There Goes The Constitution

And surprise, Orin Hatch is leading the charge. It isn't hard to understand what's in it for him. The piece goes on to call it the Voting Rights Act of 2007 and to exploit the mostly Black racial composition of DC. Last time I looked, the District is not a state, which in and of itself precludes it from having a vote in the House.

A Vote the District Deserves

By Orrin G. Hatch, Joe Lieberman, Tom Davis and Eleanor Holmes Norton
Wednesday, September 12, 2007; Page A19

The four of us serve in different houses of Congress and are members of different parties. We do not always share political goals or co-sponsor the same legislation. We have, however, worked hard on a historic bill to ensure that the nearly 600,000 Americans in the District of Columbia and the residents of Utah are properly represented in Congress.

Comments

[mojo]

If you want a rep that bad, move to Virginia or Maryland. Poof! just like magic.

[BobInStamford]

"The piece goes on to call it the Voting Rights Act of 2007 and to exploit the mostly Black racial composition of DC. Last time I looked, the District is not a state, which in and of itself precludes it from having a vote in the House."

It would also give an extra seat to Utah b/c of counting issues with the 2000 census. I guess there are a lot of liberal blacks in Utah too.

What a clown...

[templar knight]

Uh, dumb ass known as Bob, you completely missed the point. What a surprise!

You ghetto crack babies aren't known for your thinking skills, but even you should do better than that. Dufus!

[TheSpartan]

If it were all a rich white suburb I'm sure Dan wouldn't care.

[IslamoLlama]

Man, remember what a bunch of scrappy colonial rebels used to shout at their red-coated oppressors some 250 years ago? Wasn't it something about no taxation without representation?

I agree the real way to fix DC would be to roll it into Virginia or Maryland. Or to just make the damn thing a state and call it a day. The city has a bigger population than Wyoming. Call me crazy, but one would think that would entitle them to a House Rep and a pair of Senators.

Is there something about DC that makes the citizens less American? Is there a particular reason Dan believes that shouldn't have the right to representation in Congress? Something that doesn't have anything to do with the fact the city votes Blue 90% of the time?

[rwilymz]

"Wasn't it something about no taxation without representation?"

Like when I go into a neighboring state, but some *thing* and am charged tax on it? I'm not represented in that state.

Votes based on taxes paid. We're shareholders in our government. You don't pay taxes, you're lucky. ...but you don't vote.

...they largely don't anyway.

[bloodrage bob]

"if it were a rich white suburb", i'm sure a democrat congress wouldn't be trampling the constitution to make this happen, either.

[rwilymz]

Changing the Constitution ain't no thang. Been done before.

But the Constitution is supposed to be the framework of our principles, and there's manymany that have been left to tarnish for lack of a periodic polishing.

The 4th and 5th amendments have been largely reduced to their component alphabetic letters due to governmental intrusions, both war-time and [mostly] not. For every modern-day current-administration critic howling about patriot acts warrantlessly interfering with a citizen's right to call terrorists in the Northwest Frontier of Pakistan, there's two infractions of warrantless search on the highways to catch drunk drivers, and ten in the airports that make granny take off her shoes. And I'm not even getting to the ironic courthouse security ... the courthouses in which we are all "innocent until proven guilty" ... but only after you have proven yourself innocent of carrying contraband into the place.

Seatbelt gropings, "implied consent", nationwide magnetometerizings, data-mining for child support ... all violate the word and intent of the Constitution, all predate granting DC voters back-door statehood, all predate Bush and his "Constitution-trashing" grasping, ... but guess which gets all the airplay?

Hypocrisy is fun to point out.

[templar knight]

Well, Spartan, Dan wasn't crying about the seat in Utah, which would likely be Republican, so he's not being hypocritical at all. You, just like chris/BobtheCrackBaby missed Dan's point, too. Either agree or disagree with Dan's point, and quit changing the subject to race. A liberal always has a race card up his sleeve, even when he isn't of the particular race in question. Let chris/BobtheCrackBaby defend his race, even if he does suck at it.

[IslamoLlama]

Hey now, TK, we all know this isn't about race. If the high percentage of black people in DC were all wingnut Republicans, Dan would be tickled pink to see them receive "back door statehood". The problem isn't race at all, its party affiliation. The fact that black people vote Democrat in droves just make them a nice, easily identifiable target for partisan hackery.

But if Alan Keys was the only registered voter in DC, you're right, this wouldn't be about race at all. For Dan, it wouldn't be an issue.

"Like when I go into a neighboring state, bu[y] some *thing* and am charged tax on it? I'm not represented in that state."

However, if you go back home to Kansas, you can still vote for one House Rep and two Senators. If you then decide to hop across the state line and take up residence in Tennessee, you can re-register and vote for one House Rep and two Senators. If you fly across the country to California, buy an apartment, and declare it your primary residence, you get to vote for one House Rep and two Senators.

Washington DC is peculiar in that it is the only place in America where you can move to and get to vote for... zero House Reps and zero Senators.

In your particular case, you still get state representation in your own state and local representation in your own county. Since you don't spend the majority of your money in a neighboring state, you aren't a resident, and you don't get representation there. If you did spend all your money on the other side of the state line, you could argue that you are a resident of the other state and get a vote in local elections there. That's the difference rwilymz. If you live in DC you don't get representation in any locality. You are disenfranchised, pure and simple, unlike anywhere else in the US.

[edward cropper]

Why would any thinking person be surprised at any back stabbing from Orin Hatch?
This guy is as phony as a four dollar bill. He has been a fence ridding suck-up from day one.
He is a friend of Teddy ( splash ) Kennedy, and is about as forceful on the Judiciary Committee as a soft breeze in summer.
Get a grip people we have no representation in either house of government, and haven't had any for years.

[templar knight]

Sorry, ObamaLlama, but no one is forced to live in DC, it is their choice, and it was set up so as not to be a state. Apolitical, if you will, and that is the way it should stay. An area commanded by the National Government, so that States would have no control or exercise any jurisdiction over the National Government. To make DC a state would trump the idea for the existence of an apolitical entity for the National Government. Don't they teach you goofs anything in college now, other than Leftist propaganda? Guess not.

[jc]

The list of un- and under-represented Americans, must also include those who live in the territories--The U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, The Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands and Puerto Rico. Also, the U.S. colony of Guam (it is not a territory but a possession of the U.S. and according to the U.N. one of the last colonies on earth) remains the only substantially populated American soil to be conquered by a foreign power. Thousands of Guamanians were enslaved and executed by the Japanese for being pro-American. Per-capita, more Americans from Guam were killed in Viet Nam than any other state or territory, and the same will be true of our current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Congress and the American public have mostly ignored these fiercely loyal Americans consistently since their lands were conquered or acquired. Don't they also deserve to be considered full citizens of the U.S.?

[Lord Nazh©]

JC: yes they do, as soon as they vote on and declare statehood.

[seekeronos]

"--- And I'm not even getting to the ironic courthouse security ... the courthouses in which we are all "innocent until proven guilty" ... but only after you have proven yourself innocent of carrying contraband into the place. ---"

AACK! No! Stop interjecting reality into the thread... we're meltinnnnnggggg..... *blorp*

Inconsistencies abound as far as what the Constitution says, and what we actually do.

As for DC, it's a special case. Sorries, no votes for you. It didn't matter over 100 years ago when the primary residents were not black democrats, nor did it matter much when any other administration was in power.

Giving DC the franchise would probably make an already incorrigibly corrupt place all the more so.

DC is kind of designed to be the neutral Treffpunkt of the political scene: you might want to meet your potential date to a public space to chat him/her up and then see a movie, instead of going back to their place, where they just might turn you into chopped liver for fun and giggles.

[Rich Casebolt]

Ever think, that by their presence in such close proximity to those holding the levers of National power ... rubbing shoulders and doing business with them every day, if not working as bureaucrats themselves ... the denizens of DC would inherently have a disproportionally-favorable level of representation in our Congress and the Executive?

Methinks that also was on the mind of our founders.

[rwilymz]

"Since you don't spend the majority of your money in a neighboring state..."

Point out the spot in our written-out principles where it matters where a citizen spends most of his time. ...or his money.

I can find the place where it decries "taxation without representation"; can you find yours?

Now, if you want to claim that the original idealistic principles over which we cut our umbilical were often impractical to apply in a form of representative government in late-18th century society, and that has simply carried over to the present ... I'm suddenly at a loss for meaningful response. I would be reduced to shouting "BUT I STILL DON'T LIKE IT" into the storm.

"if you go back home to Kansas, you can still vote for one House Rep and two Senators. If you then decide to hop across the state line and take up residence in Tennessee, you can re-register and vote for one House Rep and two Senators."

First, it seems that you think Kansas and Tennessee are closer than Rand-McNally think they are ... but that just might be me not having had enough coffee yet.

Second, voter fraud is a time-honored tradition in this country, but the widely-dispersed "primary residences" form of it is exceedingly rare and confined to the wealthy class who has the luxury of jet-setting around the country on election day; whereas the garden-veriety, inner-city voter fraud [registering dogs and dead grandparents and yourself at multiple addresses in multiple precincts] is as common as dirt. But both are crimes. But guess which one, in attempt to reduce it, is classified as 'racism'?

...just to point out another inconvenient reality, and since race was already brought up.

"If you live in DC you don't get representation in any locality"

They don't get representation in **national** politics. They still have city politics ...such as it may be. But that's always been the case; what has changed in the history of the Constitution?

If it's **really** that troubling, change the Constitution; it's been done many times before. You only need the typical super-majority to agree with you, and if it's truly that worthy a cause, how hard could that be?

I will, though, in the meantime, remind you of the exact form of rationalization that you threw at me: if you don't like it [and you live in DC], move. It was their choice to live where they live, and part of the *magic* that is DC residence is: you don't get [voting] Congressional representation. You knew that going in, or you knew that growing up there ... and if you didn't it certainly wasn't for lack of opportunity to learn it.

It would seem that those poor, pitiable, utter disenfranchisees, who are not disenfranchised but simply under-represented compared to the national average, have the power, tomorrow, to reverse their fortunes. They simply need to move their tuchises to Roslyn VA or Chevy Chase MD. Zappo bingo: Congressional representation!!

I still cannot get representation in all the judisdictions I'm taxed in.

"You are disenfranchised... unlike anywhere else in the US."

Given that when you say "disenfranchised" you really mean "under-represented", the residents of Puerto Rico might quibble.

[seekeronos]

I can't say that I have much to complain about, if I am a NY State resident, and then I pay NJ sales/use tax when I buy something in NJ? I don't mind the cheaper gas tax, for one.

Chances are more likely than not, you (that is, the "non-specific you") are paying the majority of the various and sundry tax dollars to the Feds, and then property taxes, school taxes, garbage collection fees, sales taxes, water taxes, vehicle registration fees, vehicle inspection fees, and many other things that find their way into the state coffers (of the state in which you reside/keep your domicile of record).

If I happen to conduct a lot of personal business (or perhaps business as a non-personal entity) in another state which is not my home of record/primary domicile, and pay taxes to that other state, I see no reason to complain -- chances are, its not the bulk of my tax burden.

Of course, there may be folks who do wind up paying more in taxes to "foreign" states than their home states, and lack representation... but I tend to think that is more the exception rather than the rule.

And corporations/business entities - while having some of the aspects of "personhood" under the law, while paying (or rather, attempting to avoid paying) taxes to all sorts of states and other governmental bodies... these do not have a constitutional right to the representational franchise in the same vein that individual people do; they get a much more effective mechanism at maneuvering the government, called "lobbies", and "scratch my back, Senator, and I'll scratch yours".

A slimy and discomfiting thing, yes, but one that has not changed since the early days of this Republic, or the republics of times past, upon which we are modeled in part.

[LOL]

Ah yes, conservatives willingly disenfranchising black voters. It is any surprise?

[bloodrage bob]

ahhhh, yes, liberals ignoring any & all facts of any matter involving black folks, so they can scream "racism!". is it any surprise?

[bloodrage bob]

ahhhh, yes, liberals ignoring any & all facts of any matter involving black folks, so they can scream "racism!". is it any surprise?

[bloodrage bob]

ahhhh, yes, liberals ignoring any & all facts of any matter involving black folks, so they can scream "racism!". is it any surprise?

[mojo]

Wasn't it something about no taxation without representation?

I'm pretty sure a rebellion in the District wouldn't get them a rep. Shot at, yes. Stomped on hard by the Army, yes.

Rep, no.

[Supernintendo Chalmers (who isn't Islamollamabob)]

It wouldn't matter if DC got the vote and they were all rethuglican bed-wetters. The rublicants are DONE. It's over for you clowns. I know, I know: WAHH WAH WAHH but,but but Hitlery and so on.

Pathetic.

See, real conservatives aren't going to trust the republics after these last 6, nay 14 years now starting with Newt's contract on america. And mouthbreathing nascar fans are getting sick of the abortion blah blah do nothing republicants. Intelligent folks understand that abortion will NEVER be outlawed, ever.

Your hero Freddie doesn't even go to church. Tsk Tsk. How the hell could he lead "god's country"???

LOL!!

[rwilymz]

o-o-okay, there, Chalmers. We'll call if you get the part.

"conservatives willingly disenfranchising black voters"

Which black voters would those be, chuckles? The ones in DC? who used their franchise to re-elect Marion Barry? If so, they aren't "disenfranchised". Repeating a false assertion a dozen times only makes you wrong a dozen times.

"A slimy and discomfiting thing, yes, but one that has not changed since the early days "

When did sales tax come in? I don't recall it being all that long ago. Several generations at least, but not a lot more.

Income tax is even worse. My wife and I live in IL and she works in MO. She pays MO income tax. Which sucks cuz it's twice IL rates.

No taxation without representation, and vice versa

[seekeronos]

Income tax (at least the national one) has been around since the Taft~humma...humma...~Wilson administrations, no? I think it came around either in conjunction with, or shortly after the establishment of the Federal Reserve.

For states, I think it varied from state to state, but I'd venture to guess that a lot of states that did not have it already hopped on the bandwagon not long after the national income tax got started.

I've no objection to paying taxes, "render to Caesaar what is Caesar's" and all... but the _way_ those taxes were implemented can suck, especially in the case you've (Ross) just mentioned.

Double whammy indeed. It would be a little less bitter, if you could deduct the difference in rates from MO taxes on your IL return(s).

Of course, no confidence in any government giving up their "rights" to your money though, especially when some state assemblymen or state senators wants to put their kids through an Ivy League school.

[rwilymz]

"It would be a little less bitter, if you could deduct the difference in rates from MO taxes on your IL return(s)."

My mo-n-law does our taxes. Professional "paid preparer" and we get the family discount. Apparently there are many states which have reciprocal income tax agreements wherein a resident of State A who works in State B pays income taxes to B and gets a pass on A. The pass means "credit for taxes paid" and not the *amount* of taxes paid. It's a pass/fail system, essentially. "Did you pay state income taxes to B? then you don't have to pay them to A. How much extra/less you paid doesn't matter."

I only understand as much of it as was explained to me by the pros, and then only to my capacity to understand financial guano. ...which isn't a lot. It's not my area, and I won't be terribly offended if someone comes along to correct me.

I only know that the concept of "no taxation without representation" is a philosophical ideal not truly implemented in this country. Whether because of practical limitations in granting people like my wife a legal vote in two states, or because of re-emergent tyranny, the bottom line is: we don't have it. And people wailing about specific forms of it that affect only their proxies rings absolutely hollow.