March 22, 2007
Voting Rights Debate Postponed; Trouble Ahead?
So you're all probably wondering what the heck is up with the debate on the voting rights legislation. Well, it seems that the Republicans may have played a brilliant game of politics.
Towards the end of the debate, which was slated to end a little after 2 p.m., Republicans attempted to introduce an amendment to the legislation which would nullify the District's gun laws. This isn't anything new -- they've tried many times before -- but it may have the effect of killing the voting rights legislation.
According to a message from Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's office, debate on the measure has been postponed for the time being. Such a postponment could only be called by the Democrats, and they would only call it if they thought that the Republican amendment had the votes to pass. If it did, and it passed, the entire legislation might come crashing down -- after all, supporters of District voting rights would similarly have to vote for doing away with the city's gun laws, something many are loath to do.
Seriously, guys -- can't we just have a debate and an up or down vote on this? We can't help but think that the Republicans will do anything to bring the legislation down, and probably not because they're all gripping their copies of the Constitution in fear of the District violating it. Supporters of the legislation have called a 3:30 p.m. press conference to explain what happened and what's next.
|
And to think this country still believes its a "leader in democracy around the world".
What a joke of a democracy.
So in order to get a vote in the House we have to give up on the ability to make our own laws?
I personally wouldn't mind getting the gun ban lifted. Instead of just criminals carrying guns in DC, people who respect laws and are fearful of someone breaking into their homes might get a chance to legally own a firearm.
Yeah, that was a cynical abusive of democracy. Consent of the governed my ass.
So what's the line on whether or not Pence knew ahead of time?
Republicans strike again for the anti-freedom lobby.
As opposed to Democrats who just impose on the people more government and taxes that make us so much freer.
If Pelosi wanted to have an up or down vote on this she could - but she can’t keep her folks in line. Obviously there is support for the gun ban or otherwise they would be able to beat down the amendment. I don’t know much about House procedure but I know that there are no Minority rights to impede legislation a strong Majority leader wants. If you are going to blame someone blame the Majority leadership. Not the folks who have been adamant in their opposition to this bill.
For once, I'll have to agree with the Repubs, I think overly restrictive gun laws are stupid, there should be better enforcement of the laws we have.
As much as it may convenience some to imagine otherwise, the issue at hand isn't gun control. The core issue is, as Pence said, the consent of the governed.
MS how are you so stupid as to call Democrats the party of government? Have you seriously not payed attention to the previous six years, have you?
Ok, let me get this straight . . .
During floor debate of the bill, the Republicans were allowed to offer one single amendment. The Republicans offered an amendment that was likely to attract enough support from Democrats to pass. Not wanting the bipartisan amendmet to pass, the Speaker of the House refused to let the amendment be voted on, and pulled the entire bill from the floor.
And everyone accuses the Republicans of being opposed to democracy?
This is awful, and a dirty trick by the republicans. Gun laws should be at the local level, based on the specific needs of the area. And DC certainly needs these laws.
I guess that's beside the point because the republicans only want to kill our chance at representation by this stunt.
Breaux, can you not call people stupid. The party in power is the Democrats so they control what is going on in Congress like that joke for a supplemental war spending bill. I do agree that the Republicans spent too much during the last 6 years, but we are talking now.
Also, most legislation has things attached to it. It is called being a good leader and making sure your party stays on point. The Republicans did this from 95-07 and the Dems. did it before that. I believe the Speaker will get her people in-order it will just take time.
Good going Nancy! Good going Steny! The Democrats couldn't organize a trip to the bathroom. Outmaneuvered by Republicans...again! Pathetic.
Looks like the local Republicans support the bill. Here is the latest statement they sent out:
DC GOP CALLS ON REPUBLICANS
TO VOTE “YES” ON DC VOTING RIGHTS:
THE BILL IS CONSTITUTIONAL
(WASHINGTON) The D.C. Republican Committee sent a delegation to Capitol Hill today to talk to Republican Congressional offices in favor of the D.C. House Voting Rights Act, which has cleared two House committees and is heading for a full vote in the House of Representatives.
“We are going to fight for voting rights, because we are the party of Abraham Lincoln,” said Robert Kabel, Chairman of the D.C. Republican Party. “This is a bill written by a Republican Congressman, and it is the bi-partisan solution to a historic injustice. The American citizens of the District of Columbia pay their taxes, fight for their country and deserve equal rights.”
Kabel praised Congressional Republicans for their support of D.C. Voting Rights, especially Rep. Tom Davis (R-Va), who has led the effort, and Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind), who voted for the bill in committee and wrote a strong op-ed article in the conservative magazine, Human Events, where he called the denial of D.C.’s voting right in the House “clearly a historic wrong and justice demands that it be addressed,” adding that the bill is “a constitutional remedy to a historic wrong.”
Kabel joined Pence in disputing critics that call the bill unconstitutional. A wide range of constitutional scholars, including Judge Kenneth Starr and Viet Dinh, former Assistant Attorney General under President George W. Bush who authored the USA Patriot Act, strongly agree that the Davis bill is constitutional.
“We have a clear message for our Republican friends in Congress,” Kabel said. “This bill is right, it’s overdue, and it is constitutional.”
The bill, first introduced by Rep. Davis in the previous Congress, would grant the District of Columbia full voting representation in the House of Representatives. Its enactment into law was added to the D.C. Republican Party’s platform in 2004, making the D.C. GOP the first party in the District to endorse its passage. Since then, D.C. Republicans have consistently called for and campaigned on D.C. voting rights as a top priority.
Robert J. Kabel - Chairman
Betsy W. Werronen - National Committeewoman
Anthony W. Parker - National Committeeman
This might be the PERFECT example on why this two party bullshit has to end.
Democrats: "You're disenfranchising people a clear violation of the founding principles!!!"
Republicans: "Fine, we'll let them vote. But only if you let them have full 2nd amendment rights!"
Democrats: "Awww fuck. You got us there, WE HATE that Goddamn amendment. Fuck it, we'll let this issue die. We'd rather they have no rights then what their entitled to."
Republicans: "Hey lets have a spirited gay marriage debate, to distract the plebs. You call CNN I'll call Fox."
Democrats: "Cool, you goin' to Bullfeathers later."
Republicans: "Yeah, see ya there."
The District will always be fucked up the ass, by Washington.
Those effin' Congressional Republicans just chap my a$$. I want my vote to mean something! Evidently "democracy" is good enough for thousands of Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis to die for, but it's still not necessary for those of us who reside in DC.
Also, "retired" Republican Senator Edward Brooke wrote a letter to Boehner last month:
The Honorable John A. Boehner
Republican Leader
House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Leader,
I am writing to urge you and your colleagues to give voting rights for U.S. citizens of the District of Columbia by supporting H.R. 328, the D.C. Voting Rights Act. I was born, raised, educated and have lived a good part of my life as a citizen of the District. But along with a half million people today, I never had the voting representation in Congress that is a fundamental right of all citizens.
Much of public discourse today has the common theme of disparities – in education, in income, in job opportunities, in treatment of minorities and women, in housing. It’s an important discussion, but not a new one. It’s been with us for a long time, from the founding fathers to Abraham Lincoln to Martin Luther King. On a personal note, my entire life in public service has been devoted to bridging the divide between legitimate and competing interests with respect to the profound notion that we are all created equal.
This is not a political debate. It is a moral debate. And whether you are white or black, Republican or Democrat, man or woman, as you and I know, the denial of the right to vote is morally wrong. As citizens in our nation’s capital, we have all of the same obligations as our fellow citizens in the fifty states. We pay taxes, we help defend our country, and many of us devote our careers to working in the federal government. What we don’t have in common is representation in Congress.
The time to end this unconscionable disparity is now, and I hope and pray our Party will take the lead in the passage of this vital legislation.
Sincerely yours,
Edward W. Brooke
United States Senator, Retired
"huh?", the point is that the amendment itself is undemocratic, since it would use the power of a Congress that DC residents have no vote in to negate a decision made by DC voters and elected officials.
"Huh?" has it completely right. To blame Republicans for the Democrat leadership's decision to not pass bipartisan legislation is disgusting.
I'm against the legislation and against the gun ban, so this is win-win for me.
As I mentioned at my site, the good thing about siding with Republicans is that you win more of these battles.
"Ok, let me get this straight . . ."
Kids, this isn't party specific. I remember quite a few budget bills, as well as other legislation that was regularly pulled by Republican leadership when a Democratic amendment was added that happened to tick off the majority.
Not new, and certainly not a creative play for the Dems -- they simply don't want to watch as a bill goes down in flames due to a targeted strike via amendment.
Why Pelosi doesn't grow a proverbial pair and just go for an up/down is beyond me... Perhaps I'm missing a nuanced aspect of House rules ?
All the amendment said was that if DC is going to be considered a state for purposes of representation in Congress, that it should also be considered a state in consideration of the second amendment.
I dont see how anyone could possibly say that evil Republicans are hijacking democracy in this instance with any sort of credibility.
I wonder if DCist can create a poll to see what the readers think. Something along the lines of asking about a clean bill and one with the gun amendment attached. What do you think DCist Martin?
Rockeye:
About 95% of DCist readers/posters/writers/editors are moveon.org liberals. I don't have scientific proof on that but after reading this site for the last 3 years I get that impression.
Basic outlook of most posters: Republicans=evil. Democrats=good.
Or, for those who want to look hip:
Republicans=evil. Democrats=stupid/whinny.
Rockeye, I don't think the Republican amendment said that. In fact I am sure it did not. The Second Amendment has not yet been applied to the states - from my memory it is one of the only amendments not to have been applied to the states. Therefore, if DC is a state for purposes of the 2nd Amendment, the District would be in its right to ban gun laws (whether it is good policy is another issue, one that I am not wading into).
The most persuasive argument I have seen in terms of the DC gun ban being unconstitutional is that Congress is ultimately responsible for the District and therefore the ban is supported by the Federal Government, which is unconstitutional. Not that gun bans are unconstitutional in general.
Seriously.
OK, and for a minute lets assume this bill is constitutional.
How about a poll that says:
Yes or no: Do you think the whole constitution should be applied DC?
"About 95% of DCist readers/posters/writers/editors are moveon.org liberals."
Hmm. That's about 20% more liberal readers than the general DC population. DCist must be pulling in a lot of eyes from disaffected Northern VA.
Or, you know, he could just be using a "creative" definition of liberal.
Hey MS, are you getting those numbers straight from MoveOn?
So what party is the guy threatening to veto it because it is "unconstitutional"?
How about straight but separate votes on the gun laws and DC voting?
I would guess that the nature of DCist writers draws liberal readers to it. Both cultural and political posts tend to tilt in a liberal direction.
I will say it is hard to determine the political leanings of some posters. I know most people would classify me as conservative. I don't mind the label but probably best to refer to me as a libertarian. Big difference in the two groups esp. if you compare me to a social conservative.
The reason I bring this up is because some of the "Scoop" Jackson Democrats sound like neocons. Hard to determine if they only post on Iraq what political leanings these people have.
If the DC gun laws are unconstitutional, then the courts will invalidate them and there's no reason to for Congress to repeal them. The only reason to have the amendment is if you're afraid the laws are a constitutional expression of the will of DC voters. Or, of course, if you just want to sabotage the voting rights bill.
You know, I don't care that much about the handgun law, it's just the principle of the thing. Once again, some Congressman trying to shove his ideology down the District's throat. I get sick of being treated like some political science laboratory by Congress -- especially with no representation.