Senate passes legislation to give DC Congressional vote

Hachface

Captain Carrot wrote: »

Hachface wrote: »

Captain Carrot wrote: »

Look, there are two sections of the Constitution that apply here. One part says that the House comes from the "several States", which would seem to exclude D.C. The other says that Congress has absolute authority over D.C., which would seem to include the possibility of giving it a voice in the House. This isn't a 'very loose' interpretation. Interpreting something differently than you do is not the same as not caring about it. At all.

Congressional authority over D.C. does not give Congress license to violate other provisions of the constitution. By this reasoning, if Congress wanted it could, say, revoke the First Amendment rights of all D.C. residents. This certainly is an exercise of authority over the district, but it also runs afoul of another part of the constitution and is therefore unconstitutional.

So why does the 'several states' take precedence over complete legislative control of DC? I'm honestly asking here.

Because control of D.C. is an exercise of government power, and government power is constrained by the Constitution. Implicit in any power of Congress is the exception "unless prohibited by the Constitution." This is a pretty fundamental concept.

Article I explicitly says that the House will be composed of reps from the states. It does not say the House will include reps from the states; it will not say reps from the states will meet in the House; it says the House is composed of reps from the states. Reps from the states are all the House of Representatives is. Constitutionally, you cannot add a second class of reps to the House without an amendment.

Hachface

moniker wrote: »

Then how are absentee ballots to people living abroad Constitutional? You can live in London but still vote for a Congressman while you can't if you live on that part of US soil.

Sure you can. But that right isn't explicit in the constitution. Your state gives you all kind of rights that the US constitution doesn't, and with a few exceptions (15th amendment, 19th amendment, most recent age-related amendment the number of which i can't remember right now) voting rights are determined on a state basis.

Fencingsax

I think since they're passing the bill over to the Sopreme Court's approval they are respecting the Constitution.

Hachface

Fencingsax wrote: »

I think since they're passing the bill over to the Sopreme Court's approval they are respecting the Constitution.

Where is this idea coming from? According to the AP article, they are expecting an immediate court challenge, but that is different from getting an advisory opinion from SCOTUS.

moniker

PantsB wrote: »

moniker wrote: »

Hachface wrote: »

Captain Carrot wrote: »

Look, there are two sections of the Constitution that apply here. One part says that the House comes from the "several States", which would seem to exclude D.C. The other says that Congress has absolute authority over D.C., which would seem to include the possibility of giving it a voice in the House. This isn't a 'very loose' interpretation. Interpreting something differently than you do is not the same as not caring about it. At all.

Congressional authority over D.C. does not give Congress license to violate other provisions of the constitution. By this reasoning, if Congress wanted it could, say, revoke the First Amendment rights of all D.C. residents. This certainly is an exercise of authority over the district, but it also runs afoul of another part of the constitution and is therefore unconstitutional.

I don't see how that does, but then letting the residents of the district have standing in Federal court as though they were a State, for instance, does not. If they are to be legally treated as a State in judicial matters then how is it the Congress cannot deem them legally treated as a State in the delegation of Representatives?

Congress can set judicial jurisdiction any way they want. The entire existence of lower courts (non Supreme) is determined by Congress ("To constitute Tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court")

moniker wrote: »

Given that the District is legally considered a State in several instances, though, how does that preclude them from being granted Congressional Representation? Your argument seems to also justify stripping the Representatives and Senators from Virginia as it is not a State but a Commonwealth.

[citation needed]

Hepburn v Ellzey and National Mutual Insurance Co. v Tidewater Transfer Co.

moniker

Hachface wrote: »

Captain Carrot wrote: »

Hachface wrote: »

Captain Carrot wrote: »

Look, there are two sections of the Constitution that apply here. One part says that the House comes from the "several States", which would seem to exclude D.C. The other says that Congress has absolute authority over D.C., which would seem to include the possibility of giving it a voice in the House. This isn't a 'very loose' interpretation. Interpreting something differently than you do is not the same as not caring about it. At all.

Congressional authority over D.C. does not give Congress license to violate other provisions of the constitution. By this reasoning, if Congress wanted it could, say, revoke the First Amendment rights of all D.C. residents. This certainly is an exercise of authority over the district, but it also runs afoul of another part of the constitution and is therefore unconstitutional.

So why does the 'several states' take precedence over complete legislative control of DC? I'm honestly asking here.

Because control of D.C. is an exercise of government power, and government power is constrained by the Constitution. Implicit in any power of Congress is the exception "unless prohibited by the Constitution." This is a pretty fundamental concept.

Article I explicitly says that the House will be composed of reps from the states. It does not say the House will include reps from the states; it will not say reps from the states will meet in the House; it says the House is composed of reps from the states. Reps from the states are all the House of Representatives is. Constitutionally, you cannot add a second class of reps to the House without an amendment.

So should there be Representatives in there from Commonwealths?

Hachface

moniker wrote: »

So should there be Representatives in there from Commonwealths?

This point has been brought up before, and it has been explained how it is stupid. While the state constitutions of Massachusetts, Virginia, et al. designate these stats as commonwealths, they were incorporated as states at the time of their ratification, and the federal government recongizes them as such.

The District of Columbia has never been recognized as a state. It never ratified the Constitution and was never granted statehood.

moniker

Hachface wrote: »

moniker wrote: »

So should there be Representatives in there from Commonwealths?

This point has been brought up before, and it has been explained how it is stupid. While the state constitutions of Massachusetts, Virginia, et al. designate these stats as commonwealths, they were incorporated as states at the time of their ratification, and the federal government recongizes them as such.

The District of Columbia has never been recognized as a state. It never ratified the Constitution and was never granted statehood.

It is recognized as a State in judicial matters as well as with taxation. So why is it disqualified from representation in the House?

Hachface

moniker wrote: »

Hachface wrote: »

moniker wrote: »

So should there be Representatives in there from Commonwealths?

This point has been brought up before, and it has been explained how it is stupid. While the state constitutions of Massachusetts, Virginia, et al. designate these stats as commonwealths, they were incorporated as states at the time of their ratification, and the federal government recongizes them as such.

The District of Columbia has never been recognized as a state. It never ratified the Constitution and was never granted statehood.

It is recognized as a State in judicial matters as well as with taxation. So why is it disqualified from representation in the House?

It is recognized as a state in certain instances. It is not recognized as a state in others, most powerfully perhaps in that it cannot ratify amendments to the Constitution, which is arguably the most fundamental power of statehood. Therefore, it's not a state and has no representation in the House because the House is defined as including only representatives of states.

It's fucked up, it's unjust, but it's constitutional, and according to the law only a constitutional amendment can correct it.

moniker

Hachface wrote: »

moniker wrote: »

Hachface wrote: »

moniker wrote: »

So should there be Representatives in there from Commonwealths?

This point has been brought up before, and it has been explained how it is stupid. While the state constitutions of Massachusetts, Virginia, et al. designate these stats as commonwealths, they were incorporated as states at the time of their ratification, and the federal government recongizes them as such.

The District of Columbia has never been recognized as a state. It never ratified the Constitution and was never granted statehood.

It is recognized as a State in judicial matters as well as with taxation. So why is it disqualified from representation in the House?

It is recognized as a state in certain instances. It is not recognized as a state in others, most powerfully perhaps in that it cannot ratify amendments to the Constitution, which is arguably the most fundamental power of statehood. Therefore, it's not a state and has no representation in the House because the House is defined as including only representatives of states.

It's fucked up, it's unjust, but it's constitutional, and according to the law only a constitutional amendment can correct it.

Well, I feel that there's an argument to be made that it is constitutional for the Congress to grant them a voting delegation to the House as one of the several States. Not that an amendment shouldn't also be passed.

PantsB

moniker wrote: »

Hepburn v Ellzey and National Mutual Insurance Co. v Tidewater Transfer Co.

Wiki lies to you. Text of Hepburn vs Ellzey 1804 says the exact opposite and even explicitly mentions that DC doesn't get a Rep.

Marshall, C. J., delivered the opinion of the court.

The question in this case is, whether the plaintiffs, as residents of the District of Columbia, can maintain an action in the circuit court of the United States for the district of Virginia.

This depends on the act of congress describing the jurisdiction of that court. That act gives jurisdiction to the circuit courts in cases between a citizen of the State in which the suit is brought, and a citizen of another State. To support the jurisdiction in this case, therefore, it must appear that Columbia is a State.

On the part of the plaintiffs it has been urged that Columbia is a distinct political society; and is, therefore, "a State," according to the definitions of writers on general law.

This is true. But as the act of congress obviously uses the word "State" in reference to that term as used in the constitution, it becomes necessary to inquire whether Columbia is a State in the sense of that instrument. The result of that examination is a conviction that the members of the American confederacy only are the States contemplated in the constitution.

The house of representatives is to be composed of members chosen by the people of the several States; and each State shall have at least one representative.

The senate of the United States shall be composed of two senators from each State.

Each State shall appoint, for the election of the executive, a number of electors equal to its whole number of senators and representatives.

These clauses show that the word State is used in the constitution as designating a member of the Union, and excludes from the term the signification attached to it by writers on the law of nations. When the same term which has been used plainly in this limited sense in the articles respecting the legislative and executive departments, is also employed in that which respects the judicial department, it must be understood as retaining the sense originally given to it.

Spoiler:

Other passages from the constitution have been cited by the plaintiffs to show that the term State is sometimes used in its more enlarged sense. But on examining the passages quoted, they do not prove what was to be shown by them.

It is true that as citizens of the United States, and of that particular district which is subject to the jurisdiction of congress, it is extraordinary that the courts of the United States, which are open to aliens, and to the citizens of every State in the Union, should be closed upon them. But this is a subject for legislative, not for judicial consideration.

Reading the second case would show the first citation's meaning in Wiki was wrong

The history of the controversy begins with that of the Republic. In defining the cases and controversies to which the judicial power of the United States could extend, the Constitution included those "between citizens of different States." [Footnote 7] In the Judiciary Act of 1789, Congress created a system of federal courts of first instance and gave them jurisdiction of suits "between a citizen of the State where the suit is brought and a citizen of another State." [Footnote 8] In 1804, the Supreme Court, through Chief Justice Marshall, held that a citizen of the District of Columbia was not a citizen of a State within the meaning and intendment of this Act. [Footnote 9] This decision closed federal courts in the states to citizens of the District of Columbia in diversity cases, and, for 136 years, they remained closed. In 1940, Congress enacted the statute challenged here. It confers on such courts jurisdiction if the action

"is between citizens of different States, or

citizens of the District of Columbia, the Territory of Hawaii, or Alaska, and any State or Territory. [Footnote 10]"
...

To now overrule this early decision of the Court on this point, and hold that the District of Columbia is a state, would, as that opinion pointed out, give to the word "state" a meaning in the Article which sets up the judicial establishment quite different from that which it carries in those Articles which set up the political departments and in other Articles of the instrument. While the word is one which can contain many meanings, such inconsistency in a single instrument is to be implied only where the context clearly requires it. There is no evidence that the Founders, pressed by more general and immediate anxieties, thought of the special problems of the District of Columbia in connection with the judiciary. This is not strange, for the District was then only a contemplated entity. But, had they thought of it, there is nothing to indicate that it would have been referred to as a state, and much to indicate that it would have required special provisions to fit its anomalous relationship into the new judicial system, just as it did to fit it into the new political system.
...
We therefore decline to overrule the opinion of Chief Justice Marshall, and we hold that the District of Columbia is not a state within Article III of the Constitution. In other words, cases between citizens of the District and those of the states were not included in the catalogue of controversies over which the Congress could give jurisdiction to the federal courts by virtue of Art. III.

The access of DC to the Federal Courts is saved only because that access is explicit and does not attempt to treat the District as a state and because Congress has broad powers determining the organization of the Courts and over the District and other Territories.

moniker

Fair enough, then.

Captain Carrot

Hachface wrote: »

Captain Carrot wrote:

So why does the 'several states' take precedence over complete legislative control of DC? I'm honestly asking here.

Because control of D.C. is an exercise of government power, and government power is constrained by the Constitution. Implicit in any power of Congress is the exception "unless prohibited by the Constitution." This is a pretty fundamental concept.

Article I explicitly says that the House will be composed of reps from the states. It does not say the House will include reps from the states; it will not say reps from the states will meet in the House; it says the House is composed of reps from the states. Reps from the states are all the House of Representatives is. Constitutionally, you cannot add a second class of reps to the House without an amendment.

Fair enough. But if the law demands this, then the law is a ass. Unfortunately, there's no way it'll be rectified, as Republicans won't vote for a Constitutional amendment that puts another Democrat in the House.

OremLK

Captain Carrot wrote: »

Hachface wrote: »

Captain Carrot wrote:

So why does the 'several states' take precedence over complete legislative control of DC? I'm honestly asking here.

Because control of D.C. is an exercise of government power, and government power is constrained by the Constitution. Implicit in any power of Congress is the exception "unless prohibited by the Constitution." This is a pretty fundamental concept.

Article I explicitly says that the House will be composed of reps from the states. It does not say the House will include reps from the states; it will not say reps from the states will meet in the House; it says the House is composed of reps from the states. Reps from the states are all the House of Representatives is. Constitutionally, you cannot add a second class of reps to the House without an amendment.

Fair enough. But if the law demands this, then the law is a ass. Unfortunately, there's no way it'll be rectified, as Republicans won't vote for a Constitutional amendment that puts another Democrat in the House.

It goes both ways, though. Would the Dems be pushing this issue at all if not for blatant self-interest? I sincerely doubt it.

Scalfin

Couscous wrote: »

The constitution doesn't say only the states are allowed representatives in Congress.

This is correct.

Also, I have seen no documentation showing that Massachusetts is a state and not a commonwealth, as you can't assert something without paper.

Hachface

Scalfin wrote: »

Couscous wrote: »

Also, I have seen no documentation showing that Massachusetts is a state and not a commonwealth, as you can't assert something without paper.

Since the only commonwealths in the United States are recognized as states, I would conclude that in the context of the US government, "commonwealth" is just a subclass of "state."

Again, I think the fact that Massachusetts and Virginia ratified the constitution as states is key.

Also, again:

Article I, Section of the Constitution wrote:

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

Hachface

Scalfin wrote: »

Also, I have seen no documentation showing that Massachusetts is a state and not a commonwealth, as you can't assert something without paper.

Oh wait, it just so happens that the commonwealths of Massachusetts and Virginia are listed as states in Article VII of the constitution:

Article VII wrote:

The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.

Signatures

Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independance (sic) of the United States of America the Twelfth. In Witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names.
George Washington - President and deputy from Virginia
New Hampshire - John Langdon, Nicholas Gilman
Massachusetts - Nathaniel Gorham, Rufus King
Connecticut - Wm Saml Johnson, Roger Sherman
New York - Alexander Hamilton
New Jersey - Wil Livingston, David Brearley, Wm Paterson, Jona. Dayton
Pensylvania - B Franklin, Thomas Mifflin, Robt Morris, Geo. Clymer, Thos FitzSimons, Jared Ingersoll, James Wilson, Gouv Morris
Delaware - Geo. Read, Gunning Bedford jun, John Dickinson, Richard Bassett, Jaco. Broom
Maryland - James McHenry, Dan of St Tho Jenifer, Danl Carroll
Virginia - John Blair, James Madison Jr.
North Carolina - Wm Blount, Richd Dobbs Spaight, Hu Williamson
South Carolina - J. Rutledge, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, Charles Pinckney, Pierce Butler
Georgia - William Few, Abr Baldwin
Attest: William Jackson, Secretary

PantsB

Stop with the "Commonwealth" nonsense.

Mass Constitution wrote:

The people, inhabiting the territory formerly called the Province of Massachusetts Bay, do hereby solemnly and mutually agree with each other, to form themselves into a free, sovereign, and independent body politic, or state by the name of "THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS"...
Article II. No governor, lieutenant governor, or judge of the supreme judicial court, shall hold any other office or place, under the authority of this commonwealth, except such as by this constitution they are admitted to hold saving that the judges of the said court may hold the offices of justices of the peace through the state; nor shall they hold any other place or office, or receive any pension or salary from any other state or government or power whatever.

No person shall be capable of holding or exercising at the same time, within this state more than one of the following offices, viz. -- judge of probate -- sheriff -- register of probate -- or register of deeds -- and never more than any two offices which are to be held by appointment of the governor, or the governor and council, or the senate, or the house of representatives, or by the election of the people of the state at large, or of the people of any county, military offices and the offices of justices of the peace excepted, shall be held by one person.

VA Constitution wrote:

No appropriation of public funds shall be made to any school or institution of learning not owned or exclusively controlled by the State or some political subdivision thereof;
...
The Supreme Court shall, by virtue of this Constitution, have original jurisdiction in cases of habeas corpus,
mandamus, and prohibition; to consider claims of actual innocence presented by convicted felons in such cases and in such manner as may be provided by the General Assembly; in matters of judicial censure, retirement, and removal under Section 10 of this article; and to answer questions of state law certified by a court of the United States or the highest appellate court of any other state.

KY wrote:

The Constitution of Kentucky is the principal law of the Commonwealth, the foundation
upon which state and local government rest.

PA wrote:

Senators shall be at least twenty-five years of age and Representatives twenty-one years of age. They shall have been citizens and inhabitants of their respective districts one year next before their election (unless absent on the public business of the United States or of this State) and shall reside in their respective districts during their terms of service.

Its fucking pedantic, its legally bullshit and its contradicted by the state Constitutions upon which the argument rests. ed- Also what Hachface said.

DC should have representation, but that is directly contradicted by the Constitution. Just because the Constitution should be amended doesn't mean it can be ignored

Captain Carrot

OremLK wrote: »

Captain Carrot wrote: »

Hachface wrote: »

Captain Carrot wrote:

So why does the 'several states' take precedence over complete legislative control of DC? I'm honestly asking here.

Because control of D.C. is an exercise of government power, and government power is constrained by the Constitution. Implicit in any power of Congress is the exception "unless prohibited by the Constitution." This is a pretty fundamental concept.

Article I explicitly says that the House will be composed of reps from the states. It does not say the House will include reps from the states; it will not say reps from the states will meet in the House; it says the House is composed of reps from the states. Reps from the states are all the House of Representatives is. Constitutionally, you cannot add a second class of reps to the House without an amendment.

Fair enough. But if the law demands this, then the law is a ass. Unfortunately, there's no way it'll be rectified, as Republicans won't vote for a Constitutional amendment that puts another Democrat in the House.

It goes both ways, though. Would the Dems be pushing this issue at all if not for blatant self-interest? I sincerely doubt it.

It's possible, but I think many people involved are pushing for it because they honestly believe that every American citizen deserves to have full representation in Congress.

Gosling

The way I see things going down is like this:

*This'll pass. DC gets its House member, Utah gets a new guy going into the reshuffle.
*After the reshuffle, the Dems will start a waiting game. They'll wait to see if they can create a situation where the GOP is absolutely, totally, utterly powerless unless the Democrats decree otherwise. If that happens right away, great, but otherwise they'll hold off until the opportunity presents itself to steamroll it through. (If it ever does.)
*THAT'S when the Senators get paraded in.