Bush would veto legislation giving D.C. a vote in Congress

Another example of the Executive Branch trying to act like the Judicial Branch.  CQ:

In a statement of administration policy, the White House noted thatArticle I, Section 2 of the Constitution holds that members of theHouse shall be elected by “people of the several states” — and that thefederal capital does not qualify.

“The District of Columbia is not a state,” the statement read.“Accordingly, congressional representation for the District of Columbiawould require a constitutional amendment.”

Advocatesof the measure say that another part of the Constitution grantsCongress wide-ranging power over the District of Columbia — andtherefore it is legal to treat the District population as residents ofa state for the purposes of congressional representation.

Amendment XXIII, Section I of the U.S. Constitution specifies that the District of Columbia has voting rights in the electoral college during the presidential election, although no more rights than the least populous state.  It does not specify that the District of Columbia has voting rights in Congress.

In the end, this will go to the courts and ultimately fail.  A new constitutional amendment will be needed in order for the District of Columbia to get voting rights in the House.  That is not out of the realm of possibility.

Comments

[Erick]

Doesn't look like this has been covered yet - might look up the 1984 Hillary ad again on Google News or Drudge.

They've ID'd the guy who made the ad - he wrote in on the Huffington Post website. He was an employee for the company that handled Barack Obama's website and some of his technology work. As soon as Obama's people found out about it they made sure the guy was fired and that he hadn't worked on their campaign. Good example of Obama's dedication to keeping things legitimate and straight-forward. Check into it!

--Erick.

[Robt]

Why should Bush veto this.

Can't he simply do another one of them thare signing statments that excludes him and any Republicans????

[Timothy Kachinski]

Too many X's, it is the Twenty Third Amendment, not the Thirty Third Amendment. There is no 33rd Amendment.

Also I don't see how it could possibly go to the courts nor do I think it is wise for us to base our government on Aristocrats, even if they wear robes. What are they going to do, declare a Constitutional Amendment Unconstitutional? That is absurd, it would be like the Supreme Court reversing the Thirteenth Amendment and allowing slavery because according to Judicial precedent in the Dred Scott Decision black people are not full people and can therefore never be considered equal to white people. The notion is absurd.

People who live in D.C. know their rights coming in and if they want Congressional representatives they can move. The purpose of D.C. is to be the seat of Government, a place where the Federal Government cannot be strong-armed by a local government that controls the land it sits on. People were never met to reside inside the city limits therefore anyone who moved into the city limits knew the score coming in. It would not be right to grant D.C. Statehood because it would put into jeopardy the independence and sovereignty of our Congress. The power of our Congress needs to be controlled by the people of this country, not the people who reside in D.C.

[Administrator: Todd]

Thanks for the correction, Timothy. It has been fixed.

[crshedd]

maybe if we claim that d.c. has weapons of mass destruction, then the gop will bring democracy to our nations capital.