DC voting rights is dead for this session.
The Washington Post’s Ben Pershing reports that House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer has announced that a D.C. voting rights bill will not come up this session, in part because of opposition to an amendment that would have eliminated most of the District’s gun-control laws.
“At this point in time I do not see the ability to move it in this session of Congress,” said Hoyer (D-Md.), who added that he was “extraordinarily disappointed.”
D.C. has long sought a vote in the House, but many city leaders have expressed concerns about the gun amendment, and Hoyer blamed the amendment for preventing the measure from advancing.
The bad news, of course, is that we’ll have to come up with some other way of giving DC residents their Second Amendment rights.
Some D.C. residents found a way, back in 1847.
…we’ll have to come up with some other way of ensuring DC residents their Second Amendment rights.
FIFY
I favor a Constitutional Amendement to consider DC part of Maryland for purposes of electing Congresspeople and Senators.
No taxation without representation.
Yours,
Tom
McGehee beat me to the point.
Immediately below the section at my link (above) about Virginia retrocession is a bit about a proposal for Maryland retrocession. Unfortunately, apparently Maryland doesn’t want it back.
I can’t imagine why.
I favor a Constitutional Amendement to consider DC part of Maryland for purposes of electing Congresspeople and Senators.
As long as we can also consider Wyoming to be part of Utah.
As long as we can also consider Wyoming to be part of Utah.
One of these things is not like the other.
I wish I had read McGehee’s linked article before I commented. Apparently no amendment is needed.
Yours,
Tom
One of these things is not like the other.
That’s true — D.C. has a larger population than Wyoming.
That’s true — D.C. has a larger population than Wyoming.
Way to be obtuse, Jim.
Not that it’s anything new…
Simple answer for why no representation? Section 2, Clause 1, U.S. Constitution.
It is true that Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution declares the District of Columbia to be subject directly to the federal legislature. But, strange as it may seem to some of our elected representatives, Congress can not overrule the Constitution (except, of course, by initiating an amendment, but then those pesky states and their God-and-guns bumpkins get in the act…)
As for retrocession to Virginia? Hell, no. Not in my beloved Commonwealth. We have problems enough of our own without importing them.
With the size of the majority they had, I’m just glad they never decided to start converting individual tribes and tribal lands to states.
John Rich:
Too late. According to McGehee’s link above, Virginia got the portion of DC west of the Potomac in 1847.
I believe Tom is referring to the fact that, for the first 11 years of D.C.’s existence, its residents were considered voters in the respective neighboring states.
Repealing, amending or replacing the Organic Act might be worth looking into, though I fear today’s courts might not go along with the idea just because it was done before. The living, breathing, sweating, grunting and shitting Constitution might not like it.
> Simple answer for why no representation? Section 2, Clause 1, U.S. Constitution.
I assume you mean Article 1, Section 2, Clause 1, U.S. Constitution, since the other Section 2s don’t appear to apply. It says:
“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.”
Why do you think they were allowed to vote between 1791 and 1800?
Yours,
Tom