Thread: 2 seats added to the House of Representatives now 437

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Recent House Votes

District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act - Vote Passed (241-177, 1 Present, 14 Not Voting)

This bill would increase the size of the U.S. House of Representatives to 437 by granting the District of Columbia a full vote in the chamber and adding another seat in Utah.

Rep. William Sali voted NO......send e-mail or see bio

And again the Founding Fathers must pirouette in their graves.

Pirouette, Crocket?

More like a high speed drill!!

Another way of saying they're rolling in their graves. DC has enough representation. The entire Federal entity, they don't need another form of representation.

Why don't the American People have any say in these matters is my question. I saw no literature on this anywhere.

Originally Posted by Hylander_1314

Another way of saying they're rolling in their graves. DC has enough representation. The entire Federal entity, they don't need another form of representation.

Why don't the American People have any say in these matters is my question. I saw no literature on this anywhere.

Of course not Hylander, we would not want informed voters interfering with their business.

I have know idea what happen here? why did it post 3 times, it was taking along time!

If the way this was done is Unconstitutional that's wrong. But we are always upholding the rights of citizens here - so why don't these American citizens in DC have the right to vote for all the offices that I vote for? I remember something about our Founding Fathers saying "No Taxation Without Representation." If the District of Columbia has to be changed into some other kind of entity I say do it.

Originally Posted by GUYMAN

If the way this was done is Unconstitutional that's wrong. But we are always upholding the rights of citizens here - so why don't these American citizens in DC have the right to vote for all the offices that I vote for? I remember something about our Founding Fathers saying "No Taxation Without Representation." If the District of Columbia has to be changed into some other kind of entity I say do it.

Read the Constitution. Then go read a treatise on the purpose for the District. Then consider the size of the District and the REASON for its population. Then go back and re-read the Constitution.

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Originally Posted by GUYMAN

If the way this was done is Unconstitutional that's wrong. But we are always upholding the rights of citizens here - so why don't these American citizens in DC have the right to vote for all the offices that I vote for? I remember something about our Founding Fathers saying "No Taxation Without Representation." If the District of Columbia has to be changed into some other kind of entity I say do it.

Read the Constitution. Then go read a treatise on the purpose for the District. Then consider the size of the District and the REASON for its population. Then go back and re-read the Constitution.

You aren't the only one who has read the Constitution and believes in it. The Constitution has been amended along the way as I recall. Or do you think that should come to an end? There was not a Federal District from the very beginning of the United States, it came about a couple of decades later. Mainly because some leaders of the country were still not secure with the relationship between the Federal Government and the States. Perhaps things have changed a bit since the early 1800's - what do you think? You mentioned the size of the District - good point. Why can't it be smaller?, more like the Vatican. In other words just the area right around the Federal buildings. Why is it vital to the nation that Georgetown be in DC as opposed to being part of Maryland? Now that would bring up other issues - since the more affluent parts of the District would leave, etc. But I don't think it's so ridiculous to suggest that the nature of the District could be changed.

Originally Posted by GUYMAN

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Originally Posted by GUYMAN

If the way this was done is Unconstitutional that's wrong. But we are always upholding the rights of citizens here - so why don't these American citizens in DC have the right to vote for all the offices that I vote for? I remember something about our Founding Fathers saying "No Taxation Without Representation." If the District of Columbia has to be changed into some other kind of entity I say do it.

Read the Constitution. Then go read a treatise on the purpose for the District. Then consider the size of the District and the REASON for its population. Then go back and re-read the Constitution.

You aren't the only one who has read the Constitution and believes in it. The Constitution has been amended along the way as I recall. Or do you think that should come to an end? There was not a Federal District from the very beginning of the United States, it came about a couple of decades later. Mainly because some leaders of the country were still not secure with the relationship between the Federal Government and the States. Perhaps things have changed a bit since the early 1800's - what do you think? You mentioned the size of the District - good point. Why can't it be smaller?, more like the Vatican. In other words just the area right around the Federal buildings. Why is it vital to the nation that Georgetown be in DC as opposed to being part of Maryland? Now that would bring up other issues - since the more affluent parts of the District would leave, etc. But I don't think it's so ridiculous to suggest that the nature of the District could be changed.

Well, apparently you have NOT read the Constitution, because regardless of whether or not the District was actually created immediately, its creation and its nature were addressed in the body of the Constitution in multiple places (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17; Article 4, Section 3 [by inference]). The mention of amendment is superfluous, given that no amendment has altered the nature of that district or provided for its direct representation in Congress. So I am not addressing what you think may or may not be acceptable, but what is the case under the law of the land and according to the intent of the framers of the Constitution.

Note also that the District of Columbia CANNOT, by definition, be a state or accrue the privileges thereof, because all states are guaranteed a republican form of government (Article 4, Section 4), while the District is established as a legislative democracy under the direct regulatory authority of Congress.