Regarding the House representation of WashDC

[marjai]

Washington DC does not have representation in the House or Senate. The have a delegate, the current one being Eleanor Norton. There is legislation currently in the House to give DC a House seat. The vote's on Friday. The bill would also have to pass the Senate, of course. Bush threatens a veto. But that's all just gravy; this is what caught my eye

Comments

[madshutterbug]

As I read your description, in committees the vote counts; on the House floor, your description holds.

D.C. does not have representation, yet all their citizens pay the same taxes we do, and are subject to the same legislation/laws.

Taxation without representation. Hmm, seems to me I recall something about that in American History...

[marjai]

Well, I see a chunk of the issue being that DC is in essence a US Territory, like the Virgin Islands, except that it's within the territorial body of the US. It's that last bit that makes it significant, I guess. But I don't know - does Puerto Rico pay taxes? Virgin Islands? Guam?

[madshutterbug]

Yes, they do.

[delwin]

Yep. Bush is against it because it, of all things, is in rather direct violation of the constitution. Like that's bothered him before.

Unfortunately I don't see this passing, and if it does I don't see it getting past the Supreme Court. I would much rather they give DC statehood than muck around with the internal workings of how and where people get representation. We have a perfectly good system, states, and it works just fine.

Of course then you've got this problem of the fact that almost half of DC's budget still comes from Congress...

[marjai]

The article stated that there was some Constitutional verbiage that supported DC having a rep. It also stated that "Congress in 1978 approved a constitutional amendment extending voting rights to the District, but it died when it was not ratified by three-fourths of the states." I don't doubt the matter is more complicated than it appears on the surface.