House Democrats Ignore Constitution in search or more votes...

[RMNIXON]

"Section 2. The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature."

Expansion House Voting for the District of Columbia and Delegates (H Res. 78)
Passed 226-191


George Will Comments:

"They again voted to give the delegates to the House from Guam, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands and the District of Columbia, and the resident commissioner from Puerto Rico, the right to vote in the House when it is sitting as the "Committee of the Whole," which is how it sits almost all the time. It is in that status that almost all debate about and amending of legislation occur.

If these five votes decide the outcome of a vote in the Committee of the Whole, the matter at issue will be automatically revoted by the full House without those five participating. Still, these five faux members will have powers equal to those of real members on everything but final passage of bills, which often is more perfunctory than the process that leads to that. Almost always, all five delegates are Democrats. (Puerto Rico's current resident commissioner is the first Republican in 100 years.)

What part of the words "several states" do House Democrats not understand? Their cynical assumption is that "the people of the several states" will not notice this dilution of their representation in the House.
Members of Congress today represent, on average, 687,000 people. The population of Guam is 171,000; of American Samoa, 58,000; and of the Virgin Islands, 109,000. The 3.9 million Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens and have the right to vote for statehood, which they have rejected in three plebiscites (1967, 1993, 1998).

The 58,000 Samoans pay no federal income taxes, but their delegate will be able to participate in raising the taxes of, say, Montanans. Samoa's delegate will have virtually the same power as Rep. Denny Rehberg, who represents all 944,000 Montanans. Obviously the Democrats' reverence for the principle "one person, one vote" is, well, situational......

.....For Speaker Pelosi, two questions about the possible scope of your majoritarian abuse: Given your disregard of the unambiguous language and clear intent of Article I, Section 2 -- which uses the word "state" eight times to designate the only entity from which a member of the House may be chosen -- do you acknowledge any impediment to using your majority to give "Committee of the Whole" voting power to a delegate from, say, the AFL-CIO?
Or, for that matter: Do you think that Article I, Section 5 ("Each house shall be the judge of the ... qualifications of its own members") allows your majority to give such voting powers to your hairdresser? If not, why not?"

Townhall.com::One Person, One Vote?::By George Will


Not noted by Will is the usual emotional argument put forward by Democrats when debating this Bill. It will give limited voting rights to those representing troops fighting for the United States. That all sounds nice, but you have a founding document that is clear about the structure of your authority. Don't like it go amend it!

[Thorgrim]

They aren't Representatives of Congress, or some sort of full member, they are delegates just like they were before

There is nothing in the constitution that says delegates can not vote on amending bills

Delegates in the past have been voted in by their American voters to represent them and have been allowed, even by the GOP, to VOTE IN CONGRESS on committees, now that just got expanded to amendments

Delegates could vote in committees on taxes in Montana before this...

[RMNIXON]

There is nothing in the Constitution about Delegates having any legislative rights period. So they don't have any! This is not a Republican vs. Democrat issue, it is a Constitutional Issue.

[Donkey®]

"If these five votes decide the outcome of a vote in the Committee of the Whole, the matter at issue will be automatically revoted by the full House without those five participating."


So you're pretty much crying over nothing, right? Also, tell me, what's worse...completely ignoring the Constitution and claiming "The right to Habeus Corpus isn't in the Constitution" or this petty crap? Seriously...you're like Bizarro Thorgrim sometimes.

[RMNIXON]

I thought the Constitution was about the structure of our government? I quote an Article not an Amendment. Where did I suggest every law or judicial rule not prohibited by the Constitution is invalid?

[sj23]

What Constitution? Is it that one paper Gonzales and Bush have crapped all over?

[tbone]

This is NOT against the constitution. The constitution does not spell out every right or option, but generally gives guidelines. You assume because the founding fathers did not invision the US having territories that they would be against representation? I agree, their votes should not be the deciding factors and thus it is written that way.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by tbone

This is NOT against the constitution. The constitution does not spell out every right or option, but generally gives guidelines. You assume because the founding fathers did not invision the US having territories that they would be against representation? I agree, their votes should not be the deciding factors and thus it is written that way.

The real constitutional thing would be for the government to renounce all its territories

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by sj23

What Constitution? Is it that one paper Gonzales and Bush have crapped all over?

@ your av

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by tbone

This is NOT against the constitution. The constitution does not spell out every right or option, but generally gives guidelines. You assume because the founding fathers did not invision the US having territories that they would be against representation? I agree, their votes should not be the deciding factors and thus it is written that way.

Not true at all.

The Constitution is very specific about the structure of the Federal Government. There is nothing to suggest it is just a "guidline" to be re-interpreted by circumstance without Amendment. The later is a provision of change when circumstances warrant. That type of change must be ratified by the States, not just a majority political party. The voting rights of the House and Senate are part of the structure of States Rights. That is what the Representatives of the Colonies signed. Certainly territories should have the right to present their concerns and grievences before the congress, and also petition Statehood. But they have no voting rights period.

[tbone]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

Not true at all.

The Constitution is very specific about the structure of the Federal Government. There is nothing to suggest it is just a "guidline" to be re-interpreted by circumstance without Amendment. The later is a provision of change when circumstances warrant. That type of change must be ratified by the States, not just a majority political party. The voting rights of the House and Senate are part of the structure of States Rights. That is what the Representatives of the Colonies signed. Certainly territories should have the right to present their concerns and grievences before the congress, and also petition Statehood. But they have no voting rights period.

Your right and there's nothing to guide us on territories not being prepared for statehood. Washington DC has tried to gain statehood several times and it has never been accepted. So, your argument is because the territories are not specifically spelled out, they are not permitted a vote or even representation? I would argue that there are plenty of things not specifically spelled out in the constitution. But here let me clear this up for you:

This is the actual constitution text where it supposedly says the House of Representatives will be only from states:

The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature.

This does not say representatives are to be "from a state" only to be chosen by the people of "several states." So in theory as long as the people of several states choose a representative from DC or any other territory, they could vote??

Now the Senate is much more clear:

Section 3. The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote.

[TheScatman]

Originally Posted by sj23

What Constitution? Is it that one paper Gonzales and Bush have crapped all over?

Im pretty sure Congress has been doing a good enough job of this for the past 80 years...you never hear of any talks or an actual limited federal government that only performs the functions delegated to it by the Constitution

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by tbone

This does not say representatives are to be "from a state" only to be chosen by the people of "several states." So in theory as long as the people of several states choose a representative from DC or any other territory, they could vote??

Yes, but I think it is clear that they are electing State Representativesonly. And when you are no longer a Representative you don't get to choose a replacement. Only a represenative of the State Government can do that and only until the next election. Why do you think the Dems got so worried about that poor sick Senator in a State with a REPUBLICAN Governor!

[tbone]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

Yes, but I think it is clear that they are electing State Representativesonly. And when you are no longer a Representative you don't get to choose a replacement. Only a represenative of the State Government can do that and only until the next election. Why do you think the Dems got so worried about that poor sick Senator in a State with a REPUBLICAN Governor!

You are interpreting, something only the supreme court can do that.

It is not spelled out that a representative is representing a state or from a state, and in your original argument, you were saying because territories are not specifically addressed in the constitution and therefore having representation, even non-voting, is unconstitutional.

[JSmythe]

Originally Posted by TheScatman

Im pretty sure Congress has been doing a good enough job of this for the past 80 years...you never hear of any talks or an actual limited federal government that only performs the functions delegated to it by the Constitution

Small government is dead.

[Thorgrim]

I never understood why this very basic fact escapes libertarians, that the constitution was vague for a reason, its hard to restrict a government from expanding when you write a document that is so vague even the people who fought for and against it both expanded the government beyond its physical words, and the writers themselves did not complain

The only parts that really tried to "limit" the powers of the government are items like the 10th amendment, which was heavily edited by the federalists so that it was as close to meaningless as possible

It's a strong federalist constitution set up by federalists, passed by federalists, and the "concessions" of the BoR given to anti-federalists were written AND passed by federalists

Cut and pasting libertarian-sounding quotes from the vast volumnes of writings the founders made is about as useless as a Cherokee cutting and pasting the founders beliefs on liberty and right to live in peace on your own lands to say they should get back Florida

Two things:
1) Both aren't going to happen (Tribes getting their lands back or libertarians implementing policy)
2) Both ignore obvious context

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

The only parts that really tried to "limit" the powers of the government are items like the 10th amendment,

The whole damn thing is set up to limit the powers of the govt.

[Diamond Cross]

Then it's a failed document.

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

Then it's a failed document.

A document cant force people to follow it. We the people are to blame.