March 20, 2007
Bush Issues Threat of Veto on D.C. Voting Rights
President George W. Bush today formally declared his intention to veto legislation that would grant the District a voting seat in the House of Representatives. In a Statement of Administration Policy released by the Office of Management and Budget, the Bush administration stated that "the bill violates the Constitution's provisions governing the composition and election of the United States Congress" and that any congressional endorsement would be swiftly vetoed.
The statement quoted the section of the Constitution in which the composition of the House of Representatives is limited to members chosen by the people of the "several states." According to the Bush administration and several legal experts, including a recent brief by the Congressional Research Service, since the District is not a state any move to grant it voting representation would require a constitutional amendment. A number of legal experts, including conservative heavyweights like Kenneth Starr and Viet Dinh, have claimed otherwise, noting that the Constitution also grants Congress exclusive rights over the District. Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), an ardent conservative, publicly sided with this position over the weekend.
If it actually reached his desk, this bill could potentially be Bush's second ever veto (the first and only veto he's followed through on was a stem cell research bill last July), though the president has suddenly been threatening a lot more vetoes since the Democrats took control of Congress.
This fight is clearly coming down to a legal battle over what the Constitution says, what the framers intended and how far Congress can go in proposing a remedy. The House is set to vote on the legislation in the coming weeks; it then moves to the Senate, where its prospects are slim. We'd like to see the legislation pass, if only to give the courts the chance to definitively establish what it would take to remedy the District's historic disenfranchisement. Of course, should the legislation die in the Senate, a move towards a constitutional amendment will be the next necessary step. And if anyone is truly serious about democracy -- President Bush included -- resolving this injustice should be an obvious priority.
|
Get it through your head... it is unconstitutional!
If you were "truly serious about democracy" you would be talking about making DC part of Maryland or VA.
Sorry, I've been living out of the country a couple of months. Since when does George Bush give a shit about what the Constitution says?
ok:
steven andrew miller: you know full fucking well that both maryland and virginia do not want DC to merge into either state, so your statement is a non-starter. there are other ways to go about this, which martin mentions here (the constitutional amendment route). we need to have this thing come to a vote, get passed, and have the courts rule on it. if they say it's unconstitutional (and the courts are the only ones who can state this definitively, not you, not george bush, not mohandas gandhi), then we move forward with an amendment push.
let the system work, ok?
Maybe this is more about George Bush not wanting DC to get voting rights...because of the predominately democrat/liberal make-up of the residents and thus its representation? Has nothing to do with "the Constitution."
Man, what a dick.
"If you were "truly serious about democracy" you would be talking about making DC part of Maryland or VA."
Maryland nor Virginia wants DC in their state.
The "city" annual operating budget of Washington, DC is $5.4 billion per year. The budget of our city rivals numerous state budgets all around this country. I have done the research. The DC "city" budget is more than half of the entire state of Maryland's annual operating budget. Integration into Maryland would throw both DC and Maryland into political and economic chaos. It is much easier and much more efficient to make DC a state of its own than to integrate it into another state. DC already functions as a state. DC has its own National Guard, pension system, vehicle licensure, insurance programs, Health Department, Transportation Department, regulatory agencies, state taxes and numerous other state agencies already in place. And DC has a massive debt load. You don't think the Maryland Legislature hasn't figured all this out already? They have. Maryland does not not support DC becoming a part of their state for these very reasons plus a few more, and I wish that people would have figured that out by now. We are in limbo.
Eleanor Holmes Norton has strayed off the path. The only viable options at this point are constitutional amendment granting us members of the House of Representatives AND 2 senators or outright statehood. We need to forget this bill which raises too many questions and is an easy target for criticism. We need to get back on the right path, and we need to elect someone to be our delegate that can evoke mass appeal and can use a few more brain cells than what are being used by our elected officials today.
We need the full guarantee of the Constitution through a constitutional amendment. A bill is just a bill and could be repealed by the next republican congress. We don't need that instability. And, top aides to the President are correct that this bill could through Congress into chaos if the courts found this bill to be unconstitutional at a later date once the 2 new member have taken their seats.
Representation for the District of Columbia is needed and possible. This bill is not the best option for that goal. We now have people's attention. We now have supporters in Congress for representation. Let us use that leverage and fight for full representation in Congress that includes 2 senators in addition to members of the House of Representatives. Let us do that now. More importantly, let us elect someone with the energy and the vision to fight for it in an intelligent and influential way.
I highly doubt representation is "needed." That makes sound like we must have it or citizens will die. Now I think a better argument is that representation is a basic component of a republican form of government and when any part of this country does not have it there is a loss of liberty and democratic values in our society overall.
Still saying we need representation is silly when D.C. has functioned without it. I wonder to Jefferson ever thought about putting the "damn it we really need it" argument into the Declaration of Independence?
otavio - How much does DC generate in tourist dollars and property taxes? Doesn't that offset much of the operating budget? Hasn't DC been generating budget surpluses for years? I know the standard anti-retrocession argument about DC's indigent population, but much of that pupulation moved to PG County years ago. I mean, compared to Baltimore, DC is a cash cow.
In other news, Study says "One-Third of Washington D.C. functionally "Illiterate"
DC has indeed been running surpluses for several years in a row. But lurking behind the wizardry of Dr. Gandhi is a dirty little secret that gets very little notice: DC has a massive - and growing - debt. The servicing of the debt continues to grow each year. And the actual debt itself keeps expanding. There currently is no one on the city council who is a budget hawk and who is willing to bang on pots and pans to point out the major, major problem this city will have in a few years as its Medicare/Medicaid costs, health care costs for workers and the poor, and pensions all start coming due in a big way.
As for the voting rights bill, it's DOA. Court aren't going to get a chance to rule on it because: a) it's doubtful the Senate will pass the bill; and b) Bush won't sign the bill. So we're back to Square One. Now, I think Eleanor should go out and start advocating for no federal taxation since we don't have representation. I would be perfectly happy with being in Puerto Rico's category: have a mere delegate in Congress, and pay no federal taxes to Uncle Sam.
Sorry, but I don't see Eleanor advocating Federal tax exemption any time soon. That "No Taxation without Representation" is just a quippy slogan to her to try and get the latter. Advocating the former goes against traditional Democratic principles of making all citizens equally poor.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.
Federal tax exemption in DC is highly unlikely to ever happen.
Since DC has had to go it alone all these decades, the debt load has been increasing by massive amounts. DC has no state to support it, and the federal government does not adequately make up the difference. Yes, that is right - the Feds are part of the problem. They want to be involved in our local affairs, yet they don't contribute to viable solutions. They want to tell us how we can spend our locally generated revenue. That is just wrong.
Contrary to popular belief, we don't need our hands held anymore. We also need to get rid of the people in city government who are not dedicated to improving our city. The General Accounting Office has estimated that DC has a structural imbalance of between $400 and $1.1 billion dollars. Something must be done to correct this.
Mayor Williams did a lot to expand the DC tax base. Our previous mayor understood economics. We need to develop every square inch of taxable land in this city, and we need to gain control of more non-taxable land so it can contribute to our city's economy. Many citizens don't understand this situation, and they link it to gentrification. DC does care about the poor and low-income families, but those same families will bankrupt DC. But, they must understand that the economic survival of our city is at stake. Since the city government must go it alone, acting as a city government and state government simultaneously, we must make every dollar work. And, we must curtail the increases in debt. This is about economic survival. It is time for our suburbs to share in the burden of housing the city's poor. This is pure economics. We need more people here contributing taxes than people draining more from the city's coffers. And, we need to continue expanding the tax base -that means more housing, more retail, and more office construction. We also need to streamline business and housing permitting process. We also need to bring back the middle class. We need to demolish every last subsidized housing project and rebuild those communities. And, yes we can keep a few parks for people to relax in.
Last major point - we can overcome our structural imbalance by doing it ourselves since we are not getting the proper help from the feds. That is why we need the development to keep expanding the tax base. Maybe we can work out a deal. We can tell Congress that we'll take care of our structural imbalance that the Feds helped to create if they'll give us independence to run our own local affairs.
And, don't think that it takes so long to make changes in this city just because of the DC Government. The Federal government add layers of beauracracy to day-to-day operations and our city's legislation.
Hey Cranky,
I think I've heard Councilmember Jack Evans speak to DC's debt load once or twice in the past couple of years.
Ms is right. Representation is a basic component of a republican form of government.
Denial of the vote to DC violates the principles that a government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed, and that all persons within its jurisdiction are entitled to equal protection of the laws. Denial of any vote whatsoever to DC violates these principles.
The arguments that DC is too small in area or population are irrelevant. The constitution does not deny representation because of size, since Rhode Island and Alaska are both represented, nor because of population, since Wyoming and California are both represented.
So it is not enough to say that DC is not a state, or the founders denied it a vote. The opponents of DC voting rights have not set out any principled reasons why DC should not vote.
Not Puerto Rico asks about literacy, but what about the abysmally low achievement scores in Arkansas and Alabama, where everyone is allowed to vote?
Hey monkeyrotica:
DC has had balanced budgets for about a decade now. Cranky is right that behind the scenes the DC debt load is massive. We have enjoyed yearly surpluses under the leadership of Mayor Williams and an increasing tax base. But, most of DC's tax revenue is dedicated to servicing the city's massive debt. The debt ratio needs to be halted and not increased too much further. We are blessed in that we have investment grade bond ratings by the big three rating agencies for most of that debt.
Most DC services are adequately funded. Most people equate mismanaged city agencies to them not having enough money to do a good job. That is fundamentally wrong. It is the management that is the problem. We just need to bring more efficient management to city government. It is happening albeit very slowly. It is tough to rid the city government of this. They won't go quietly. Mayor Williams started the process. And, it was a tough order to fill. Let's see if Mayor Fenty continues this.
Ok MS!
Representation in the District of Columbia is a just cause to fight for.
Hey DCist - PLEASE pull down the photo of the Smirking Chimp frat boy before I puke...
Worst. President. Ever.