February 11th, 2009 at 4:52 pm

I think a DC Representative, with full voting privileges like all the other members, is what they are planning to do. But because a new US Representative from DC would likely be a Democrat (as their Delegate has been), the Republicans want to give Utah an extra Representative that they are certain would be Republican in any election.

As usual, they are not interested in what is fair or right for the country, they see people acting and thinking as they (Republicans) would, and assume the worst of intentions. Because that’s what they would be doing. Because they never would have thought of giving the residents of DC a Representative with full privileges. Because they would gain nothing by it. And if they gain nothing by doing something, they don’t care how good an idea it is. Because they don’t care about our country. They put their party’s interests above their country’s interests every time they can.

brought to you by a

Sore Loser.

D.C. is not a State, and only States can be represented in the Congress.

A better idea would be to try to allow voters living in D.C. to be considered as if they lived in Maryland (which is where the district was carved out from). I’m not sure whether that would require a Constitutional Amendment or not, but its worth a try.

Of course, you could try an amendment that just gives D.C. a representative. That’s how they got representation in the Electoral College, through the 23rd Amendment. I doubt it would get much traction, though, even in this Congress.

Later,

Obviously, I believe that all law-abiding citizens shoud be represented in Congress, and it does suck that people living in DC don’t have that equal representation. But before we try to “correct” that, shouldn’t we examine the intent of the Framers of the Constitution? Was it ever intended that people would live on federal property like this (especially the seat of Federal Government), and thus require representation in Congress?

Keep in mind that the District is, constitutionally, under the control of the Congress. It can never be granted equal “statehood” with the other fifty states because that would present a conflict. What if Congress decides to pass a law affecting the other fifty states but not the District?

I honestly don’t know what the best solution is, but I am concerned about unintended consequences. And I see no reason to give the Republicans another “safe” vote just because, at this point in time, the majority of DC residents would support the Democrats. That strikes me as prejudiced (in a non-racial way).

Is this senility or him being all mavericky.

Originally every representative represented about 30,000-50,000 people. Now they represent 500,000-1,000,000 people. That’s way too much.

There should be a constitutional amendment to cap the number at 50,000. That way there would be about 6,000 representatives in the House.

More “regular” people would be representatives. TV ads would play a much smaller role since, in large markets, they would be a waste of money. Door to door campaigning would dominate. People would more likely actually know their representative.

Anyway, I’m surprised that this isn’t ever thought of these days.

Hang in there John McLain… (i especially liked you in the Die Hard movies)… must be the VIAGRA kicking in… LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD is what i always say… it also keeps him from rolling out of bed in the middle of the night.

OK….. Since when will Utah get a Fouth seat by allowing DC a seat to vote?????

That’s part of the compromise. They’ll increase the total number of representatives in the HOR by 2, give one to DC (a safe Democratic seat) and one to Utah (a safe Republican seat). No net change in the balance of power.