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.

Comments Feed

Displaying 1-30 of 66 total comments.

bdg333 02/11/2011 4:04pm
in reply to mctoole08 Feb 24, 2009 6:47am

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.

bdg333 02/11/2011 4:01pm
in reply to DAK Feb 28, 2009 6:57am

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.

ConstConsv1990 04/27/2010 2:07pm

This is a clear breach of the Constitution. DC is not one of the “several States,” nor will it ever be. I cannot understand why the non-voting representative from DC can introduce a bill, nor how the Senate would pass this version.

So what is next? Puerto Rico, Northern Marianas, Samoa, Guam, Virgin Islands?

applemanmatt 04/19/2010 12:55pm
in reply to msouthard Feb 26, 2009 10:45am

If DC was made an individual state, that would only benefits Democrats. The best thing to do is make DC part of Maryland, which is already one of the most blue states in the country, via a constitutional amendment. In other words, it’s politically-neutral. I agree with no taxation w/o representation.

fortermlimits 10/31/2009 4:19pm

Come on Joe, I thought you knew better than to propose something like this. I am truley disappointed in you.

dankennedy73 09/22/2009 6:37pm
in reply to McLeancc3 Aug 17, 2009 5:49am

For the sake of Constitutional law which unfortunately has been violated quite a lot recently, I have to agree with you on every count.

dankennedy73 09/22/2009 6:32pm
in reply to standmyground99 Sep 04, 2009 7:55pm

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.

standmyground99 09/04/2009 7:55pm
in reply to jfreeman Mar 06, 2009 8:22am

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!!!!!!!

mkail666 08/31/2009 3:59pm
in reply to HENSON8 Feb 24, 2009 4:55am

If I lived in DC I’d rather fight for no taxation.

McLeancc3 08/17/2009 5:49am

This should be an amendment, until it is an amendment to the constitution I will not support this. They must go the the proper process to inact this policy I will not support any bill that is allowing them to overstep their boundries clearly defined by the U.S. constitution.

Herostratus 08/17/2009 5:47am
in reply to Cascadian503 Aug 09, 2009 6:38pm

Now of course the other option that’s been thrown around for years now is to exempt DC taxpayers from the federal income tax… That would solve the taxation without representation problem…

Though it would just fill up with corporate raiders and investment bankers who owned vacant (and increasingly derelict) property to claim residence. (though that would greatly increase the city income tax takings)

But amusing to consider, perhaps.

The main problem for me remains Congress meddling in DC local affairs.

Cascadian503 08/09/2009 6:38pm

Taxation without representation. Give ’em a VOTE! It is inconceivable that the Framers of the Constitution originally intended to disenfranchise taxpayers. One more representative in Congress will suffice.

Herostratus 08/04/2009 8:20am
in reply to glenja Feb 27, 2009 8:01am

Those states wouldn’t want the expense of a city with such a small tax base (as all the government buildings and non-profit entities don’t pay taxes yet use quite a lot of infrastructure). It’s also mostly a very poor city so income tax revenue is low.

Herostratus 08/04/2009 8:19am

Add to that the right of Congress to overrule any law passed by the City Council and impose any law on the city that they see fit, the whole situation is no better than one would get in a totalitarian regime. We get Congress taking cheap shots at the city for political gain (blocking gun laws, budgets, drug policy, education, etc.) just to be able to tell constituents back home that they’re ‘tough’ on these various issues without having to actually make hard decisions that would impact their constituents.

DC wasn’t even allowed to have a mayor until the 1960’s.

I do enjoy having ‘Taxation Without Representation’ on the license plates.

Herostratus 08/04/2009 8:18am

The fact that as a DC resident I have no say in the national affairs of the country, other than the token single electoral vote, makes a mockery of everything the US is supposed to stand for as a ‘democracy’ and defeats the entire point of the Constitution.

The regulations as they currently stand were designed when DC was meant to be a collection of government buildings across the river from George Washington’s plantation – where politicians would congregate during certain times of the year to discuss and vote, then go home (as they’d done in Philadelphia). It’s completely different now that it’s a major city with a full-time population (and even some of the politicians rarely go home).

Herostratus 08/04/2009 8:16am
in reply to Herostratus Aug 04, 2009 8:13am

Messed up on the buttons there… Meant to reply:

Meant to reply to this:
Do you seriously believe that’s true? The suburbs are expensive. I don’t have a car. I work in the city. I can’t just pick up and leave.

How easy would it be for you to just pick up and leave your state if you decided you didn’t like it?

Herostratus 08/04/2009 8:13am

People who live in DC, choose to live there. It is not a state, was never intended by our founding fathers to be a state.

Very simply they don’t have to live there, there are 50 Sovereign States in the United States of America that constitutional have representatives.

lxtkn1989 07/30/2009 12:51pm
in reply to cjstgeorge Feb 26, 2009 4:10pm

There’s a difference with the Military, Astronauts, etc in that they probably have a permanent address in one of the several states. They have voting representatives in congress. Any voting expats have addresses in the US that are used for their registration. Most residents of DC do not have other addresses outside the district. While I agree that the bill as written probably crosses the line into unconstitutional territory, I do not believe that option 3 is really that great of an idea. All acts of DC’s local gov’t go to Congress for approval, so essentially leaving DC without a voting rep is more akin to leaving any other city without a city council elected by the people, or a state without a governor elected by the people.
A constitutional answer to this problem is necessary.

fellowamerican 06/15/2009 9:13pm
in reply to fellowamerican Jun 15, 2009 9:11pm
Section 8. 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, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings. The District of Columbia, according to our Constitution, is the seat of our Government. It is not a state who needs representation in Congress or the Senate. The District is Congress and the Senate. How can Congress even consider this flagrant disregard of the Constitution with a vote! To Congress: PROTECT OUR CONSTITUTION!
fellowamerican 06/15/2009 9:11pm
in reply to fellowamerican Jun 15, 2009 9:09pm

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.

fellowamerican 06/15/2009 9:09pm
in reply to kennya Mar 25, 2009 1:33pm

Please refer to Our Constitution;
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Section. 1. All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

DianaAmerican 04/14/2009 8:49am

People who live in DC, choose to live there. It is not a state, was never intended by our founding fathers to be a state.

Very simply they don’t have to live there, there are 50 Sovereign States in the United States of America that constitutional have representatives.

Capitalism, Where Art Thou?
The U.S. Constitution, Where Art Thou?
Freedom & Liberty, Where Art Thou?
Honest Politicians who Aren’t in Violation of their Oath of Office, Where Art Thou?

It seems apparent that Most of the politicians really do not care about “We The People”. Their “Love of Power” has taken over. There is a solution in the “The Bill of Rights”. Just read it.

I pledge Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, One Nation Under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.

SethSS 03/31/2009 3:44am
Link Reply
+ -1

kennya’s statements are right on! Too many uninformed citizens think that we are a democracy. It’s all we hear from our schools and media. My greatest fear is that too many people, including politicians, could care less about the constitution and it’s too late to save it. I hope I’m wrong.

jdelaney3 03/29/2009 6:50am

Did S.Amdt. 591 (Durbin’s amendment) pass?

jdelaney3 03/29/2009 6:39am

Listening to Sen. Lieberman, I think the bill’s sponsors anticipated its’ being unconstitutional. But, what entity will actually step up and challenge its constitutionality before SCOTUS? I’m afraid there are precious few law makers on the Hill who much care about the Constitution. To do the right thing, the Constitution needs to be amended. in this anything-goes climate, don’t hold your breath.

ikinya6 03/28/2009 7:43am

There are two arguments here: 1) whether DC should be represented in Congress, and 2) whether this bill is constitutional. Just because one argues that the bill is unconstitutional does not necessarily mean that one is against DC being represented in Congress. It is only saying that, if DC being represented in Congress is a desirable thing, it should be done in accordance with the Constitution. We have survived these last 220 years because we subject ourselves to a controlling document. Merely wanting something really, really badly does not justify short-cutting (and weakening) that document. If it worthy of doing, convince enough people to agree with you and make it happen… the right way.

gmbun 03/27/2009 11:26am

I am just so tired, fed up really with politicians in this country ignoring the Constitution and passing laws that suit their fancy. The Constitution should NOT be a “living breathing document” as some on left believe. Their is a proper way of changing the supreme law of the land and that is by amending it as described within it. Politicians should have the b—— to gut up and try to go about effecting the change they want properly.

kennya 03/25/2009 1:33pm
in reply to jazz836062 Mar 25, 2009 8:32am

“If you are a citizen of the United States you are guaranteed representation in congress”

Not true. If you are a citizen of one of the states of the United States, you are guaranteed that. If we need to amend the constitution to give residents of DC representation, then we should amend the constitution. If we need to redistrict the population of DC to be part of the states of Maryland and Virginia, then we should do that.

But let’s not violate our constitution just because the people want a rep. We do NOT live in a democracy, governed by mob rule. We live in a constitutional republic. There is a difference, and our founding fathers specifically said they do not want to live in a democracy. A true democracy doesn’t have any need of a constitution.

jazz836062 03/25/2009 8:32am
Link Reply
+ -1

If you are a citizen of the United states you are guaranteed representation in congress to represent your districts opinions on issues. By not allowing D.C. to have anybody in congress you are abridging their right to representation within congress, whether or not D.C. is a state or not. There are people who need representation.

MTPatriot 03/08/2009 5:57am
Link Reply
+ -1
in reply to glenja Feb 27, 2009 7:55am

Interesting idea!

Vote on This Bill

26% Users Support Bill

145 in favor / 410 opposed

Send Your Senator a Letter

about this bill Support Oppose Tracking
Track with MyOC

Top-Rated Comments