Heritage In Focus: Why D.C. Can't Vote in Congress

[strawberEfieldz4ever]

i think that d.c should not get senators in congress but i think they should repel the 23rd admendment and replace it with an admenment that said the district of columbia shall get pres. electors and one representive...and even though im a conservative i have to say the gop doesnt want d.c voting rights b/c like 90% of d.c is liberal and black

[Deezil7]

Who decides when to follow and break the rules of the constitution? The HR-1955 ACT is unconstitutional... so is the FEDERAL RESERVE and INCOME TAXES...But when it comes to voting we have to follow the constitution. Lie,cheat,and steal is all our GOVERNment knows how to do.

[neothomist1275]

The District of Columbia (trademarks United States, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, USA, U.S.A) is a Crown Corporation which entered into co-extensive rule with Washington City with the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871.

[getplaning]

A bill to give the U.S. taxpayers who live in the District of Columbia a voting representative in the House of Representatives had majority support in the Senate today, but it wasn't enough to overcome GOP obstructionist tactics. The bill's 57-vote majority was three short of the total needed to end a Republican filibuster. Taxation without representation continues.

[MaximusNYC]

"Abiding by our Constitution is still the most important rule of law." Ha ha ha ha... Hey, Mr. Young Republican, tell it to Alberto Gonzales.

There are more people living in DC than in Wyoming. And yet Wyoming gets a member of the House and two Senators. Guess what? All three of them are Republicans.

[EastAtlantaboy]

lol

[jomarris]

Surprise, surprise. The Heritage Foundation doesn't want Democratic stronghold D.C. to have a vote...

[drzendoom]

another coherent argument from the people who brought us such gems as "we will be greeted as liberators in Iraq."

[xand0r]

Perhaps we should just stop federally taxing people in DC then.

That way, they have nothing to complain about :D

[joshuadavis703]

You conservatives (sans Tom Davis) don't want another majority black area to have a vote in congress. I'd like to know what this debate will be like in 20 years when DC has a majority of white voters.

[MaximusNYC]

If D.C. had a majority of white Christian conservatives, the Heritage Foundation would be screaming about the denial of their voting rights.

[dvwinkler]

I'm sure that the political leanings and complexion of the constituents of DC had nothing to do with this conclusion. There was no interest in solving the basic problem of major urban area not having representation. There was no examination of the intent of the framers in not allowing Congressional representation to put this into historical perspective. The solution of ceding portions to Maryland would act to dilute the interests of this urban area with that of the surrounding suburban area.

[joshuadavis703]

The interests would only be dissolved if DC was to become part of a district that was already set up in Maryland. If a separate district for DC where set up, then the representative would need only to represent DC voters.

[Recreant456]

Wow.

The habitual stupidity of Youtube commenters never ceases to amaze me.

[fgelie]

this guy is an idiot. the point of the constitution isn't to hold us back; it's to provide for a stable democracy. it is totally CONSTITUTIONAL to make an exception in DC's case, because otherwise the constitution would be hindering democracy in DC, and our allegiance is to democracy first and foremost before any document created to uphold it in the first place. If we can violate 4 amendments of the constitution to pass the patriot act, it's just silly that DC can't get a vote.

[ergasterAUS]

can't you guys ever change your constitution??

[xand0r]

::pulls out his own coat copy of the constitution:: Yes we can! First, 2/3rds of the House and Senate must ratify an amendment, and then 3/4th of the states have to pass it as well...THEN...the constitution can have another amendment.

[ergasterAUS]

wow, no referendum? We can only change ours with a referendum where a majority of voters overall, and a majority of voters in a majority of states, must agree with it. I thought you guys had had several amendments already. Is the difference that they were all additions?

[xand0r]

That's how it works, sir! We cannot change the physical constitution. It is written as it is written. However, there have been a number of amendments which made parts of our constitution no longer valid. So it's a historic document which laid the pathway for further development on the grand American ideal. It is also supposed to be a living, and breathing document, as they say, which is why we're allowed to amend it when needed.

[MaximusNYC]

The "federal enclaves" clause of the Constitution (like many parts of the Constitution) is extremely vague. Conservatives conveniently interpret it to include all of D.C., but courts have previously ruled that people living in other "federal enclaves" have the right to Congressional representation. There is another side to this argument which the Heritage Foundation is not presenting.

[xand0r]

Yeaaaah...I mean, technically, Guam and Puerto Rico get Representatives, but they're not allowed to vote, if I am correctly. Kind of like the US Representative from DC (but as Stephen Colbert pointed out, he doesnt consider DC to be technically part of the United States of America, period, because "it's not really a state.") Again, you should either stop federally taxing DC or give'em a vote in Congress.

[12khmi]

Wankers!