this themselves in past".

I did see your other post, and I hear what you're saying. If there is question as to whether it is or is not against the constitution, then that is very much a part of the actual issue.

But again, I do think that both parties should be called on the carpet for their *behaviour*...not whether or not they are on the same side/opposing side to my own personal beliefs.

In other words, it's the behaviour itself that should be questioned. The words "Democrats" or "Republicans" should not even enter into the conversation.

Wby not say "Politicians who do (thus and such) are acting inappropriately, and this behaviour needs to be challenged"?

[rsteachout.livejournal.com]

Wby not say "Politicians who do (thus and such) are acting inappropriately, and this behaviour needs to be challenged"?

Because Joe started off with a verbal attack against the Republicans, of course! See? Joe started it! It's all his fault! [maturely sticking tongue out at Joe and making a face]

:-) (I'll just laugh maniacally and run away now)

*sigh* Leave it to a woman to spoil all the fun of political sniping. *hmph*

[BTW, one of the best lines in Hitchiker's Guide: "It won't work on me: I'm already a woman."

[selkiesiren.livejournal.com]

:::giggles:::

Silly, silly man.

My job here is done. ;)