Tammy Bruce: D.C.: Voting Rights, Gun Rights, Politics

D.C.: Voting Rights, Gun Rights, Politics

A post by Maynard

Most people probably don't realize that the residents of the District of Columbia (that is, Washington, D.C.) don't have a voting representative in Congress. It wasn't until 1961, with the passage of the Twenty-third Amendment, that D.C. participated in electing the president.

The Constitution established D.C. to be the government district. Since the Founding Fathers wanted the government to represent the people rather than itself, D.C. was not represented in the Federal government.

With modern D.C. having an African-American supermajority, and fueled by the usual racial and partisan politics, the issue of D.C. voting periodically comes up for debate.

The Democrats, strengthened by the recent election, have again moved to give D.C. a voting representative in the House. But those wily Republicans may have derailed the latest effort by expanding the voting rights bill to also assure D.C. residents of their right to keep and bear arms. This puts Democrats in an awkward position, since their opposition to the expansion illuminates the partisan and self-serving nature of their effort. The Democrats aren't doing this to give the people their rights; they're doing it to help themselves.

Meanwhile, the strict D.C. gun ban, although recently overturned, remains in effect pending appeal. Considering the crime-ridden nature of the city, I think I'd rather have a gun than a vote.

Posted by Maynard · March 25, 2007 05:37 PM · Permalink
Maynard Post | Politics | Second Amendment

Comments

The way to give the residents of DC voting representation in Congress is to cede it back to Maryland, as the Virginia portion was ceded back to Virginia. That way they can be represented by the two Maryland Senators and whichever Congresscritter's District is redrawn to include them. They will then have as much voting representation in Congress as South Dakota.

Posted by: St. Thor at March 26, 2007 06:37 AM

I don’t understand how this change can be made simply by an act of Congress. The Constitution clearly states representation is for the “several states”. This bill would increase the number of representatives to 437 thus diluting representation of the people in the several states. A Constitutional amendment was necessary to grant DC electors. Even that was restricted to no more than the least populous state, acknowledging the different status of DC.

I totally agree with ST.THOR. If the consensus is the citizens of DC deserve voting representation in Congress, the federal government should give the territory back to Maryland and Virginia.

Posted by: pat_s at March 26, 2007 08:04 AM

St. Thor, the only problem with that is there's no way Maryland wants it. But yes, that would be the only constitutional way to do it, and I've heard suggestions of ceding not all, but only most of the District back to Maryland.

Pat_S, the current territory of the District is ceded solely from Maryland: the portions south of the Potomac, i.e., Arlington County and the City of Alexandria, were retroceded to Virginia in 1846.

Posted by: Dave J at March 26, 2007 02:50 PM

I think it's high time to repeal the 23rd Amendment. Good grief - how did my parents allow THAT thing to gain approval?

Posted by: sbrogden at March 27, 2007 12:05 PM

By Category

By Month

D.C.: Voting Rights, Gun Rights, Politics

Comments

Post a comment