Friday, April 20, 2007

NOW ISN'T THAT JUST SPECIAL?!


The U.S. House of Representatives has voted to permit the District of Columbia a vote in the House - in direct violation of the United States Constitution. Next this bill goes to the Senate where it is less likely to be favorably received.

The Dems (and their enablers) no doubt expect to have this Bill (if passed - which isn't likely) vetoed by the President, thus giving them a DNC talking point about President Bush "denying votes to U.S. citizens" which is complete hogwash. If the Bill does pass and somehow become law (I don't see how), then the Dems are relying on the courts to give them what they cannot legally obtain - which is another standard DNC tactic.

I sometimes think I'm a bit cynical - but I'm an angel in comparison to these fools!

15 comments:

Tom Blogical said...

Gayle:

I have to admit I'm not sure what the Dems are after with this. What do they wish to accomplish by unlawfully permitting the District of Columbia a vote in the House? I understand that it's a violation of the Constitution, but I'm assuming that the only thing they're after are more votes/power? I'm not sure this is actually worth their time...

TB

shoprat said...

It's all about power and if DC can get them one more vote for socialism they will take it, Constitution or no Constitution.

Paul said...

Procedures in the house aren't written into the constitution, for the most part, so there's ways they could do this.

I assume they're not giving DC a Representative, just a vote?

HILLARYNEEDSAVACATION said...

GAYLE ROCKS !

the Democrats again prove they do not care about the US CONSTITUTION.

Paul said...

Speaking of the constitution, since you are the authority, what do you think of this interpretation of who controls foreign affairs:

"He wanted full authority over foreign policty to rest with Congress, not the president, except where the Constitution granted the chief executive specific powers."

Paul said...

C'mon, don't you wanna guess which founder Chernow's referring to?

Gayle Miller said...

paul - who is the "He" to whom you refer?

Gayle Miller said...

paul: Here is the reference from the Constitution. Where does it refer to a CITY being permitted representation?

Clause 1:

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

Paul said...

James Madison. In his helvidius writing, gives us this nugget to chew on:

Those who are to conduct a war cannot in the nature of things, be proper or safe judges, whether a war ought to be commenced, continued, or concluded. They are barred from the latter functions by a great principle in free government, analogous to that which separates the sword from the purse, or the power of executing from the power of enacting laws....


Now, I disagree with strict interpretation of the document. But isn't that your favorite method of interpretation?

Do you agree with this statement? The constitution ought to be constructed neither strictly nor sloppily, but reasonably.

Paul said...

It doesn't. I did ask, if you remember, if the statutute gives DC a representative, or just a vote, there is a difference.

Paul said...

The reason I see the difference is Art I, sec 5, but Art I, sec 8, clause 17, COULD be interpreted as allowing EVEN A REPRESENTATIVE.

My point was simply that I doubt the latter more than the former.

Interesting to see Madison defending Pelosi, though. Hope you're a Hamilton fan (he wasn't a strict constructionist, by any means, and argued for foreign relations to be directed by the executive).

Paul said...

Looks like Kenneth Starr agrees with ME, not YOU, that art 1 sec 8 clause 17 gives power to COngress to give DC a vote in the House (and even the Senate, according to Starr).

Have you figured it out yet, honors student, masters degreed, phi beta kappa'd know it all expert?

Paul said...

Here's a link, in case, you uh, don't know it all

http://www.dcvote.org/pdfs/congress/StarrWaldDCVRAWP091706.pdf

Paul said...

Of course, if Starr is correct about the applicability of the art III sp ct. case, why did changing similar art II language require a constitutional amendment?

Anonymous said...

do they pay income tax in DC?