House to eliminate the DC vote

[Kevin]

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.

[Drolefille]

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.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

It would continue to make sense if there weren't a bunch of people living there, but there are.

Under the original Constitution, votes were apportioned to the people in the House. The Senate was appointed by the states themselves. As D.C. isn't a state, I can't see any justification for them having a voice in the Senate.

As for the House, I'm not sure what D.C. has to complain about. They are #1 in per student funding (by a wide margin), etc., they don't have much to complain about there.

As for autonomy, symbolically, I think the arrangement is ideal. The states rule over the capitol rather than the capitol ruling over the states.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Kevin

As for the House, I'm not sure what D.C. has to complain about.

Like I said, taxation without representation. I think that's a lot to complain about. It led to revolution, you may recall.

I can readily agree (sorry, Sen) that there are valid and appropriate reasons for the District of Columbia not to be a state. I can also agree that the role of the Senate (in theory, at least) is to represent states, not represent "the people." And I can agree that DC is different from other US territories.

I cannot, though, agree that United States citizens should have no meaningful representation in the Congress that imposes taxes on them and enacts laws they must obey simply because they live in Washington. Nor can I see how giving DC a true, voting representive in the House -- where he or she would be 1 of (presumably) 436 members -- would lead to the capital "ruling over" the states.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

I cannot, though, agree that United States citizens should have no meaningful representation in the Congress that imposes taxes on them and enacts laws they must obey simply because they live in Washington. Nor can I see how giving DC a true, voting representive in the House -- where he or she would be 1 of (presumably) 436 members -- would lead to the capital "ruling over" the states.

Exactly...please repeat that.

[Senusret I]

Originally Posted by Kevin

DC isn't a state for a reason. Things make better sense as they are.

No they don't.

[MysticCat]

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.

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.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by Senusret I

No they don't.

^^2nd