September 19, 2007
John Warner -- Our Newest Champion
Just like with the late-night votes in the D.C. Council on whether or not to finance the construction of a new stadium a few years back, we all hoped to wake up this morning and find out that the Senate had voted again and decided that voting rights for the District was a go. No such luck. We did, however, pick up a new champion for the cause.
Sen. John Warner (R-Va.) was the only senator from the region to vote against moving forward to grant the District a voting seat in the House of Representatives yesterday. Why? Because he believed, like others did, that the measure was unconstitutional. But apparently, he's willing to do something about it. According to the Post, Warner is drafting a constitutional amendment to grant the District voting members.
We'll believe it when we see it, just like we'll believe that Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) really cares about allowing every American to vote when he agrees to support such an amendment. But if you feel like calling up Sen. Warner's office to see how the amendment is coming along, we're not going to stop you. Locally, try (202) 224-2023 or stop by the 225 Russell Building. If you're elsewhere in Virginia, he has a few state offices you can pester. And if they need a little help getting that amendment along, feel free to read them the following text:
So come on, Sen. Warner. You're about to retire, and you've got nothing to lose by backing up those words with some action. We'll be waiting.SECTION 1. For purposes of representation in the Congress, election of the President and Vice President, and article V of this Constitution, the District constituting the seat of government of the United States shall be treated as though it were a State.
SECTION 2. The exercise of the rights and powers conferred under this article shall be by the people of the District constituting the seat of government, and as shall be provided by the Congress.
SECTION 3. The twenty-third article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
SECTION 4. This article shall be inoperative, unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission.
|
Interesting. He has nothing to lose from it politically since he's on the way out. Conservatives hate his guts anyway, so he doesn't need to appease them.
If I recall, wasn't he born in the District? Maybe its an issue of personal concern, so he can now come out of the closet so to speak since he doesn't have to tow the party line so much.
The failed attempt at voting rights was a dishonest way of going about it and really gave us nothing except for a vote for Eleanor automatically cancelled out by Utah. If we're not willing to do the hard work to pass a constitutional amendment we don't deserve it (and we would get out due of 2 Senators at the same time). And we should ask for exemption from federal taxes in the meantime -- although, I suspect, a large number, perhaps a majority, would prefer that in the end anyway.
I know everyone throws around the idea of not paying taxes, but I think it cheapens the whole principle of gaining voting rights. I'm sure many Americans would happily give up paying taxes if it meant not having a representative in Congress, but that right should be worth more than money in my opinion. The minute we say "Hey, we don't want to pay taxes" is the minute everyone realizes we can be bought out.
Well said Martin.
The horse is dead. Stop beating it.
Sen. Warner should be challenged to submit the text of his Amendment in short order and also work to have it approved by the Congress and ratified by the states.
In the meantime, he can say that he will respond to concerns and communication from DC residents just as he does with those from Virginia. It's not the same as a vote, by any means, but at least he can acknowledge his responsibility to DC residents. All Senators and Members of Congress should be challenged to do the same.
I would like to see a referendum in DC to decide which option – paying federal tax or voting rights – the residents prefer and have our council, mayor, and delegate move forward with the community’s opinion.
I realize that voting rights is more important for some people, but for me not paying federal tax would be much better. Rather than leave the decision to the political elite, lets hear what the citizens of the District would prefer.
Guest #5:
This is far from dead. And if we have to beat this dead horse until we're blue in the face, we will. The principle is far too important to simply throw up our hands and say, "Oh well, that was a good try! How about we not pay taxes instead?"
I just called Sen. Warner's office. The staff was very vague on whether Warner will actually author the amendment.
Keep the pressure on.
How can we get organized for this?
Amazing how politicians find all this courage and moral indignation when they don't have another election to win.
getting an amendment written and submitted to the floor by any senator would be great, but there's something else we need to go with that: the ability to use funds to lobby for that amendment. as it stands right now, we still don't have right, do we?
Aw, come on. Do we HAVE to have the seven-year clause? Look how well it worked for us last time.
#7 is right -- if voting rights supporters say that the Senate shouldn't be afraid of debating voting rights on the merits, then shouldn't we also say that DC residents should have a choice whether we get voting rights or become exempt from paying federal taxes? It is a choice we should have the opportunity to decide for ourselves.
And so it's amendment time. As a District resident it pains me to say that it is clear that any Congressional action would be susceptible to a successful challenge at the Supreme Court (especially this Court). You just can't get away from the fact Article 1 Section 2 says that representation in Congress is reserved to the several states and the district isn;t a state. Of course, I am sure that our founding fathers, as well as all those enlightened cats who everyone was reading (Voltaire, Rousseau, Montesquieu, Locke, etc.) at the time the Constitution/Bill of Rights was ratified (and, not coincidentally, the same time our key ally in the War of Independence was undergoing a "progressive internal reorganization"), yeah, they are all probably spinning in their graves knowing that technical glitch in their work is now resulting in the same type of oppression they sought to address. Funny that the very document that was supposed to reflect the concept that political power is merely an extension of the power of the people for the people is falling short for some of those folks just because, ironically, they live right at the geographical center of power. Well, at least we don't have to commute on I-66--the Framers wouldn't have been too keen on that either.
But I digress: the political focus now should be representation in the SENATE. Who cares about proportional representation in the House of Reps? That's chump change. What you need to see in any draft amendment is two senators. Anything short of that is unequal treatment of the District's residents. Of course, giving the district two senators would make it a liberal superpower. While I guess that's fair, seeing as how the District's population is greater than that of at least one state, namely, Wyoming, and is just slightly less than Vermont, I can't see that such a measure would sit nicely with Fox News and its fans in Flyoverville, USA.
Well, maybe we just have to wait until Operation: Gentrify is complete and then it won't look as threatening. Can you imagine? Voting rights and a no commute? Maybe they'll even turn the Dupont underground into a rod and gun club instead of a strip joint? And convert that mission on 14th st. to a Borders, already! Not holding my breath, but that new Convention Center would make a heck of an Evangelist Church, now, wouldn't it!
Guest 14, somehow I don't think the Fox News folks are going to be keen on any senators even a fully gentrified District would elect. And you're much more likely to find evangelical churches in the parts of DC that have *not* been gentrified.
on the 7 years: the supreme court has found that constitutional amendments have to be ratified within a reasonable time after they are proposed. so there has to be some limit.
Getting both Byrd and Warner to sponsor a bipartisan constitutional amendment would be a good indication of where they really stand on the merits of the issue. But from your comments, number 9, I'm wondering if this is more rhetoric than commitment on his part.
This would probably have to pass in some states that are more inclined to amend the constitution to ban gay marriage than to amend it to end our disenfranchisement.
I really doubt an amendment would clear the Senate. And I really, really doubt the amendment would be ratified by enough states. The red states would be disinclined to support it, and I imagine that even some of the blue states would be ambivilant on it, seeing as a fully urban "state" might not be as sympathetic to certain issues like agriculture or industry.
In consideration of the usual process that leads to a new state, I think maybe it's worth thinking of more radical solutions like splitting a currently red state into two. I know everyone gets all up in arms about "canceling" a vote, but read your history books, it's this type of horse trading that led to a lot of our states.
BostonRay says: Let me get this straight. Now that you have utterly failed in your very liberal attempt to get an obviously unconstitutional bill passed...you claim to now have just discovered the U. S. Constitution. Like ya know, a wow moment!
All you have to do now is write it up and convince people like me - pro-American, Republican ice cold conservative, Hummer H2/Pickup driving, anti-illegal immigrant, Live and let live, smoke 'em if you got them, property/family rights honoring people that a bunch of move-on org. hollwood producer controlled, anti-property rights, smoker discriminating, live like I say not as I do, synthetic self styled elitist, health cultist, sanctuary city loving, Hillery Healthcare tax loving, military insulting people from a place that is not-a-state that you should be treated as equal to a state.
No problemo! y'all come on down! Ya Think!
16: Congress does not have to place a limit as a result of that decision.. but it is strongly recommended. The Court punted the issue back to Congress. So if you don't have a deadline, and it gets ratified, Congress essentially gets a 2nd vote on it before addition to the Constitution. See 14th and 27th Amendments.
hey guest number 19....
first, shove it up your hummer's tailpipe.
second, (if you're not a troll, which is what i'm sure you are and yes, i'm just feeding the troll), if you do believe in your snarky little "live and let live" mantra, then why don't you want the people who to live like they want to. if the overwhelming majority of us don't want smoking in public places, that isn't discriminating, that's just majority rule. you stay on your side of the potomac, y'all hear?
anti-illegal immigrant, Live and let live
The very definition of an oxymoron.
you can lose the "oxy" part, HR. I'd just call them a moron.
Re: the Utah compromise
This is almost a no-brainer. Utah gets an extra rep, but after the next census we redistrict. Maybe Utah keeps its seat, maybe it goes to another red state, maybe to a blue. Doesn't matter. DC would always keep its one seat, just like Wyoming does. In the end, we have 437 in the House, 386 of whom can change every ten years depending on population shifts.
Another compromise could be one Senator for DC. It's not full statehood, but then again its better than what we've got now. And it means the vacuous position of Vice President becomes even more powerless because it loses the Senate tie-breaker threat.
BostonRay, I'm trying really hard to avoid the conclusion that, during the American Revolution, you'd have been fighting for the Tories.
"All you have to do now is write it up and convince people like me - pro-English, Tory ice cold conservative, thoroughbred-riding, anti-Irish, pro-debtor prison, smoke 'em if you got them, slavery rights honoring people that a bunch of Sons Of Liberty controlled, anti-slavery rights, tobacco taxing, live like I say not as I do, synthetic self-educated elitist, dissection-promoting, Low-Church loving, Benjamin Franklin-scientist loving, Redcoat-insulting people from a place that is not-a-Parliamentary Riding that you should be treated as equal to a Riding."
Actually, on second thought, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't have *fought* for the Tories, since you seem like the kind of big talker who soils his britches at the slightest prospect of any kind of personal risk. But, you'd be swooning over Benedict Arnold with the same kind of barely-concealed homoeroticism you now reserve for David Petraeus.
(Incidentally, how the hell can someone be a "self-styled elitist"? Do they claim that they're elitists, but are really down with the common folk? And what the hell is "synthetic" doing in there? Do you even know what that word means? Are you saying Washingtonians are made in factories? Did nobody ever tell you about the birds and the bees?)
Nicely done, cminus.
The only real solution is for Congress to cede by statute all of DC (except parcels directly including or related to federal buildings) to the State of Maryland. The remaining parcels would constitute the Federal District, as currently provided in the Constitution.
Also, Maryland's population and therefore representation in the House would increase as a result. The new congressional district(s) created would clearly be Democratic.
A constitutional amendment giving DC statehood will never pass. Repeat, never. With 3/4 of the 50 states being required to ratify, self-interest alone will preclude the amendment from ever succeeding. A successful 2/3 vote of the Congress would be nearly as unlikely.
"All you have to do now is write it up and convince people like me - pro-American"
You're not pro-American. You're just a dumbass.
"BostonRay, I'm trying really hard to avoid the conclusion that, during the American Revolution, you'd have been fighting for the Tories."
Just a thought experiment: What would we be like if we didn't revolt? It's not like Canada ever revolted, and it seems to me a lot of people around DC wish America was more like Canada. A lot of the aspects of American culture/law that the average DC liberal-leaning person don't particularly like can be tied back to the Revolution: strong property rights, gun rights, state's rights, etc.
Sure the revolution, and the Constitution in particular, cemented a lot of ideas the average DC liberal-leaning person loves: free speech, right to an attorney, etc. But the thing is, the UK and Canada came around on those anyway.
So really, it's worth wondering what our country would be like without the Revolution. And more to the point, you can bet that there wouldn't be any "district" of people without representation in the American Parliment.
Guest27, you may be right about the 2/3 vote of Congress, but I'd like to see them try. I think at the very least we'll be able to know whether folks like McConnell were just talking out of their ass when they said DC should pursue a constitutional amendment. If that's truly the only reason they voted against the bill, then they should support Warner's amendment and it should get a 2/3 majority, at least in the Senate. Otherwise, let's call them hypocrites and move on to some other ideas.
For what it's worth, the 23rd amendment was ratified in 1961. That's the one granting (3) presidential electors to the District of Columbia.
Now that was hardly in any state's interest. But it did pass.
Personally, I can't imagine 3/4 of the states passing that amendment if it was brought up today. Things have just gotten so polarized and partisan and nasty. But 40+ years ago there was some spirit of civic-mindedness throughout the country.
Who knows? Maybe there still is that spirit today. Maybe a DC-voting-rights amendment would have a snowball's chance in heck today.
But I doubt it.
The amendment did get two-thirds in both chambers of Congress in 1978. Granted, congressional Republicans have gotten a lot more unprincipled (and downright insane) since then. Unfortunately it only got 16 of the 38 states needed to ratify it during the 7-year period.
MikeB and guest31:
Sure, no harm in trying, I guess. But the attempt should not be made to the exclusion of more likely alternatives such as the one I mentioned (at #27).
Of course, then there's the question whether Maryland would even want DC. That's beyond my subject expertise.
Or we could try calling a constitutional convention. Haven't had one of those in a while (say, 230 years or so), and I think it only requires 2/3 of the states to call under Article V. Missed out by two states in the 80s for a balanced budget amendment.
just throwing some ideas out there.
I don't think Maryland is looking to take in DC right now, though I do think it's an idea worthy of consideration.
I fear a constitutional convention in the current environment would result in repeal of much of the Bill of Rights.
KCinDC, depends how it's structured. I think states can call conventions specifically just for a single amendment, like the balanced budget amendment. Or the states can call a general convention which would throw the whole thing open and be very chaotic, I'm sure.
I'm with KCinDC on this, and I'd add that we'd probably see the same-sex marriage ban thrown in as a concession for DC voting rights, in this climate. Ouch.