POL- Giving Delegates A Vote?

[CamEdwards]

My buddy Marshall posted something over at our joint blog that I thought was pretty interesting.

http://ontapblog.com/2007/01/20/demo...-constitution/

Article I, Section I of the U.S. Constitution reads, in part, “The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen … by the people of the several states.”

This is one of those rare Constitutional directives that is utterly without grey area. House members are to be from states. Period.

Unless, apparently, the new Democratic House leadership wishes it otherwise.

Yesterday, Democratic House Leader Steny Hoyer introduced a proposed change to House rules that would allow Delegates and the Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico to vote on the floor of the House.

Delegates and the Resident Commissioner represent U.S. territories and other possessions in the House. There are five: one delegate each from the District of Columbia, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands and Guam, and the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico.

Needless to say, four of the five are Democrats.

Under House rules, delegates and the Resident Commissioner are currently allowed to cast votes in House Committees. (A practice that I believe is also contrary to the Constitution.) At present, they are not allowed to cast votes on the floor.

If the Democrats get their way, that will soon change.

The Democrats can violate this clear Constitutional instruction owing to a quirk in the manner that the House usually does its business. When the House considers legislation on the floor, it usually refashions itself as the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union.

Hoyer’s rule change would allow the delegates and the Resident Commission to cast votes in the Committee of the Whole, as it is usually called.

This isn’t the first time the Democrats have done this. They pushed through a similar rules change in 1993. The Republican majority removed it in 1995.

But the reaction to the 1993 effort is enlightening. The New York Times said about the proposal, “This maneuver is nothing but shameless political tyranny.”

The Chicago Tribune opined that, “This amounts to a blatant end-run around the Constitution, which allows full voting status only to the representatives of the states.”

USA Today warned, “House Democrats, always eager to grab more power, are expected to open Congress’s new year Tuesday by making an end run around the Constitution.”

Hoyer’s proposal will likely be brought to a vote sometime in the next few days.

And it strikes me that this will be an interesting test for some of those newly minted “conservative” Democrats. Will they stand with their party in a blatantly partisan and unconstitutional act? Or will they stand on principle and with the Constitution?

So it’s time to crank up the phone lines again. Let’s get after those Democratic freshmen like Heath Schuler and ask them to stand up for the Constitution. Heaven knows the Democratic leadership isn’t going to do it.

Now, my buddy Marshall is a rock-solid conservative, so obviously he's writing from a particular viewpoint. But I do think it's interesting that when this was done in the early 90's, the media didn't like it one bit. I also think a better way to go, and a more transparent way to go, would be for Hoyer and Pelosi to start the process of amending the Constitution to allow a vote from delegates. Either that or start pushing for statehood for these territories.

So what do you think? Should delegates get a vote, even in the Committee of the Whole? And will this/should this be challenged in court, if the proposal does pass?

[Young Drachma]

D.C. most certainly deserves voting representation. The commonwealths and territories? No.

[st.cronin]

I thought Heath Shuler was a Republican?

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I thought Heath Shuler was a Republican?

I'm pretty sure Heath Schuler would be classified as a DINO, or a Democrat In Name Only, at least on social issues. I'm fairly certain he's opposed to the war in Iraq, but he calls himself a Blue Dog Democrat.

[WVUFAN]

Washington DC doesn't deserve a vote either. The Constitution is clear: states only.

Puerto Rico has voted down statehood several times. They should not be given the rights of states in the case.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

Washington DC doesn't deserve a vote either. The Constitution is clear: states only.

Do they pay taxes?

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

I'm pretty sure Heath Schuler would be classified as a DINO, or a Democrat In Name Only, at least on social issues. I'm fairly certain he's opposed to the war in Iraq, but he calls himself a Blue Dog Democrat.

He's a bright, thoughtful guy, so I think my confusion is understandable.

[JPhillips]

Schuler is probably one of the hardest guys to categorize. He's socially conservative, anti-Iraq war, protectionist and generally economically progressive. I don't think you can look at all of the issues and categorize him as conservative or liberal.

And on the issue at hand, I don't like the way this is being done, but I'm very much in favor of representation for all U.S. territories. We should live by the ideals of our founding. The problem with the Constitution is that our founders were against colonization in general and didn't foresee these indefinite territories in our future.

[Greyroofoo]

If they pay taxes then they deserve a vote, its that simple.

If they don't pay taxes, then screw them.

[Crapshoot]

Seriously - people in DC pay taxes, yet have no representation. The GOP's stance on this is pretty clear - they know those people would vote Democratic - though I understand Thomas Davis is the guy pushing it. The Democrats unwillingness to do anything about this is harder to understand.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

Washington DC doesn't deserve a vote either. The Constitution is clear: states only.

Puerto Rico has voted down statehood several times. They should not be given the rights of states in the case.

The Constitution is clear that only states can elect Congressmen. The Constitution doesn't spell out, except in certain instances such as veto override and impeachment, who can participate during Congressional proceedings. The Supreme Court has given Congress pretty wide latitude in how they handle their internal business that isn't explicitly spelled out in the Constitution. Not saying I agree with the attempts, but to say that the attempts to grant these people some say in the congressional process are unconstitutional is simply not true.

[lordscarlet]

This seems to come up here pretty often. I do not claim to know much about the constitution, but I do know this. I pay federal taxes. I should get a voting representative in the House and the Senate. Wasn't that the whole point of the Revolutionary War?

To me you have several options:

a) Stop forcing me to pay federal taxes
b) Allow the District to become a state and attain voting rights
c) Amend the constitution (ever heard of that?*) to give the District voting rights despite not being a true state

The only reasons I've heard for not giving us voting rights (which mainly come from this board, as the people where I live don't often have this view ) are, IMO, absurd. The highlight is, "You knew you didn't have voting rights when you moved there." Wow. That is a truly American way to view things.

* In case you haven't heard (WVUFan, SackAttack, etc), the constitution isn't perfect. We have found the need to ammend it 27 times, including the Bill of Rights. If the constitution is what's getting in the way, this is certainly a reason to change it.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Greyroofoo

If they pay taxes then they deserve a vote, its that simple.

If they don't pay taxes, then screw them.

Taxation without Represenation... I've heard that before, haven't I?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

We have found the need to ammend it 27 times, including the Bill of Rights. If the constitution is what's getting in the way, this is certainly a reason to change it.

Oddly enough, I agree with this line of reasoning. If they can get it passed, then I wouldn't have a complaint about the votes being cast (although I would adamantly oppose the passage of such an amendment).

[albionmoonlight]

"should this be challenged in court"

An interesting question, and one that law professors would debate. When you get to articles of the constituion that get to the way in which the branches regulate themselves, the Court gets a bit weird.

Since it is one in the morning, and I am a bit drunk, I will simply leave you with a couple of wiki cites to get the mental juices flowing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Carr

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_v._United_States

Another thing that comes to mind is the recent attempt in the Senate to get rid of the filibuster over judicial nominees.

In general, I think that I am against attempts by the majority party to change the rules by legislative "tricks" (for lack of a better term) that get around pretty clear provisions, traditions, etc. designed to protect the minority voice.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Oddly enough, I agree with this line of reasoning. If they can get it passed, then I wouldn't have a complaint about the votes being cast (although I would adamantly oppose the passage of such an amendment).

Jon, is this because DC will likely trend Democratic, or some deep seated constitutional ideal?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Jon, is this because DC will likely trend Democratic, or some deep seated constitutional ideal?

In theory, the rule ought to be followed unless/until it's changed, especially considering there's a pretty clear process on how to change it.

Now, as to why I particularly give a damn about this particular subject ...

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

In theory, the rule ought to be followed unless/until it's changed, especially considering there's a pretty clear process on how to change it.

Exactly my viewpoint. A change to the Constiution is dangerous, unless it's specifically worded to allow JUST Washington DC voting powers. At no time should it be construed that a territory like Puerto Rico be given the same privilage.

As it stands now, the rule should be enforced as is. If it gets changed, fine, but it's gonna be harder to get a Constitutional Amendment ratified that one may think.

[Synovia]

"
The Democrats can violate this clear Constitutional instruction owing to a quirk in the manner that the House usually does its business."


I dont see this as being any different than when the Repubs pushed about 10 years ago to redistrict a bunch of democratic states.

[Tigercat]

Are we still embracing colonialism? Give the little territories their measly singular votes.

Iraq deserves representation but not US territories? huh.

But I agree with the sentiment that we shouldn't run around the constitution to do it, if you are gonna make a stand, be firm enough behind it that it should stand for all time.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Tigercat

Are we still embracing colonialism? Give the little territories their measly singular votes.

Iraq deserves representation but not US territories? huh.

But I agree with the sentiment that we shouldn't run around the constitution to do it, if you are gonna make a stand, be firm enough behind it that it should stand for all time.

Iraq has delegates in the US?

[Tigercat]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Iraq has delegates in the US?

Yes, they are at my house right now. We are deciding if I want to drink all the way to the games later today or get some power napping done. Vote pending. If only the Marshall Islands could help me decide all my problems would be solved.

[JPhillips]

I've thought some more about this and as a purely political maneuver I'm happy. After the way the Repubs treated the Dems in the House it's nice to see the Dems throwing some punches. I don't agree with all of Pelosi's positions, but I think she's a bare knuckle fighter.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I've thought some more about this and as a purely political maneuver I'm happy. After the way the Repubs treated the Dems in the House it's nice to see the Dems throwing some punches. I don't agree with all of Pelosi's positions, but I think she's a bare knuckle fighter.

Round and round and round we go.

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Now, as to why I particularly give a damn about this particular subject ...

And this, of course, is the worst reason out there. If you truly love America and it's freedoms, then you should not be denying voting rights to it's taxpaying citizens because you don't like how they vote.

[clintl]

I agree that this is unconstitutional. However, in my view, not giving territories voting Congressional representation has always been one of the Constitution's defects, and it should be changed. Every territory should have one voting representative and one voting senator. It's inexcusable that a nation born out of revolt over representation has not fixed this problem.

[Young Drachma]

D.C. is the only capital city in the world where the citizens have less rights than the rest of the people in the country.

Even Australia, which has a capital territory similar to ours, gave the people of Canberra voting representation in Parliament.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

And this, of course, is the worst reason out there. If you truly love America and it's freedoms, then you should not be denying voting rights to it's taxpaying citizens because you don't like how they vote.

Anybody voting for the damned Dems should consider themselves very lucky indeed if voting privileges were the only thing I would deny them.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Anybody voting for the damned Dems should consider themselves very lucky indeed if voting privileges were the only thing I would deny them.

Aah, nothing like embracing dissent in a good ol' fashioned democracy.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Aah, nothing like embracing dissent in a good ol' fashioned democracy.

Obviously you're confusing "dissent" with "treachery", "insanity", and "depravity".
Seems to be a common mistake these days.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Obviously you're confusing "dissent" with "treachery", "insanity", and "depravity".
Seems to be a common mistake these days.

Well I'm not on that side of the aisle, so it doesn't matter.

[Dutch]

I would take a guess that Republicans probably have a problem with the Democrats getting guaranteed free new seats in the representative or senate. Obviously, the Democrats would have the same problem if the roles were reversed.

[kcchief19]

Puerto Ricans do pay federal taxes, including Social Security and Medicare taxes. The only exception is the federal income tax. Puerto Ricans who were work for the federal government or a company doing business with the government must pay federal income taxes. So some Puerto Ricans do not pay federal income tax. However, they do pay local taxes, which are generally higher than any state income tax.

They fully pay Social Security and Medicare taxes, but actually do not receive full benefits. They must register for Selective Service as well. Puerto Ricans do vote for president, but their vote is effectively not counted because they have no electoral vote.

Personally, I think Puerto Rico should be given statehood. The problem is on our end, not theirs. Given the chance, they would take statehood. It's our politicians who don't want to give it to them. That said, while I think Puerto Rico deserves representation, I don't think we need to sidestep the Consititution -- again. There's been too much of that going on the list six years.

Change the constitution or grant them statehood. Either one is fine by me.

[Greyroofoo]

I thought Peurto Rico turned down statehood?

[Dutch]

They did, as well as sovereignty...

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I would take a guess that Republicans probably have a problem with the Democrats getting guaranteed free new seats in the representative or senate. Obviously, the Democrats would have the same problem if the roles were reversed.

I don't care what your political leanings are, if you support Democracy and what America stands for then anyone who is a citizen, pays al federal taxes and lives within the country should be afforded teh same rights as the rest of the country.

[larrymcg421]

OK, I understand the argument about the political consequences and agree that the Democrats would do the same thing if the roles were reversed. But what is the argument against removing federal taxation for residents in D.C.?

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

OK, I understand the argument about the political consequences and agree that the Democrats would do the same thing if the roles were reversed. But what is the argument against removing federal taxation for residents in D.C.?

This was rehetorical, right?

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

OK, I understand the argument about the political consequences and agree that the Democrats would do the same thing if the roles were reversed. But what is the argument against removing federal taxation for residents in D.C.?

hxxp://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html#ftsbs-20060316

[larrymcg421]

Well, of course D.C. would get more federal spending per dollar than any other state. But how much of that is for facilities used by the federal government and how much is for the citizens paying taxes? The chart doesn't specify what's being counted.

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Well, of course D.C. would get more federal spending per dollar than any other state. But how much of that is for facilities used by the federal government and how much is for the citizens paying taxes? The chart doesn't specify what's being counted.

And I doubt you'll ever see those numbers, but that's the argument I'm sure the anti-no-income-tax people would pull out. In reality, I've never seen such an option presented in the media or congress.

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

And I doubt you'll ever see those numbers, but that's the argument I'm sure the anti-no-income-tax people would pull out. In reality, I've never seen such an option presented in the media or congress.

dola: Or the "well, if you want statehood, how about we stop giving you all that money and treat you like the rest of the states?"

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by Dutch

They did, as well as sovereignty...

The 1998 vote was extremely flawed -- the choices were statehood, commonwealth, independence or none of the above. None of the above won with 50 percent followed by statehood with 46 percent, indpendence 3 percent and less than 1 percent for commonwealth, which is essentially the current form of political designation. The general consensus has been that if Congress allowed Puerto Rico to vote straight up or down on statehood, statehood would win. There were concerns about the 1998 vote about whether or not Congress would shove an English as the official language bill onto Puerto Rico.

Funny thing is that many believe that if Puerto Rico had Congressional representation, it would generally vote Republican. Reagan, Ford, Bush and a lot of Republicans have supported statehood for this reason. The concern is that Puerto Rican Democrats have typically favored statehood while Republicans favored commonwealth.

But there is enough bipartisan support in Congress to kill Puerto Rican statehood, or to stack the vote against statehood, because Puerto Rico if it were a state would get 6-7 house districts. Considering that with reapportionment following the 2010 Census will likely result in a number of states losing a district as it is, Puerto Rican statehood would increase both the number of states losing districts and the number of state losing multiple districts.

[kcchief19]

One other thing about the allowing the resident commissioner and other delegates to vote ... they could only vote as part of the Committee of the Whole. Last time around, Congress would disband the Committee of the Whole for any controversial votes or get the delegates to pledge not to vote. In essence, these delegates only get symbolic votes on issues where their support would not change the outcome of the vote either way. So a vote to override a presidential veto of a stem cell bill won't come down to the delegate from American Samoa.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

The 1998 vote was extremely flawed -- the choices were statehood, commonwealth, independence or none of the above. None of the above won with 50 percent followed by statehood with 46 percent, indpendence 3 percent and less than 1 percent for commonwealth, which is essentially the current form of political designation. The general consensus has been that if Congress allowed Puerto Rico to vote straight up or down on statehood, statehood would win. There were concerns about the 1998 vote about whether or not Congress would shove an English as the official language bill onto Puerto Rico.

But in order to get the desired numbers, you would have to remove the "independence" faction from the vote. Once Puerto Rico becomes a state, the independence faction is gone forever and to not even give them a say before hand would not be the right way to go about it. And I wonder how many of those who vote "none of the above" would actually prefer independence over statehood?

A US territory should have equal access to statehood and independence, as far as I'm concerned.

[lordscarlet]

House to Act by Month's End on D.C. Bill, Hoyer Says

By Mary Beth Sheridan
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, March 8, 2007; Page B02

The House of Representatives will vote by the end of this month on a bill giving the District a full vote in the chamber, Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer announced yesterday.

The action would mark the first time in 14 years that a bill granting the District a voting representative reaches the floor of the House. A D.C. statehood measure was soundly defeated in 1993.

But this time, a bill adding one seat for the District and another for Utah is expected to pass, legislators said. It would then have to be approved by the Senate, where its prospects are less certain.

"The people of the District have waited too long to have a voice in the House," said Hoyer (D-Md.), announcing the floor vote, which has not been scheduled. "Democrats promised to move this legislation in the first months of the new Congress, and that is what we are doing."

The House leadership has been involved in delicate negotiations over the bill's provisions in recent weeks, dismaying supporters who had hoped for speedy action. But yesterday, Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) and other officials announced that two key congressional committees are expected to approve the bill next week.

The bill, sponsored by Norton and Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.), would add two seats to the House -- one for the heavily Democratic District and another for Republican-leaning Utah, which narrowly missed getting another representative after the last Census.

The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee plans to consider the bill next week, although the date is still being worked out, staff members said.

"This bill is a priority for me," said the committee's chairman, Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.). "Our committee will hold a hearing on it next week and pass the legislation soon after."

The House Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on the measure Wednesday, officials said.

Norton is allowed to vote only in committees, not on final passage of legislation.

Democrats have been debating in recent weeks how to fine-tune the measure to ensure it doesn't imperil the seat of Utah's lone Democratic congressman. They have made the extra Utah seat at-large, rather than carving out a new district, as the voting bill had originally contemplated, said Doxie McCoy, a spokeswoman for Norton.

Norton expressed "deep gratitude" to the speaker of the House, saying in a statement: "Like every important decision in the House, the decision to move forward was made by Speaker Nancy Pelosi."

Ilir Zherka, director of the advocacy group DC Vote, said: "We're thrilled . . . it's great to see all the pieces fall into place."

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

He's a bright, thoughtful guy, so I think my confusion is understandable.

Too bad he never amounted to anything in the NFL.

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Anybody voting for the damned Dems should consider themselves very lucky indeed if voting privileges were the only thing I would deny them.

I used to be a staunch Republican. Thoughts like this are why I've defected.

[Surtt]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

This isn’t the first time the Democrats have done this. They pushed through a similar rules change in 1993. The Republican majority removed it in 1995.

So...
When ever the Democrats get control of the house, they get a 4 vote "Bonus?"

[lordscarlet]

With the impending vote on a DC member of the House of Representatives, and President Bush's claims that it is unconstitutional I took it upon myself to find the specific clause that is used to claim unconstitutionality.

Art. I Sec. 8 Cl. 17 of the Constitution

The Congress shall have the power...

17. To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings