Historically, Congress has had authority over itself, Powell v. McCormack notwithstanding. Are you seriously contending that Congress does not have that power?
The constitution pretty clearly states that the House of Representatives "shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States," not composed of members selected by the people of the several states, plus maybe some other people if Congress feels like it.
This may just be a situation where what is right and what is constitutional do not neatly coincide.
Historically, Congress has had authority over itself, Powell v. McCormack notwithstanding. Are you seriously contending that Congress does not have that power?
Are you contending that if Congress voted life terms for all its members tomorrow that would not be improper? That if it voted tomorrow to add 100 members to itself of its choosing, that would be legal? That if it wanted to take away all of Georgia's representatives and give them to Nebraska, that would square with the Constitution?
Get real. The composition of Congress is a constitutional matter, not something Congress can decide for itself, or pass in a bill with the assent of the President. The tip off that it is constitutional is that the composition of Congress is clearly outlined in the Constitution.
Detharin: Why would any "republican leaning state" get 3 senators? Senators are 2 per state (leading to the current 100), outlined in the Constitution.
EDIT: phrased better
Well as long as we are violating the constitution to give DC a congressional seat the logical next step is they get a senator. Just one mind you because they are not a state, as a compromise we would therefore need to give another senate seat to another state, which would obviously be a republican leaning state in order to ensure bi partisan support.
Giving that even giving DC a congressional seat would require a constitutional amendment, which when pointed out doing it by their current plan is unconstitutional Congress voted to ignore it.
A) That would be blatantly Unconstitutional, both in the letter and the spirit of the document (as it is, this is perhaps just by the letter, but not in the spirit, since the founders likely never expected citizens to, well, live in the District, thus no need to provide for representation of the District in A1S2)
Even if you could try and use an extra senator as a bargaining chip, you'd likely create more chaos than you'd solve, as then you'd have the other states' senators arguing that it wasn't fair that it wasn't them getting a new senator.
Congress capped its number of members legislatively, they certainly have some control over their own composition. Giving DC a voting representative without granted the district statehood is certainly a more murky area though. I'd lean towards that particular activity being unconstitutional.
They could certainly vote to add 100 members though, to be allocated via the regular census process. 435 House members is not a constitutional requirement, it was an ad hoc limit once Congress realized the House would eventually become too big to be workable.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
0
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
edited February 2009
While it might be against the letter of the Constitution to give a representative to a non-state, it's pretty clearly against the spirit of the Constitution to force citizens to pay federal taxes without giving them federal representation.
Congress capped its number of members legislatively, they certainly have some control over their own composition. Giving DC a voting representative without granted the district statehood is certainly a more murky area though. I'd lean towards that particular activity being unconstitutional.
They could certainly vote to add 100 members though, to be allocated via the regular census process. 435 House members is not a constitutional requirement, it was an ad hoc limit once Congress realized the House would eventually become too big to be workable.
Well, the constitution limits their latitude by setting upper and lower limits on how many people can be represented. My example was meant to be of Congress just saying "The following people will now be congressmen; Doug Smith, Keri McLane, Joseph Carpenter etc."
While it might be against the letter of the Constitution to give a representative to a non-state, it's pretty clearly against the spirit of the Constitution to force citizens to pay federal taxes without giving them federal representation.
Sounds like a good reason to amend the wording of the Constitution.
While it might be against the letter of the Constitution to give a representative to a non-state, it's pretty clearly against the spirit of the Constitution to force citizens to pay federal taxes without giving them federal representation.
Sounds like a good reason to amend the wording of the Constitution.
I guess the question is what to do in the interim time it takes to get into a position politically where we can push an amendment like that through.
While it might be against the letter of the Constitution to give a representative to a non-state, it's pretty clearly against the spirit of the Constitution to force citizens to pay federal taxes without giving them federal representation.
Sounds like a good reason to amend the wording of the Constitution.
I guess the question is what to do in the interim time it takes to get into a position politically where we can push an amendment like that through.
Let's not overstate the urgency of a problem that has been around for 220 years. It will keep for a year or two, so long as arrangements are being made to resolve it.
While it might be against the letter of the Constitution to give a representative to a non-state, it's pretty clearly against the spirit of the Constitution to force citizens to pay federal taxes without giving them federal representation.
Sounds like a good reason to amend the wording of the Constitution.
If only we had a process to do so, right?
And I don't get the "an amendment would never pass" argument, because the amendment giving them Electoral votes seems to have made it. I see no reason why an amendment giving them a House rep wouldn't. Senators might be more difficult, but a House rep should be easy. It's one person out of over four hundred. When was the last time the composition of the House gave a party a one-vote lead?
EDIT: And I also agree that this being a problem going back centuries, and it being (again) one vote out of over 400 kinda saps any supposed urgency.
Maryland wouldn't take D.C., and you can't add territory to a state without its consent.
Out of curiosity, does anybody know the relevant law/history here? I can only assume that the District was created from Maryland (and previously Virginia) by either Congressional or Executive authority, I see no reason why the same wouldn't be sufficient to give it back.
While it might be against the letter of the Constitution to give a representative to a non-state, it's pretty clearly against the spirit of the Constitution to force citizens to pay federal taxes without giving them federal representation.
Sounds like a good reason to amend the wording of the Constitution.
If only we had a process to do so, right?
And I don't get the "an amendment would never pass" argument, because the amendment giving them Electoral votes seems to have made it. I see no reason why an amendment giving them a House rep wouldn't. Senators might be more difficult, but a House rep should be easy. It's one person out of over four hundred. When was the last time the composition of the House gave a party a one-vote lead?
EDIT: And I also agree that this being a problem going back centuries, and it being (again) one vote out of over 400 kinda saps any supposed urgency.
Because it has already been tried and failed getting less than half the number of State's necessary for ratification?
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, dockyards, and other needful buildings;
While it might be against the letter of the Constitution to give a representative to a non-state, it's pretty clearly against the spirit of the Constitution to force citizens to pay federal taxes without giving them federal representation.
Sounds like a good reason to amend the wording of the Constitution.
If only we had a process to do so, right?
And I don't get the "an amendment would never pass" argument, because the amendment giving them Electoral votes seems to have made it. I see no reason why an amendment giving them a House rep wouldn't. Senators might be more difficult, but a House rep should be easy. It's one person out of over four hundred. When was the last time the composition of the House gave a party a one-vote lead?
EDIT: And I also agree that this being a problem going back centuries, and it being (again) one vote out of over 400 kinda saps any supposed urgency.
Because it has already been tried and failed getting less than half the number of State's necessary for ratification?
Oh, you mean the one a quarter-century ago? Sure nothing could have changed since then.
Wait, one thing seems to have changed. That amendment gave D.C. Senators as well. So why wouldn't an amendment merely granting them a House seat pass?
While it might be against the letter of the Constitution to give a representative to a non-state, it's pretty clearly against the spirit of the Constitution to force citizens to pay federal taxes without giving them federal representation.
Sounds like a good reason to amend the wording of the Constitution.
If only we had a process to do so, right?
And I don't get the "an amendment would never pass" argument, because the amendment giving them Electoral votes seems to have made it. I see no reason why an amendment giving them a House rep wouldn't. Senators might be more difficult, but a House rep should be easy. It's one person out of over four hundred. When was the last time the composition of the House gave a party a one-vote lead?
EDIT: And I also agree that this being a problem going back centuries, and it being (again) one vote out of over 400 kinda saps any supposed urgency.
Because it has already been tried and failed getting less than half the number of State's necessary for ratification?
Oh, you mean the one a quarter-century ago? Sure nothing could have changed since then.
Wait, one thing seems to have changed. That amendment gave D.C. Senators as well. So why wouldn't an amendment merely granting them a House seat pass?
It might.
This legislation is guaranteed to pass, and requires SCOTUS to rule on it before being implemented.
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, dockyards, and other needful buildings;
Maybe we should have kept the District only ten miles square.
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, dockyards, and other needful buildings;
Maybe we should have kept the District only ten miles square.
Oops.
o_O
It's actually less than that thanks to ceding part of it back to Virginia. Now it's 68.3 sq mi rather than 100.
o_O
It's actually less than that thanks to ceding part of it back to Virginia. Now it's 68.3 sq mi rather than 100.
Doh.
I was reading "ten miles square" as some funky old dead dude way of saying ten square miles. That makes much more sense.
EDIT: Also, I fail to see how "this legislation is guaranteed to pass" is a great argument against doing it the right way, and if the SCOTUS treats the Constitution as anything more than toilet paper there's no way they'll uphold it.
o_O
It's actually less than that thanks to ceding part of it back to Virginia. Now it's 68.3 sq mi rather than 100.
Doh.
I was reading "ten miles square" as some funky old dead dude way of saying ten square miles. That makes much more sense.
EDIT: Also, I fail to see how "this legislation is guaranteed to pass" is a great argument against doing it the right way, and if the SCOTUS treats the Constitution as anything more than toilet paper there's no way they'll uphold it.
I'm not opposed to passing another amendment and giving it another go. I just happen to feel that article 1 section 8 lets the Congress grant Representation in the House to DC so an amendment isn't inherently required. Should SCOTUS disagree, then yeah they need to go the more circuitous route, but that hasn't happened yet. And there have been rulings determining treating the district as if it were a state for certain conditions/circumstances. Providing them with a voice in the legislative process under which they are subject seems like one that should qualify, same as having standing to sue people.
o_O
It's actually less than that thanks to ceding part of it back to Virginia. Now it's 68.3 sq mi rather than 100.
Doh.
I was reading "ten miles square" as some funky old dead dude way of saying ten square miles. That makes much more sense.
EDIT: Also, I fail to see how "this legislation is guaranteed to pass" is a great argument against doing it the right way, and if the SCOTUS treats the Constitution as anything more than toilet paper there's no way they'll uphold it.
Would you please stop saying that people who disagree with you don't care about the Constitution?
Would you please stop saying that people who disagree with you don't care about the Constitution?
Except they don't. The Constitution is pretty clear on this matter, whether proponents of this want to admit it or not. Hoping they can just pass this the easy way, and maybe it'll squeak through the SCOTUS, is a horrible way to accomplish this and sets (or rather, continues) a horrible precedent.
The only way this is Constitutional is if you read the Constitution very loosely. It's these exact kinds of "loose" interpretations of the Constitution that have made many of our rights not worth the paper they're printed on. I'd be a hypocrite if I was suddenly okay with this when it's for something I favor...and I do favor full representation for citizens of D.C., as at least one way to solve this issue (another would simply be exempting D.C. residents from personal income tax, but that seems far too easy to abuse).
mcdermott on
0
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
Would you please stop saying that people who disagree with you don't care about the Constitution?
Except they don't. The Constitution is pretty clear on this matter, whether proponents of this want to admit it or not. Hoping they can just pass this the easy way, and maybe it'll squeak through the SCOTUS, is a horrible way to accomplish this and sets (or rather, continues) a horrible precedent.
The only way this is Constitutional is if you read the Constitution very loosely. It's these exact kinds of "loose" interpretations of the Constitution that have made many of our rights not worth the paper they're printed on..
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.
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.
Would you please stop saying that people who disagree with you don't care about the Constitution?
Except they don't. The Constitution is pretty clear on this matter, whether proponents of this want to admit it or not. Hoping they can just pass this the easy way, and maybe it'll squeak through the SCOTUS, is a horrible way to accomplish this and sets (or rather, continues) a horrible precedent.
The only way this is Constitutional is if you read the Constitution very loosely. It's these exact kinds of "loose" interpretations of the Constitution that have made many of our rights not worth the paper they're printed on..
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.
Giving Congress authority over D.C., taking just what half-ass argument you've presented here, does not mean it gets representation in that same Congress. It does not make it one of the "several States."
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?
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.
Giving Congress authority over D.C., taking just what half-ass argument you've presented here, does not mean it gets representation in that same Congress. It does not make it one of the "several States."
Half-assed argument? The Constitution says that Congress has control over D.C. This is not my invention.
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 giving Congress control over DC does not, in any way, change the requirements of how the members of that Congress are chosen. It simply does not follow. Congressional control is in no way contradictory with D.C. having no representatives, nor does it even allow them to ignore the requirements stated elsewhere for selection of representatives.
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?
1. The relevant language of Article III does not necessarily preclude that residents of D.C. from having standing in federal court, but Article I does preclude non-States from sending representatives to the House.
2. Even if point 1 is not true, we find it a legal necessity to grant residents of D.C. federal standing because the right to a jury trial is specified elsewhere in the Constitution. Try to find a part of the Constitution that guarantees congressional representation for U.S. citizens who are not residents of any state.
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 giving Congress control over DC does not, in any way, change the requirements of how the members of that Congress are chosen. It simply does not follow. Congressional control is in no way contradictory with D.C. having no representatives, nor does it even allow them to ignore the requirements stated elsewhere for selection of representatives.
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.
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")
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.
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?
1. The relevant language of Article III does not necessarily preclude that residents of D.C. from having standing in federal court, but Article I does preclude non-States from sending representatives to the House.
2. Even if point 1 is not true, we find it a legal necessity to grant residents of D.C. federal standing because the right to a jury trial is specified elsewhere in the Constitution. Try to find a part of the Constitution that guarantees congressional representation for U.S. citizens who are not residents of any state.
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.
Posts
The constitution pretty clearly states that the House of Representatives "shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States," not composed of members selected by the people of the several states, plus maybe some other people if Congress feels like it.
This may just be a situation where what is right and what is constitutional do not neatly coincide.
Are you contending that if Congress voted life terms for all its members tomorrow that would not be improper? That if it voted tomorrow to add 100 members to itself of its choosing, that would be legal? That if it wanted to take away all of Georgia's representatives and give them to Nebraska, that would square with the Constitution?
Get real. The composition of Congress is a constitutional matter, not something Congress can decide for itself, or pass in a bill with the assent of the President. The tip off that it is constitutional is that the composition of Congress is clearly outlined in the Constitution.
A) That would be blatantly Unconstitutional, both in the letter and the spirit of the document (as it is, this is perhaps just by the letter, but not in the spirit, since the founders likely never expected citizens to, well, live in the District, thus no need to provide for representation of the District in A1S2)
They could certainly vote to add 100 members though, to be allocated via the regular census process. 435 House members is not a constitutional requirement, it was an ad hoc limit once Congress realized the House would eventually become too big to be workable.
Well, the constitution limits their latitude by setting upper and lower limits on how many people can be represented. My example was meant to be of Congress just saying "The following people will now be congressmen; Doug Smith, Keri McLane, Joseph Carpenter etc."
But I think we agree on the larger point.
Sounds like a good reason to amend the wording of the Constitution.
I guess the question is what to do in the interim time it takes to get into a position politically where we can push an amendment like that through.
Sorry Marylanders, your votes just got deluded.
Too bad no one cares about Maryland.
Let's not overstate the urgency of a problem that has been around for 220 years. It will keep for a year or two, so long as arrangements are being made to resolve it.
Someone needs to serve the lawmakers, lobbyists, aides, etc. After that, it just grows from there.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Maryland wouldn't take D.C., and you can't add territory to a state without its consent.
If only we had a process to do so, right?
And I don't get the "an amendment would never pass" argument, because the amendment giving them Electoral votes seems to have made it. I see no reason why an amendment giving them a House rep wouldn't. Senators might be more difficult, but a House rep should be easy. It's one person out of over four hundred. When was the last time the composition of the House gave a party a one-vote lead?
EDIT: And I also agree that this being a problem going back centuries, and it being (again) one vote out of over 400 kinda saps any supposed urgency.
Out of curiosity, does anybody know the relevant law/history here? I can only assume that the District was created from Maryland (and previously Virginia) by either Congressional or Executive authority, I see no reason why the same wouldn't be sufficient to give it back.
Congress had to get the consent of Maryland and Virginia to take the land from them.
Because it has already been tried and failed getting less than half the number of State's necessary for ratification?
Oh, you mean the one a quarter-century ago? Sure nothing could have changed since then.
Wait, one thing seems to have changed. That amendment gave D.C. Senators as well. So why wouldn't an amendment merely granting them a House seat pass?
It might.
This legislation is guaranteed to pass, and requires SCOTUS to rule on it before being implemented.
Maybe we should have kept the District only ten miles square.
Oops.
o_O
It's actually less than that thanks to ceding part of it back to Virginia. Now it's 68.3 sq mi rather than 100.
Doh.
I was reading "ten miles square" as some funky old dead dude way of saying ten square miles. That makes much more sense.
EDIT: Also, I fail to see how "this legislation is guaranteed to pass" is a great argument against doing it the right way, and if the SCOTUS treats the Constitution as anything more than toilet paper there's no way they'll uphold it.
I'm not opposed to passing another amendment and giving it another go. I just happen to feel that article 1 section 8 lets the Congress grant Representation in the House to DC so an amendment isn't inherently required. Should SCOTUS disagree, then yeah they need to go the more circuitous route, but that hasn't happened yet. And there have been rulings determining treating the district as if it were a state for certain conditions/circumstances. Providing them with a voice in the legislative process under which they are subject seems like one that should qualify, same as having standing to sue people.
Would you please stop saying that people who disagree with you don't care about the Constitution?
Except they don't. The Constitution is pretty clear on this matter, whether proponents of this want to admit it or not. Hoping they can just pass this the easy way, and maybe it'll squeak through the SCOTUS, is a horrible way to accomplish this and sets (or rather, continues) a horrible precedent.
The only way this is Constitutional is if you read the Constitution very loosely. It's these exact kinds of "loose" interpretations of the Constitution that have made many of our rights not worth the paper they're printed on. I'd be a hypocrite if I was suddenly okay with this when it's for something I favor...and I do favor full representation for citizens of D.C., as at least one way to solve this issue (another would simply be exempting D.C. residents from personal income tax, but that seems far too easy to abuse).
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.
Giving Congress authority over D.C., taking just what half-ass argument you've presented here, does not mean it gets representation in that same Congress. It does not make it one of the "several States."
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?
So why does the 'several states' take precedence over complete legislative control of DC? I'm honestly asking here.
Half-assed argument? The Constitution says that Congress has control over D.C. This is not my invention.
Because giving Congress control over DC does not, in any way, change the requirements of how the members of that Congress are chosen. It simply does not follow. Congressional control is in no way contradictory with D.C. having no representatives, nor does it even allow them to ignore the requirements stated elsewhere for selection of representatives.
1. The relevant language of Article III does not necessarily preclude that residents of D.C. from having standing in federal court, but Article I does preclude non-States from sending representatives to the House.
2. Even if point 1 is not true, we find it a legal necessity to grant residents of D.C. federal standing because the right to a jury trial is specified elsewhere in the Constitution. Try to find a part of the Constitution that guarantees congressional representation for U.S. citizens who are not residents of any state.
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.
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")
[citation needed]
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
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.