I hope that Washington DC never gets Representation

[ThomWV]

Representative Eleanor Norton, from DC, has convinced me that Washington should never get Representation in the House. Her unrelenting distortion of the matter of gun rights and disgraceful push to diminish our Constitutional rights is disgraceful. She argues, at her most absurd, that the Nation's Capital should be the showplace of disrespect of our Constitution. How does such a person call herself a Democrat? She is dispicable.

[Bucky]

1. I have yet to hear a convincing argument why DC shouldn't get two senators

If Wyoming, with fewer residents, gets two senators, DC should too. Taxation without representation is unAmerican.

(on edit) Correction: the subject line should read "I have yet to hear a cogent argument why DC shouldn't get two senators"

[Romulox]

9. It's in the Constitution. Give it a quick skim some time.

:hi:

[Bucky]

13. The Constitution isn't an argument. It's actually designed to end argument

Which is why Republicans love to amend it so.

[Renew Deal]

21. So doesn't that mean they shouldn't get any representation?

:shrug:

[Rosa Luxemburg]

37. the people in DC need representation

[Romulox]

46. Then the Constitution will have to be amended. nt

[Bucky]

49. Or DC can be admitted as a state by simple majority vote

This is the same way Texas got to be a state. It was originally joined to the union as a treaty between the US and the Republic of Texas. But, failing to win a 2/3s majority in the Senate (those d____d abolitionists!), it was simply voted in as a new state by a simple majority of both houses.

The Constitution can be quite flexible that way.

[Romulox]

61. I sincerely doubt that will be politically feasible in our lifetimes.

I, for one, would not support granting two senators to a city with a smaller population than Detroit.

[Bucky]

62. What about a state with a smaller population than Detroit?

All Michiganders (and ever since the 19th Amendment, all Michigeese too) get to vote for 2 Senators. District of Columbians don't.

Anyway, by that standard only 23 US states should have Senators, since the remaining 27 have populations smaller than Detroit's metro area.

[Romulox]

75. Nope. I would not support admittance of ANY new state with a population less than Detroit's.

"All Michiganders (and ever since the 19th Amendment, all Michigeese too) get to vote for 2 Senators. District of Columbians don't. "

The logical answer is to incorporate the populated portions of the District into Va and Md. nt

[chimpymustgo]

60. DC needs representation more than it needs a "well-regulated militia."

[Romulox]

44. Er, no, it's designed to direct how our government is organized.

"Which is why Republicans love to amend it so."

Er, the first 10 amendments form The Bill of Rights. :hi:

[Thothmes]

64. Like the 13th, 14th, & 15th amendments.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

19. AAs should still be 3/5 of a person then?

[Romulox]

45. Look up the 14th amendment. Your answer lies there. nt

[Johonny]

33. I've yet to hear a convincing argument for two senators

I get it when the country was made and each state thought of itself as a nation-state. But it's modern America, nearly everyone in it thinks of themselves as American first. Why then should large population states have overwhelming under representation in Congress?

[Bucky]

50. The Constitution would not have been passed without it.

It's a relic as well as an inconsistancy from republican principles. But were it not for that inconsistancy, there wouldn't have been relics to begin with. The New England states, New Jersey, and New York wouldn't have approved the Constitution if they weren't assured of one branch with regional protections.

The effect of the Senate is strangely random now, of course. It overrepresents the mining states (which accounts for why Nafta passed so easily when it barely had majority support in the House).

[Johonny]

56. I understand that

But because it worked at the time isn't a real good explanation for keeping it now. The constitution can be amended. Another question is why, after huge advances in statistics since the writing of the constitution, do we have to rely on only house to house hand counting during our census?

[Bucky]

57. The constitution can be amended. But the small state imbalance can't be overcome

I don't disagree with the view that our system of California having equal Senate representation is more than a bit wonky. I just don't see concerns about this system being mentioned outside the 5 or 6 biggest states (even though most correction plans for this imbalance are probably partisan-neutral).

It's one of those ain't-broke-don't-fix things, like the British monarchy or the designated hitter rule. It's philosophically antiquated, but not enough a problem that the pragmatic majority will get worked up about it.

[mucifer]

2. I think the government should take representation AWAY from Texas because

they gave us george w bush.

:sarcasm:

[Bucky]

3. In the words of Ray Wylie Hubbard....

(See this video to have the following lyrics sung to you by Ray Wylie hisownself)

I got on my cowboy boots, jeans
And Hawaiian shirt, mirrored sunglasses
And a mobile phone
I guess I look like some Port Aransas
Dope dealer that's out on bail
Just trying to get home
Well I ain't in jail and I got me a guitar
Got a little band that's hotter than a rocket
Sometimes we're sloppy
We're always loud, tonight we're just ornery
And locked in the pocket

So screw you, we're from Texas
Screw you, we're from Texas
Screw you, we're from Texas
We're from Texas baby, so screw you

Now I love the USA
And the other states
Ahh, they're OK
Texas is the place I wanna be
And I don't care if I ever go to Delaware anyway
Cause we got Stubbs, and Gruene Hall and Antone's, and John T's
Country Store
We've got Willie and Jacky Jack, Robert Earl, Pat, Cory, Charlie and me
And so many more.

So screw you, we're from Texas
Screw you, we're from Texas
Screw you, we're from Texas
We're from Texas, screw you

Sing it with me--
Screw you, we're from Texas
Screw you, we're from Texas
Screw you, we're from Texas
We're from Texas, screw you!

Now Texas has gotten a bad reputation,
Because of what happened in Dallas and Waco
And our corporations well they are corrupt
And the politicians are swindlers and loco
But when it comes to music my friend
I believe these words are as true as St. John the Revelator's
Our Mr. Vaughan was the best that there ever was
And no band was cooler than the 13th Floor Elevators.

So screw you, we're from Texas
Screw you, we're from Texas
Screw you, we're from Texas
We're from Texas, screw you!

Screw you, we're from Texas
Screw you, we're from Texas
Screw you, we're from Texas
We're from Texas Screw you

[madinmaryland]

4. And deny Washington citizens representation? Nice post, FReeper.

[MadHound]

5. Oh waaah!

She's doing her job, representing the views of her constituents. Just because she happens to disagree with you is no reason why D.c. shouldn't get its deserved representation in the Federal government.

[walkaway]

6. She's great! and D.C, should and will get representation

Why would you want to deny these people the same rights you have? Oh, right. The only important right is to own a gun.

[PA Democrat]

7. Moronic post of the day.

[proud2BlibKansan]

24. Seriously

[Marie26]

66. Totally

Where can I get that wasted 5 minutes back?

[donheld]

70. Yes it is moronic!

[Romulox]

8. There's a little matter of DC voting being Unconstitutional, as well. nt

[TZ]

16. Thats a RW talking point

With NO truth in it.
There is NOTHING in the Constitution that PRECLUDES it. It is just not mentioned. Don't give me this not a state crap either. DC isn't the same as PR, Guam or any of the other territories and you KNOW it.

[Romulox]

42. "Section 3. The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state"

Art 1. Sec. 3, US Constitution.

"The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states"

Art 1. Sec 2, US Constitution

[LanternWaste]

68. delete

n

[Occam Bandage]

38. Then so is the Federal government regulating commerce involving DC,

and every Federal law that extends from the necessary and proper clause involving DC and commerce regulation.

[Romulox]

43. There is no barrier to Congress regulating commerce in a non-state. nt

[Occam Bandage]

67. "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States."

[Romulox]

76. The Constitution has a separate grant of authority over territories: Art. IV, sec.3

"The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State."

Congress has alway had the power to regulate US territories (e.g., the territories within the continental US prior to their admittance into the Union.) The District of Columbia has existed for over two hundred years, and no court has found regulation of the District by the Congress unconstitutional. :hi:

[hlthe2b]

10. Is this FreeRepublic.com?

Geez, ThomWV. It is your post that is despicable. Disagree with her on gun control, but because her constituents, which she represents disagree with you on this one issue, the entire populace should be denied representation and she somehow deserves your denigration? How democratic of you. :sarcasm:

[TZ]

17. Yep. I have heard this argument ONLY from RW nutjobs.

The argument is also denigrating to the residents of DC who have overwhelmingly voted Eleanor Holmes Norton in..They must all be traitors..:sarcasm:

[cali]

11. you are a fantastic example of a gun fanatic.

you can't see beyond that issue and that's just pathetic. so are your comments about Holmes Norton.

[YOY]

12. Um you do realize it would be a solid "D" voting block, no?

and that basing things off of one reps view on one issue is pretty silly.

[TheCowsCameHome]

14. It must be great to have no representation.

:sarcasm:

[TZ]

15. So taxation without representation is okay with you.

Good god, if that isn't sarcasm that sounds EXACTLY like Bill-O's rants about DC. Why don't you add the people of DC are obviously too dumb to have representation in congress too. Jackass. :grr:

[Captain Hilts]

18. She represents the district, where guns are used differently than in WV. nt

[proud2BlibKansan]

20. So you are denying representation to US citizens

because of ONE woman?

Nice democratic principles ya got going on there. :crazy:

[SemiCharmedQuark]

23. One woman who for some reason keeps representing her loser constituents.

[proud2BlibKansan]

28. You mean the losers keep reelecting her

[SemiCharmedQuark]

29. Yeah, she represents their interests and they keep reelecting her. What kind of F'd up system is

that?

[bigtree]

22. you appear to know absolutely nothing of value

. . . about Rep. Norton or my Washington, D.C.

[proud2BlibKansan]

25. BTW,

dEspicable

[sinkingfeeling]

26. Maybe she believes that DC has a right to determine their own laws and not the US Congress.

[Statistical]

73. Which is different than DC having to decide which ammendments it is willing to accept. n/t

[RedCappedBandit]

27. What garbage are they teaching people over in WV?

[Junkdrawer]

30. Is it official yet? Has DU become the NRA Underground?

:shrug:

[hlthe2b]

32. Not for lack of trying...

:mad:

I keep trying to figure out if the most vocal, most rabid, and most extreme gun advocates are really progressive, or just infiltrators trying to instigate and disrupt....The vitriol coming from the Gungeon is quite often absolutely as frightening as that which you see on the most rabid RW sites, including the milita and white power sites.

[Junkdrawer]

34. If you control one party, your agenda has a good chance. If you control both...

your agenda is assured.

[proud2BlibKansan]

58. There is a big difference between

controlling a party and promoting their non-progressive agenda.

[onenote]

31. and do you support taking away representation for other locations that have members you dislike

Only someone with severe irony impairment could post what you posted and complain about someone else calling themselves a Democrat.

[Kaylee]

35. Who else deserves to lose representation because you

don't like their opinions. Why should DC have to pass a litmus to test to get something that is freely given to every other citizen?

[Occam Bandage]

36. So you hope DC never gets representation because you don't like

the current nonvoting representative's position on one issue. Hurray!

[Ocracoker16]

39. Are we clinging to our precious guns out there in WV?

Your post is descpicable.

[arcadian]

40. This place looks more and more like freak republic everyday.

You do know that denying D.C. voting rughts is right-wing objective?

[TZ]

41. That apparantly doesn't matter!

He's apparantly decided that the residents of DC are brainless nitwits that need ThomWV to tell them how to live.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

47. so because you dont like their politics they should have representatives?

very democratic of you

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

48. Now There's An Ignorant Crybaby Rant If I've Ever Seen One.

Would you like me to call you the Wahhhhhmbulence? My god get a grip.

[hlthe2b]

51. He's gone back to the Gungeon to lick his wounds...

into the "loving bosom" of the other gun-obsessed, I'd imagine.... I'm sure those of us who posted on this thread have now been branded as "anti-patriotic gun (and constitutional) haters among the Gungeon regulars.... :eyes:

[tritsofme]

52. DC deserves voting rights, but the DC Voting Rights Act is an unconstitutional farce.

The constitution doesn't allow for non-state entities to be represented in Congress.

There needs to be a constitutional amendment to settle the issue.

[Wind Dancer]

53. You are joking, right?

[Zodiak]

55. Sadly, I do not think so

If we could deny representation to entire regions because we do not like their representatives' positions on Constitutional issues, Oklahoma would have been stripped years ago.

[Wind Dancer]

59. Scary, isn't it?

Some of the recent posts are so outrageous, I think the "sarcasm" tag was left out by mistake. Obviously, that's not the situation in this case.

[DevonRex]

54. Gun OCD is bad for you ThomWV. It's clouding your judgment. nt

[aikoaiko]

63. You're harshing my mellow.

Don't worry. DC residents will get representation and 2nd Amendment rights.

I'm sure of it.

[Marie26]

65. Whew!

I can make a similar argument for disenfranchising Texas. Actually, I don't like Alaska either - they've inflicted Ted Stevens & Sarah Palin on us. No Representation for DC, TX or AK!!

[Raineyb]

69. This OP is really fucking stupid

Nice way to uphold small "d" democratic principles.

[marmar]

71. I believe my British friends would label this post "quite daft"

:wtf:

[fortyfeetunder]

72. Excuse me? Are you serious?

You are judging the destiny for over 400,000 citizens over what one person does?
Did you forget to turn your :sarcasm: thang on?

[Hippo_Tron]

74. Sigh...