U.S. Congress - S.160 District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2009
S.160 - District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2009
A bill to provide the District of Columbia a voting seat and the State of Utah an additional seat in the House of Representatives. view all titles (5)
All Bill Titles
- Official: A bill to provide the District of Columbia a voting seat and the State of Utah an additional seat in the House of Representatives. as introduced.
- Short: District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2009 as introduced.
- Short: District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2009 as reported to senate.
- Short: Second Amendment Enforcement Act as passed senate.
- Short: District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2009 as passed senate.
Vote on This Bill
-
Share This Bill
More Share via Email
Sort By
Comments Feed
Displaying 1-30 of 69 total comments.
Article 1, Section 2, 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. "
passing this piece of legislature is unconstitutional.
Clearly Unconstitutional. Read Section 2 of the 14th Ammendment.
Filtered Comment [ show ]
There is no “no taxation without representation” clause in the Constitution. There are, however, clear rules explaining the makeup of the Congress.
A vote for President in D.C. required a constitutional amendment (the 23rd) – why wouldn’t this?
if not, then why do they sell out us americans and they claim to be looking out for us. They aren’t americans. Not a dam one of them has served in the Armed forces and as far as I am concerned. every one of them should be ashamed of themselves.They dishonored our america and our WW1 / WW2 / Vietnam Vet and not to mention the people who died for absolutely nothing. C’mon. Wakeup. GYHOYA Treason is punishable by Death in this Country last time I remember. Cowards are sold every where here as well. Just look around they are all over. What a shame. I guess the next answer to this is the best. I save you the time. Let me know if I am right. If I don’t like it leave. If so that is the most sory way of looking at this. But is common. Still nothing gets anywhere at all. Just as always!!!!!!!
Have you ever served in the Armed Forces? I have, and among all the principles that I was defending I don’t recall intollerance against fellow Americans being among them.
If I lived in DC I’d rather fight for no taxation.
How can a federal district, which is not a STATE be a member of the United STATES of America’s government. And really, your only argument is that Lieberman said it’s ok? These people should be fighting to not pay taxes to the government they will never be a party to. Not trying to destroy our constitution by granting a seat in government to something that isn’t a STATE.
Filtered Comment [ show ]
Why does the race card come out on EVERY issue? I think no matter what the discussion is race is alway s brought up. Lets stop concentrating on the color of each others skin and talk about the issue at hand.
AMEN.
Ergo, obama’s election was pure racism on your side of the opinion page. Dems cannot be racist, only red, white and blue Republicans?
Why does every liberal democrat cry racism everytime someone opposes something they want? Is it because they react without thoughtful, intelligent and informed information? It is getting tiresome to hear. Grow-up, take a deep breath, and try being a reasonable, responsible person.
As ann coulter said, if they couldn’t say dumb, they would lose half their arguement.
if they lost “racist” they would have to use facts.
What is clear to me is too many people want to change the Constitution to suit their own needs. I am sick of people using the race card for every little thing. The Constitution is clear. The last time I checked the District of Columbia is not a state!!! I if the people of the District of Columbia want to have representation I suggest they apply for statehood.
The Constitution was made to ensure it could not be changed to suit people’s wants. However, many just think the ideas are purely elastic and mean anything and everything.
Filtered Comment [ show ]
DC’s taxes are local taxes (except for the federal income taxes which all of us pay), not state taxes. Citizens of the city has full representation for those taxes. You could make an point that they have a viable argument for taxation without representation with regards to the federal income taxes; however, you’d be hard pressed to prove they are less represented than anyone not living in DC in that regard. They have a delegate that can sit on committees and propose legislation (the delegate simply cannot vote on the House floor).
DC was deliberately designed to both NOT be a state and NOT be part of a state.
A better solution would be to redistrict areas surrounding DC (that is, in VA and MD) to include portions of the city in those various districts.
I agree 100% with the redistricting idea. It’s the only idea that does not directly violate the Constitution.
Filtered Comment [ show ]
I suggest that DC residents be dropped from the federal income tax roles and, at the same time, they be removed from all federal gov. handouts. Do you agree?
Interesting idea!
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 gives Congress the right to “exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District”.
You might think that means they can just vote to give DC a seat in the House of Representatives, except that Article 1, Section 2 clearly describes that 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.”
DC is not a state, and it does not have a State Legislature. Therefore it has no qualifications requisite for the Electors. It cannot send a representative to the House. Read the WHOLE document before you cite a section out of context to make a point. Most citizens today do not really know what is in the Constitution, so the morons in congress think they can pass an unconstitutional law and no one will notice.
article 1 section 8 clause 17 doesn’t say ANYTHING relative here.
“To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;—And”
so the federal government has the authority to exercise legislature over dc. whats your point? that doesn’t negate the fact that the house of representatives is MANDATED to be made up of states, and dc isn’t a state.
Despite the painful parsing and race-baiting, it’s patently obvious to any honorable and clear-thinking American that the Act flies in the face of the Constitution. But, I’m afraid our once sacred Constitution, already in tatters, is no longer important to our self-serving “leaders”. Welcome to the Democratic Socialist Republic of America.
Article I
Section 2
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.
No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.
Washington DC is not a state therefore it can’t have a voting representative.
While this is an interesting set of comments are any of you doing anything else?
“…are any of you doing anything else?”
Like what? I’ve already called my Senators’ offices.
What’s next individual voting rights for all the big cities? Besides I thought that state of Maryland in which D.C. is located has representation, right?
dc isn’t part of maryland. in fact, dc isn’t part of ANY state. the idea of dc being an independent city was so that no single state was viewed as being more important than any other. this is part of why we can’t just make dc a state.
the only constitutional thing i can think of is a constitutional amendment to give dc the right to a HoR representative. (not that this is an easy thing to accomplish, it would require 2/3 of the senate, 2/3 of the house, and 2/3 of the states. there is a reason we haven’t had many amendments in the past ~200 years)
I’m opposed to this bill because it is clearly unconstitutional — HOWEVER, seeing as Washington DC alone has a higher population than the entire state of Wyoming, I see no reason why it should not become the 51st State. If statehood is not the “ideal” solution, then the Constitution needs to be amended to allow one representative in the House and at LEAST one senator. No taxation without representation, period.