|
» GC Stats |
Members: 329,722
Threads: 115,665
Posts: 2,204,962
|
| Welcome to our newest member, abrandarko6966 |
|
 |
|
01-06-2011, 03:01 PM
|
|
GreekChat Member
|
|
Join Date: May 2007
Location: In a house.
Posts: 9,564
|
|
|
House to eliminate the DC vote
WASHINGTON (AP) -- One of the first acts of the new Republican-controlled House is to take away the floor voting rights of six delegates representing areas such as the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam and American Samoa.
Five of those delegates are Democrats, while one, from the Northern Marianas Islands, is an independent.
The GOP decision to rescind the ability of delegates to vote on amendments on the House floor was the predictable outcome of a longtime dispute.
Democrats extended those voting rights in 1993 when they controlled the House. Republicans disenfranchised the delegates when they became the majority in 1995, and Democrats restored delegate rights when they regained control in 2007.
link
Kinda makes you wonder if the majority of these delegates were GOP if this would have been done.
__________________
Law and Order: Gotham - “In the Criminal Justice System of Gotham City the people are represented by three separate, yet equally important groups. The police who investigate crime, the District Attorneys who prosecute the offenders, and the Batman. These are their stories.”
|
01-06-2011, 03:14 PM
|
|
GreekChat Member
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Posts: 856
|
|
|
Hmmph. I wonder what my voters' registration card is good for now, other than lighting it on fire and warming my hands with it for 10 seconds.
__________________
"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences."
|
01-06-2011, 03:16 PM
|
|
GreekChat Member
|
|
Join Date: May 2002
Location: A dark and very expensive forest
Posts: 12,731
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaemonSeid
Republicans disenfranchised the delegates when they became the majority in 1995 . . . .
|
Whatever else one may think of this, the delegates in question have not been disenfranchised. The reporter needs to learn what that word means.
__________________
AMONG MEN HARMONY
18▲98
|
01-06-2011, 05:42 PM
|
|
GreekChat Member
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: nasty and inebriated
Posts: 5,772
|
|
|
Um I actually don't see how this is a big deal. It seems to me that the reporter is misrepresenting what this means. While yes the delegates had the right to vote in the Committee of the Whole in the past, they were not allowed to cast the deciding vote, so in reality the vote really meant nothing.
__________________
And he took a cup of coffee and gave thanks to God for it, saying, 'Each of you drink from it. This is my caffeine, which gives life.'
|
01-06-2011, 06:27 PM
|
|
GreekChat Member
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: the nation's capital
Posts: 2,242
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito
Um I actually don't see how this is a big deal. It seems to me that the reporter is misrepresenting what this means. While yes the delegates had the right to vote in the Committee of the Whole in the past, they were not allowed to cast the deciding vote, so in reality the vote really meant nothing.
|
Right. Largely symbolic.
|
01-06-2011, 06:59 PM
|
|
GreekChat Member
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Michigan
Posts: 15,821
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito
Um I actually don't see how this is a big deal. It seems to me that the reporter is misrepresenting what this means. While yes the delegates had the right to vote in the Committee of the Whole in the past, they were not allowed to cast the deciding vote, so in reality the vote really meant nothing.
|
So, one could argue.. why take it away then?
|
01-06-2011, 07:14 PM
|
|
GreekChat Member
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Bryan, TX
Posts: 1,036
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by AGDee
So, one could argue.. why take it away then?
|
Perhaps because it's not permitted under the Constitution?
Oh, yeah, that's not necessarily a good argument, because so many other things fit the same bill, but one has to start somewhere.
__________________
When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
Laws alone can not secure freedom of expression; in order that every man present his views without penalty there must be spirit of tolerance in the entire population.-Einstein |
01-06-2011, 07:39 PM
|
|
GreekChat Member
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 12,783
|
|
|
Anybody who doesn't agree with DC statehood can eat shit and die.
|
01-06-2011, 07:43 PM
|
|
GreekChat Member
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 12,783
|
|
|
j/k don't die
|
01-06-2011, 07:58 PM
|
|
GreekChat Member
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Michigan
Posts: 15,821
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by DGTess
Perhaps because it's not permitted under the Constitution?
Oh, yeah, that's not necessarily a good argument, because so many other things fit the same bill, but one has to start somewhere.
|
Is it expressly prohibited in the Constitution?
|
01-06-2011, 09:50 PM
|
|
Super Moderator
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Posts: 18,668
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Senusret I
Anybody who doesn't agree with DC statehood can eat shit and die.
|
DC isn't a state for a reason. Things make better sense as they are.
__________________
SN -SINCE 1869-
"EXCELLING WITH HONOR"
S N E T T
Mu Tau 5, Central Oklahoma
|
01-06-2011, 09:56 PM
|
|
GreekChat Member
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 13,578
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin
DC isn't a state for a reason. Things make better sense as they are.
|
It would continue to make sense if there weren't a bunch of people living there, but there are.
__________________
From the SigmaTo the K!
Polyamorous, Pansexual and Proud of it!
It Gets Better
|
01-06-2011, 10:09 PM
|
|
GreekChat Member
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 12,783
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin
DC isn't a state for a reason. Things make better sense as they are.
|
No they don't.
|
01-07-2011, 09:55 AM
|
|
GreekChat Member
|
|
Join Date: May 2002
Location: A dark and very expensive forest
Posts: 12,731
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by DGTess
Perhaps because it's not permitted under the Constitution?
|
This is a debatable point. The Constitution clearly gives the House the authority to make its own rules.
And there is the whole "no taxation without representation" argument -- granted, not a constitutional argument, but certainly an argument woven into the woof and warp of Independence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AGDee
Is it expressly prohibited in the Constitution?
|
It's not addressed in the Constitution at all, because the Constitution doesn't contemplate congressional delegates from DC or other territories. Clearly, delegates cannot be voting members of the House of Representatives, as that is limited to the representatives of the states.
The compromise that has been struck so as to give residents (taxpayers) of DC and the territories some voice in Congress is to allow, by House Rules, delegates (not representatives) to vote in committee and have voice on the floor of the House. What is at issue in this particular instance is when the House is acting as a Committee of the Whole.
__________________
AMONG MEN HARMONY
18▲98
|
01-07-2011, 10:19 AM
|
|
GreekChat Member
|
|
Join Date: May 2007
Location: In a house.
Posts: 9,564
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Senusret I
No they don't.
|
^^2nd
__________________
Law and Order: Gotham - “In the Criminal Justice System of Gotham City the people are represented by three separate, yet equally important groups. The police who investigate crime, the District Attorneys who prosecute the offenders, and the Batman. These are their stories.”
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
Linear Mode
