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]

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.