Democrats push to add voting House seat for DC

[cwo_ghwebb]

Now that they control both elective branches of government, Democrats have quietly pushed through one of their long-held goals, a voting seat for DC in the House of Representatives. In order to gain Republican support, they have drafted a bill that would also add another voting seat for Utah to maintain the partisan balance. However, as Hugh Hewitt points out, the method of adding two seats to the House fails Constitutional muster:

Debate opened Monday on a bill to give the 600,000 people of Washington D.C. a full vote in the House. A new Democratic president, Barack Obama, and heftier Democratic majorities in Congress have improved the prospects for the decades-long effort that would certainly ensure another Democrat lawmaker in Congress.

Democrats outnumber Republicans by some 4-to-1 in the capital.

In a bit of horsetrading to offset the Democratic pickup, the bill would award a fourth House seat to Republican-leaning Utah, which narrowly missed getting that extra seat after the 2000 national census. With the two new seats, the House would have 437 representatives.

But can the House add seats without a Constitutional amendment, and separate from a census?

Opponents argue that the constitutional amendment route is still the only legitimate way to go, pointing to Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution, which says members of the House should be chosen “by the people of the several states.” The District of Columbia, of course, is not a state.

On the other side, supporters cite language in the Constitution that gives Congress legislative authority over the District “in all cases whatsoever.” They contend that for 200 years federal courts have framed the District’s laws in terms of those that apply to the states.

Congress has authority over DC “in all cases whatsoever” — in managing the District. It does not have the unilateral authority to enlarge itself, especially at the expense of other states. Any addition of representatives to one or two states acts to dilute the voting power of the rest, which is why the Constitution ties representation to the Census. If Congress wants to change that calculation, it has to come through the amendment process and get the approval of three-quarters of the states.

Why don’t the Democrats simply push for a Constitutional amendment?

They don’t have the votes, not in Congress and not in the states. They tried that thirty-one years ago, when Democrats had larger majorities in both chambers of Congress than they do now, and they couldn’t get enough states to approve it.

Hot Air » Blog Archive » Democrats push to add voting House seat for DC

From my understanding, such a move would be unconstitutional (like that matters much to Congress). But I think Hewitt is right in wondering who would have standing to challenge such a law in court.

[Sonsie]

Rather than place the seat of the federal government in any one state — which could lead that state to exercise undue influence over the federal government — the Framers intended for a federal enclave — a federal city. As James Madison said, “[t]he indispensable necessity of compleat authority at the seat of Government carries its own evidence with it.” The Founders understood that it was necessary for the seat of federal government to be in an insular city — one that would not make the members of Congress beholden or subject to the politicians of any particular state for, for example, services that they may require to work and live. In exchange, the citizens of the federal city would receive the benefit of having their interests advocated in some measure by all the members of Congress who work (and in many cases live) in the District and who, therefore, are attuned to the city’s interest. Anyone doubting that this is true need only look to the fact that the District receives $5.55 for every dollar in federal taxes it pays: more than twice as much as any actual state.

Jumping Jesus! $5.55 for every dollar it pays?

Originally Posted by cwo_ghwebb

Hot Air » Blog Archive » Democrats push to add voting House seat for DC

From my understanding, such a move would be unconstitutional (like that matters much to Congress). But I think Hewitt is right in wondering who would have standing to challenge such a law in court.

Why are Republicans opposed to DC having a seat in Congress?

[White Buddah]

Originally Posted by Beaver-Cleaver

Why are Republicans opposed to DC having a seat in Congress?

Because they aren't a STATE.

[glhs837]

Because they keep electing Marion Barry, to office?

[ice-man]

Originally Posted by cwo_ghwebb

Hot Air » Blog Archive » Democrats push to add voting House seat for DC

From my understanding, such a move would be unconstitutional (like that matters much to Congress). But I think Hewitt is right in wondering who would have standing to challenge such a law in court.

Stop hating. LOL. Your kind would be happy if slavery was still alive and people of color couldnt vote. We have a black president - Get over it -- there's nothing you can do about it. LOL.

[GSXR_MOE]

Originally Posted by ice-man

Stop hating. LOL. Your kind would be happy if slavery was still alive and people of color couldnt vote. We have a black president - Get over it -- there's nothing you can do about it. LOL.

Dude, what are you talking about???

[jrt_ms1995]

Originally Posted by Beaver-Cleaver

Why are Republicans opposed to DC having a seat in Congress?

The District is already represented in Congress by 435 Representatives, 100 Senators, and 1 Vice President. If the District's citizens would like to vote for 1 Representative, 2 Senators, and 1 Vice President, then they should move to any 1 of the 50 states.

[2ndAmendment]

Originally Posted by GSXR_MOE

Dude, what are you talking about???

It is exhibiting racial bias.

[2ndAmendment]

Originally Posted by Beaver-Cleaver

Why are Republicans opposed to DC having a seat in Congress?

Have you read the Constitution?

The Constitution does not allow for representatives from entities other than states. That is why Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, American Virgin Islands do not have votes. It is why Hawaii and Alaska did not have representatives until 1959. Only states are allowed to have representatives.

Of course few in Washington pay any attention to the Constitution. Heck. When Iraq was trying to write one, we should have given them ours. We don't use it anymore.