President Bush has said he will veto the stupid legislation that would give Washington a vote in the House of Representatives. Naturally, The Washington Post, DCist, and Wonkette are having a tizzy. I'm delighted. I've been against this legislative atrocity since it came to my attention in May. Here's the link to prove it. I make a pretty solid case there for not supporting the legislation while still supporting DC voting rights. Good for me.
No matter what the Post editorial board thinks, this legislation is unconstitutional. I'm not even referring to Congress granting the District the vote. That might be unconstitutional. I certainly think it is. But some great legal minds disagree so I won't go around pretending that my opinion is a slam dunk. I mean, who the Hell am I to question them? But there is no way that giving Utah an at-large representative is constitutional. Giving the Utah citizenry two representatives each makes them super-citizens. They have double the say than the rest of the country. Granted it's just two says out of what would be 437, but this is principle dammit.
Our 535 Congressmen and our president both took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. Democrats who vote for this legislation aren't living up to that oath. I'll admit that President Bush's sudden interest in the integrity of the Constitution is a disgusting irony that I want to choke on, but there it is. Bravo, Mr. President. Even if you're vetoing this legislation out of political concerns (which is almost certainly the case), this veto is welcome and necessary.
Now let's pretend we've never agreed on anything and move on.
3.21.2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Giving Utah and extra vote is like a man having to wives. Oh wait...
ReplyDeleteYou're damn right it's unconstitutional (in my opinion).
ReplyDeleteThere's nothing in the Constitution about preserving the balance of the two-party system; hell, I don't recall anything in the Constitution requiring a two-party system.
That said, I don't think DC should get the vote. The only fair thing to do is to leave it as is. I mean, why don't we err on the other side and give DC residents super powers?
Deer Rusty, Pleese xcuse my bad spelling. I was righting in a hurrey.
ReplyDeleteUtah nearly got an extra seat in the 2000 census. By the 2010 census, they will have an extra seat.
ReplyDeleteWay to fuck your own cause, Rusty!
That said, I'm thrilled DC isn't getting voting rights. Eleanor Holmes Norton hasn't made an inch of progress on anything in her entire lengthy tenure.
And when she finally does die, it won't matter, because DC doesn't have a long nor illustrious history of picking good representatives for anything anyway.
Anonymous, yes I know Utah will be getting that extra seat soon, but it will be a new district seat (as opposed to an at-large seat). Huge difference there.
ReplyDelete~Rusty
I love it when people use the whole "taxation without representation" argument like it's in the Constitution.
ReplyDeleteGuess what? It's in the Declaration of Independence, which is not a constitutionally legal document. It's historically important, and has been used as legal precedence, but it is nowhere near as legally binding as the Constitution.
By the way, the entire United States has citizens who face taxation without representation. Until we raise the income tax age to 18, or lower the voting age to 16, this will always be the case.
this is so boring.
ReplyDeleteif you're going to talk about utah, at least throw in a good jab at the mormons.
wtf, where's the dead baby follow-up story? thats way more pertinent than splittin hairs on cousin it. geez.
ReplyDeleteThank you Rusty!
ReplyDeleteA) Utah does not get two at-large reps. If there are enough people for two reps, the state gets two districts. Deal with it.
B) Norton is a dinosaur. The last gasp of the civil rights era morons who see everything as a racial issue.
DC is such a fucked up shit hole anyway, I don't think they deserve a rep (or even think about senators). One thing at a time, let's clean this place up, make it and Puerto Rico states and then go from there.
ReplyDeleteZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ReplyDeleteThe entire electoral college is f'ed up anyways. If you actually use the original percentages of electorals to citizens, small states get much more sway than large states, ie in Representatives per citizen. So to say this would mess it up is ridiculous, since it's already not correct. Besides the Constitution is a body of evolving guidance and was meant to be, just b/c it is currently "unconstitutional", doesn't mean it will always be.
ReplyDelete