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/democrats-turn-their-back-on-the-constitution/

<blockquote>
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.

</blockquote>

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]

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]

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

Do they pay taxes?

[st.cronin]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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? :D

[JonInMiddleGA]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/07/AR2007030702279.html)


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]

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]

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]

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

[lordscarlet]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/19/AR2007041902849_pf.html

House Approves A Full D.C. Seat
Biggest Step Toward Vote Since '70s; Bill Faces High Hurdles in the Senate

By Mary Beth Sheridan and Yolanda Woodlee
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, April 20, 2007; A01

A bill giving the District its first full seat in Congress cleared the House yesterday, marking the city's biggest legislative victory in its quest for voting rights in nearly three decades.

Democrats on the House floor burst into applause, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) grabbed the arms of the District's nonvoting delegate, Eleanor Holmes Norton, as the 241 to 177 vote was announced.

"There was nothing but joy in the chamber this afternoon, because we knew we had given this bill the kind of send-off that can get it through the Senate," Norton (D) said later.

But the bill faces considerable obstacles. Democrats don't appear to have enough votes in the Senate to avoid a filibuster, and the White House has threatened a veto. If the measure becomes law, it probably will be challenged in court.

Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) vowed to bring the legislation to the Senate "as quickly as possible." Aides said he would seek a vote on the bill by the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, which he chairs, in the next few months.

The legislation, sponsored by Norton and Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.), would add two seats to the House: one for the overwhelmingly Democratic District and another for the next state in line to pick up a representative, Republican-leaning Utah.

Although the bill was fashioned as a political compromise, only 22 Republicans supported it, including one from Utah. All but six Democrats present voted for it.

Several Republicans contended that the bill violated the constitutional requirement that House representatives come from states.

"The Constitution is clear. Let's follow it or amend it," said Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Tex.), who brandished a poster with constitutional quotes during the debate.

The bill's supporters argued that the District deserves full House representation because its residents pay taxes and serve in the U.S. military. They said a D.C. seat could be created under constitutional provisions giving Congress sweeping powers over the District.

Democrats steered the bill through final House passage a month after it was temporarily derailed by Republicans who tried to attach language overturning the District's strict anti-gun laws.

This time, Democrats broke the voting rights measure into two bills written so narrowly that Republicans couldn't change them much under House rules. One would add the two representatives to the House, and the other would make a small change in the tax code to pay for the legislation.

The budget measure passed 216 to 203 and was then combined with the voting rights bill that had passed.

Supporters called the bill's passage their biggest victory since 1978, when Congress approved a constitutional amendment to give the city two senators and a House representative. The amendment died after failing to win passage by enough states. The current legislation would not give the District senators.

A news conference after the vote drew a jubilant group of members of Congress, D.C. leaders and activists. They hugged and shook hands, savoring the moment.

"It's been a great day," said House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.), who had emphasized in his floor speech that District residents haven't been able to vote for congressional representation since 1801. "It's never too late to do the right thing."

Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D), who this week led thousands of people in a voting rights march on Congress, said residents "appreciate the history of this moment."

"This was a statement about our country's principles, values and morals. That we would no longer be the only democratic-represented country in the world where the citizens of the nation's capital did not have a vote in the national legislature," he said.

During the floor debate, several Republicans waved copies of the Constitution as they said the bill violated the intentions of the founding fathers. Taking pains to emphasize that they were not against voting rights, they urged taking a different route to give the District a full House seat: ceding the non-federal portion of the city back to Maryland.

That prompted an angry riposte from Norton.

"If you believe in democracy, I suggest you ask the state of Maryland before you cede back anything," she declared, waving a finger.

Replied Gohmert: "I'm shocked at the inference Maryland thinks so little of the people of the District of Columbia they wouldn't want them."

Maryland and D.C. officials have made it clear that they are not interested in having the District attached to its neighbor.

Legal scholars have differed over the bill's constitutionality. Davis, who conceived of the measure four years ago, noted that the legislation had passed muster with some prominent constitutional-law experts.

"We are convinced that this Congress has all the authority we need to expand freedom and liberty in this nation," Davis said.

Opposition to the legislation goes beyond constitutional concerns. Some Republicans have contended that Democrats will use it as a mechanism to eventually gain two D.C. Senate seats.

All lawmakers from the D.C. area who were in the chamber voted for the legislation except for Rep. Roscoe G. Bartlett (R-Md.). Norton can vote only in committee, but she was able to speak in favor of the bill on the House floor.

The bill involved creative legislative tinkering by Democrats who wanted to add the D.C. House seat and keep their promise to pay for any spending involved in new legislation.

The voting rights bill will cost about $2.5 million, largely because of the costs of the Utah seat. According to the legislation passed yesterday, the money will be raised by requiring people with incomes of at least $5 million a year to pay taxes slightly earlier.

"It will affect only 4,000 multimillionaires," said Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), who led the Democrats' debate on the measure.

But Republicans fumed over the legislative engineering and Democratic efforts to keep them from offering amendments. Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.) called it "Orwellian democracy."

[JPhillips]

But Republicans fumed over the legislative engineering and Democratic efforts to keep them from offering amendments. Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.) called it "Orwellian democracy."

I can't believe they have the balls to trot out this crap after the past six years.

[flere-imsaho]

Heh, this is the same Republican party that, in the Senate, is blocking a bill by a little-known procedural move that would require Senate candidates (like House candidates and 527 organizations) to file campaign finance reports electronically (which makes them much easier to access).

Irony.

Up-or-down vote, guys? Surely you're all for up-or-down votes, right?