tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post6573119992206525256..comments2024-03-29T00:04:32.434-05:00Comments on Althouse: I don't know how even to articulate an argument that it's constitutional to give a vote to a D.C. representative in the House.Ann Althousehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01630636239933008807noreply@blogger.comBlogger156125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-7989331676616855492009-03-01T09:16:00.000-06:002009-03-01T09:16:00.000-06:00FLS, I take it that was tongue in cheek, but at an...FLS, I take it that was tongue in cheek, but at any rate, I'm not much interested in the framers' <I>intent</I>, to the extent there is such a thing (see Easterbrook articles <I>passim</I>), I'm interested - as are most originalists - in the original understanding of the text.Simonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065798213115341398noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-75128907082841850102009-02-28T19:30:00.000-06:002009-02-28T19:30:00.000-06:00If Washington D.C. is a 'state' for purposes of th...<I>If Washington D.C. is a 'state' for purposes of this clause, then Congress never had any choice in the matter of representation, and so legislation on the subject is superfluous.</I><BR/><BR/>simon, simon, simon [rolls eyes]<BR/><BR/>You fail to realize that we have learned so much more about the intent of the framers since 1960.<BR/><BR/>Granting DC a Congressman was simply something the Framers never got around to doing, because they were all dead by the time the District was platted out, in 1791.former law studenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15196697206046544350noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-45758964442932074392009-02-27T23:03:00.000-06:002009-02-27T23:03:00.000-06:00Was it Hitler that said if a Big Lie is told over ...Was it Hitler that said if a Big Lie is told over and over again it will become the truth?<BR/><BR/>.illegal wiretapping of American citizens...<BR/><BR/>The program that the liberals who don't want to protect American citizens and who have made common cause with islamo terrorism listed to international phone calls. This was not aimed at American citizens. The program was briefed and approved by Congressional leaders. It has been further sanctioned by additional law - which Senator Obama voted for.<BR/><BR/>Bush kept us safe for 8 years. Now a congressional commission says its almost a certainty we have a city attacked in 5 years. <BR/><BR/>Yep, Bush is the bad guy, not the guy named Osamma. <BR/><BR/>Down is Up, War is Peace, Eurasia has always been at War ....Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17333132048552751053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-17080418173650299702009-02-27T21:54:00.000-06:002009-02-27T21:54:00.000-06:00The DC House Voting Rights Act passed 61 to 37. Th...The DC House Voting Rights Act passed 61 to 37. The included amendment restoring 2nd Amendment rights to DC passed 62 to 36.<BR/><BR/>I understand there's significant opposition in the House to the restoration of the 2nd Amendment provision. (Mr. Roberts has made his decision. Now let him enforce it?)<BR/><BR/>The irony would be thick indeed if an unconstitutional bill failed to pass because the House would not agree to restore an existing constitutional right.RightWingNutterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06908029170772858813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1355748165493070592009-02-27T17:33:00.000-06:002009-02-27T17:33:00.000-06:00But, after all, what does it signify that men shou...<I>But, after all, what does it signify that men should have a written constitution, containing unequivocal provisions and limitations? The legislative lion will not be entangled in the meshes of a logical net. The legislature will always make the power which it wishes to exercise, unless it be so organized as to contain within itself the sufficient check. Attempts to restrain it from outrage, by other means, will only render it more outrageous. The idea of binding legislators by oaths is puerile. Having sworn to exercise the powers granted, according to their true intent and meaning, they will, when they feel a desire to go farther, avoid the shame, if not the guilt, of perjury, by swearing the true intent and meaning to be, according to their comprehension, that which suits their purpose.</I> (Gouvernour Morris, December 22, 1814)ELChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09755716607466641949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-51617561703154648532009-02-27T13:50:00.000-06:002009-02-27T13:50:00.000-06:00DCresident said..."The fact [is] that the Constitu...DCresident said...<BR/>"<I>The fact [is] that the Constitution gives Congress the power of 'exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever' over the District. Which I take to mean that Congress can give or take away as much representation as they properly see the need to have to exercise their exclusive legislative powers.</I>"<BR/><BR/>You take it wrong; that's a silly argument with absurd consequences explained in part II of <A HREF="http://stubbornfacts.us/law/problem_congressional_representation_district_columbia_v" REL="nofollow">this post</A>.<BR/><BR/>Sonicfrog, that's exactly right; Andrew Hyman put it well <A HREF="http://www.confirmthem.com/more_about_congressional_representation_for_washington_d_c" REL="nofollow">a couple of years ago</A>: "If Washington D.C. is a 'state' for purposes of this clause, then Congress never had any choice in the matter of representation, and so legislation on the subject is superfluous. If, however, Washington D.C. is not a 'state' for purposes of this clause, then plainly Washington D.C. need not have representation according to its numbers."Simonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065798213115341398noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-14282578523993082009-02-27T13:28:00.000-06:002009-02-27T13:28:00.000-06:00The fact that the Constitution gives Congress the ...The fact that the Constitution gives Congress the power of "exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever" over the District. Which I take to mean that Congress can give or take away as much representation as they properly see the need to have to exercise their exclusive legislative powers.<BR/><BR><BR/>The 23rd amendment was needed to give the citizens of DC a vote in the executive powers of the Government(and if DC grows much more, this amendment will need to be changed to give DC residents their full voting rights)DCresidenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10123825734176657458noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-3239143742190847382009-02-27T12:54:00.000-06:002009-02-27T12:54:00.000-06:00IANAL, but this seems like a pretty good slam dunk...IANAL, but this seems like a pretty good slam dunk to me. If Congress were understood to have the power to take this action, then why did it take a Constitutional Amendment, <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-third_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution" REL="nofollow">the 23rd</A>, to allow the people living in the District to be able to cast a vote for President?sonicfroghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17243418673004541047noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-7058479000502220202009-02-27T12:46:00.000-06:002009-02-27T12:46:00.000-06:00The Courts treat DC as a "State" with respect to o...The Courts treat DC as a "State" with respect to over 500 federal laws and give the same rights to the citizens of DC as if they lived in a state even when parts of the Constitution say those rights are reserved for the citizens of the "States". I'm talking about the right to a trial by jury(6th Amendment), the right of a citizen of another state to sue a citizen of DC(Article III, Sec. 2, 11th Amendment) <BR/><BR><BR/>If the Courts can give me those rights as a citizen of DC, despite the Constitution saying that they are only for the "citizens of different states", I don't see how this is that different.DCresidenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10123825734176657458noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-37737182382893647222009-02-27T12:42:00.000-06:002009-02-27T12:42:00.000-06:00Ooops. Sorry for the typo's. That should be "Capit...Ooops. Sorry for the typo's. <BR/><BR/>That should be "Capitol" not "Capital" (that's the credit card people who I pay every month)<BR/><BR/> I have a nice cold (as in bad) and am violently coughing at regular intervals, making it hard to proof read, not that that's a great skill of mine anyway.sonicfroghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17243418673004541047noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-38758787509092699972009-02-27T12:37:00.000-06:002009-02-27T12:37:00.000-06:00the arguments posed by Dinh, Starr et al are vapor...<I>the arguments posed by Dinh, Starr et al are vaporous,</I><BR/><BR/>Dinh's argument breaks down into:<BR/><BR/>1. Congress can make any law it wants to respecting the District, regardless of the restrictions in the rest of the Constitution. It can give its residents two votes apiece, if it so chooses. It can make every third Washingtonian a Member of Congress, if it likes.<BR/><BR/>2. Washington DC residents can sue residents of the 50 states in Federal court -- hey presto, DC is just like a state.<BR/><BR/>Well, if DC is just like a state, why not give it two Senators, like all the real states have?former law studenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15196697206046544350noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-79089443992486946532009-02-27T12:35:00.000-06:002009-02-27T12:35:00.000-06:00This is a trial balloon for the real goal of the D...This is a trial balloon for the real goal of the Dems to give D.C. two voting Senators who will always be Democrats. After a while they can say, hey they have a House member, why shouldn't they have a Senate member too?Brianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01026800013174349238noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-45521971565807557392009-02-27T12:06:00.001-06:002009-02-27T12:06:00.001-06:00Mike, the arguments posed by Dinh, Starr et al are...Mike, the arguments posed by Dinh, Starr et al are vaporous, and were dismissed in the essay I linked yesterday evening. They aren't serious arguments even if they're made by serious people.Simonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065798213115341398noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-51469323724218450222009-02-27T12:06:00.000-06:002009-02-27T12:06:00.000-06:00This is interesting because one of our contributor...This is interesting because one of our contributors @ http://www.blackbooklegal.com doesn't see the relative clarity of the constitutional issue wrt Prof. Althouse's argument.The Aviatorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10402109910909367212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-13537655240017356552009-02-27T11:54:00.000-06:002009-02-27T11:54:00.000-06:00Speculate? Who was speculating?On the Compromise o...Speculate? Who was speculating?<BR/><BR/>On the Compromise of 1790, which determined the eventual location of the Capital; Hamilton wanted it in NY, though, by popular congressional consent, it probably would have ended up in Philly. Jefferson and Madison, who wanted it on the Potomac, both greatly feared that the location of the Capital would affect national policy, and a northern location would produce a government that would favor northern ideals, and would force an end to the Southern way of life, i.e. slavery. Now both Jeffy and Maddy thought that the practice would die out on its own eventually, but they did not want the North to dictate when it would end. <BR/><BR/>Hamilton, a potent political player and obstacle to Jeffy and Maddy, was consumed with the prospect that his goal to have the national govt. assume state debts, a vital piece of his plan to put the government on sound financial footing, would not pass in congress. So Mr. H struck the bargain with Maddy and Jeffy; give me the national fiscal I want, and I'll agree to have the Capital located on the Potomac. He got what he desperately wanted. All agreed that the Capital would be a district, eliminating the of a permanent northern nor souther bias emanating from the Capital itself. And Hamilton, in the end, was not nearly as consumed with the location of the Capital as J and M, the future financial state of the nation was his obsession at the time, and he was probably fine with idea of locating the Capoital on the Potomac in honor of his friend and mentor, the Man himself, Gen Washington.<BR/><BR/>And now for your amusement, "The Compromise of 1790", as interpreted <A HREF="http://www.workers.org/2005/us/mumia-0630/" REL="nofollow">by a fellow traveler</A>!!!sonicfroghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17243418673004541047noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-90954098196845542342009-02-27T11:45:00.000-06:002009-02-27T11:45:00.000-06:00This is not nearly the slam dunk that many people ...This is not nearly the slam dunk that many people seem to think it is. Even conservative legal scholars (some despised by Democrats and Liberals) have articulated an argument that it is constitutional. Including Viet Dinh (http://www.dcvote.org/trellis/research/vietdinh112004.pdf) and Ken Starr (http://www.dcvote.org/trellis/response/kstarr062304.pdf).Mikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02479655573227099979noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-85795860969224968132009-02-27T11:44:00.000-06:002009-02-27T11:44:00.000-06:00From Wikipedia: "Norton was elected in 1990 as a ...From Wikipedia: "Norton was elected in 1990 as a Democratic delegate to the House of Representatives, defeating city council member Betty Ann Kane in the primary despite the last-minute revelation that Norton had failed to file D.C. income tax returns for several years and owed thousands of dollars."<BR/><BR/>What a surprise! Another Democrat who can't figure out how to file taxes. Must be a virus.NC Donhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01804745842613030973noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-10374766014183894482009-02-27T10:07:00.000-06:002009-02-27T10:07:00.000-06:00Sonicfrog, we need not speculate on the motivation...Sonicfrog, we need not speculate on the motivations of the founders in creating a federal district for the capital instead of placing it in Philadelphia or somewhere; after all, they <I>told</I> us what was on their minds. See footnote 1 of <A HREF="http://stubbornfacts.us/law/problem_congressional_representation_district_columbia_v" REL="nofollow">this post</A>.Simonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065798213115341398noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-90019078938214335892009-02-27T10:06:00.000-06:002009-02-27T10:06:00.000-06:00Paddy, crabbiness? I didn't mean my comment above ...Paddy, crabbiness? I didn't mean my comment above to sound crabby. It just points out that Connie had her terminology backwards: it would be the feds that would do the retroceding, not the former donor state (and proposed recipient state).<BR/><BR/>Balfegor and Henry, I wonder if the enrolled bill rule might prove thorny for that kind of challenge, but one way to meet the standing requirement would be to assert the problem as a defense in a criminal appeal (cf. <I>United States v. Munoz-Flores</I>, 495 U.S. 385 (1990) (defendant asserted that a bill had originated in the wrong house)).Simonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065798213115341398noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-73639770634217798662009-02-27T09:39:00.000-06:002009-02-27T09:39:00.000-06:00Steve Machos saaid:Something very good and useful ...Steve Machos saaid:<BR/><BR/><I>Something very good and useful was lost in this country when offhand dicta of Marbury v. Madison somehow warped the American polity into believing that the Supreme Court is the only -- only -- branch of the federal government that can determine constitutionality.</I><BR/><BR/>It's almost as if Marshall were clairvoyant and saw what was coming - that congress and the executive would blatantly ignore the document for their own gain.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Why is our Federal government in Washington DC? Many wanted it in either New York or Philadelphia, but the Southern contingent axed that because they felt it would give the northern states too much power. The north would not let it reside in Virginia because of the same concern, power concentration in the south. Virginia was the political powerhouse at the time, giving us Washington, Jefferson, and Madison, to name a few. So we ended up with this compromise. Part of thatcompromise that placed Federal Government in the the District of Columbia, instead of NY and Philly, decreed that the district itself was to have limited voting power, thus keeping the South from gaining even more power than it had at the time.sonicfroghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17243418673004541047noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-21265146276528877262009-02-27T09:29:00.000-06:002009-02-27T09:29:00.000-06:00"Like most liberals..."I think you meant 'libtards..."Like most liberals..."<BR/><BR/>I think you meant 'libtards'. Much more in keeping with the erudite tone. <BR/><BR/>Weird how they won't listen what with this persuasive charm and all... <BR/><BR/>It's frustrating when the Althouse comments get to sounding like LGF.Paddy Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10442537362540160512noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-76123522060606313812009-02-27T09:26:00.000-06:002009-02-27T09:26:00.000-06:00Wouldn't any State have standing to challenge the ...Wouldn't any State have standing to challenge the law as well. The effect of the law is to dilute the State's representation in Congress, in a manner that is not "proportional" based upon the population of the "Several States. That harm is concrete enough to support standing. <BR/><BR/>Also, perhaps under Reynolds v. Sims, any voter has standing to challenge the law as an unconsitution dilution of his Congressional representation (given that Representatives are chosen by the people of the various States), in a manner inconsistent with the Constitution.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-70635156570581567482009-02-27T09:02:00.000-06:002009-02-27T09:02:00.000-06:00Re: Seven Machos:I would imagine that this one is ...Re: Seven Machos:<BR/><BR/><I>I would imagine that this one is a slam dunk no for the Supremes. The question is: who has standing? Althouse?</I><BR/><BR/>I don't have any special knowledge of the law here, but it occurs to me that someone who was penalized under a law enacted in which the DC representative was the deciding vote might have standing to challenge the law as invalid, due to the illegality of the representative who cast the deciding vote, and thereby implicitly strip that representative of voting powers. No?Balfegorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08012196656096263507noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-34024187629430144332009-02-27T08:51:00.000-06:002009-02-27T08:51:00.000-06:00Like most liberals, "arguing in good faith, even i...Like most liberals, "arguing in good faith, even if he didn't have all the background knowledge" seems to be sufficient. It is not. He claims to be a 3rd generation DC resident but has never bothered to educate himself. Oh, right - that didn't come out right - he is a DC resident, therefore could not educate himself.<BR/><BR/>Crabby? Yep. The denizens of that cesspool are looting this country and we want to argue about whether or not the 600,000 losers who dwell in that particular circle of hell should have a vote in congress. Screw them and the pig they rode in on.The Dudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05354536924604187137noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-56324393903495096882009-02-27T08:44:00.000-06:002009-02-27T08:44:00.000-06:00"hate-filled"You know, Third-Responder is kinda ri..."hate-filled"<BR/><BR/>You know, Third-Responder is kinda right this morning.<BR/><BR/>Seemed like he was arguing in good faith, even if he didn't have all the background knowledge. Came in with a decided interest.<BR/><BR/>And folks turned on him like he was Lucky or another established troll.<BR/><BR/>Simon, what's with the crabbiness this morning? <BR/><BR/>Not a good morning for Althousian commentariat.Paddy Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10442537362540160512noreply@blogger.com