As if being in the majority wasn't enough, Democrats have sought even more power by proposing legislation that would giving the District of Columbia a vote in the House. The White House says Bush would veto the bill if it reached his desk.
The White House on Tuesday threatened a presidential veto of legislation giving the District of Columbia a vote in the House, possibly prolonging a two-century-long wait for representation in Congress.The White House cites the Constitutions clear language that statehood is a requirement for voting rights, and to change that would require a Constitutional amendment.The bill, the White House said in a statement, violates constitutional language saying the House should be made up of representatives chosen by the people of the states. "The District of Columbia is not a state," it said, and if the legislation reaches President Bush's desk, "his senior advisers would recommend that he veto the bill."
The House is to vote Friday on the legislation that would give a vote to the D.C. delegate while creating, until the 2010 census, a new at- large seat for Utah.
That would increase House membership to 437, with the seat from overwhelmingly Democratic D.C. offset by the extra vote from Utah, a predominantly Republican state. Utah narrowly missed obtaining a fourth House seat after the 2000 census.
This legislation, while only affecting the House, would likely be the predecessor to legislation proposing D.C. get a vote in the Senate, too -- which is likely the ultimate goal of the Democrats' plan... Two more liberal votes in the House would only have minimal impact in the long run. Two more Democrat votes in the Senate, however, would have a much bigger impact.
Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 1)
1. While I can certainly sympathise with any vote which fixes the current problem with DC's lack of congressional representation, I think those issuing this bill are doing little to help. Not only does this bill have little chance of passing by the President's desk (the bill being little more than a symbolic gesture), it is also clearly against the current language of the constitution.
Another path worth consideration would be to append those citizens to a nearby state, such as virginia, as a district for all representation intents and purposes. With such a system, DC would be granted a House representative via Virgina, and would also have a say in voting for Virginia's two senators. Such a system would be within the jurisdiction of Congress, as there would be no need for an ammendment to the constitution.
Additionally, I'd dispute the claim that the ultimate goal of said plan is to garner the Democrats two additional Senate seats. Such a move would do little more than worsen the represenation disparity, and the American public would deeply resent such a maneuver.
Pete at 9:11PM on Mar 21st 2007
2. Seems like you'd have to make D.C. a state first before adding reps and senators.
I don't mind adding states. It would feed the neocons desire to rule the world, and the dems wouldn't have to go to war.
If there was enough interest, maybe a second tier of states, with the current government becoming the state govt. Mexico jumps right out, since so many there want to be Americans.
First ones in get to be 2nd tier, then 3rd.
Economic development aid would be available more so than the current foreign aid.
Where does it stop? It doesn't have to.
Steve Bonomo at 10:47PM on Mar 21st 2007
3. Not a good idea. The democrats being the majority party feel that they can have everything good for them done. This is something really not good in our politics. A party should try to populirize itself by working for the good of the people, not by trying to destroy the popularity of the other party in everyway possible, even sometimes by twisting the facts.
Anthony at 12:16AM on Mar 23rd 2007
4. The Dems (in their typical, arrogant fashion) have misinterpreted the voters' mandate. The voters never intended for us to surrender and cut & run from Iraq. Americans are winners. We fully expect to win in Iraq. Americans were frustrated with the partisanship in Congress and thought by voting the Republicans out that would change. Of course, politics being what they are, nothing has changed. The Dems are as partisan, if not more so, than Republicans. So where have the '06 elections gotten us? They've gotten us more of the same plus some. The Democratic leadership is a group of socialists. The majority of Americans are democrats, not socialists. So, in fact, Americans unwittingly voted socialists into power. In 2008, Americans will have the chance to reverse that mistake.
Kyle Baxter at 5:58AM on Apr 2nd 2007