No taxation without representation

C

Cypress

Will work for Scooby snacks
I read that the Dems are supposedly going to introduce a bill, to allow Washington DC to have a voting member of the House of Reps. Currently, they are only allowed a non-voting delegate as you probably know.

The DC folks have complained for years, that paying federal taxes without representation goes against everything this country was founded on and stands for.

Republicans will say that its unconstitutional. But, we know the real reason is partisan: DC would elect a Democratic delegate. I'm sure the Dems aren't above partisanship either, on this issue.

On purely the merit of the issue, do you have thoughts? I think they should have a voting member of the House of Reps - as long as they have to pay federal taxes.
 
Interesting question. When it comes to government procedure I consider myself a conservative. The disctrict of Columbia was established with the Constitution by the same men who cried for No Taxation without representation. I do not think it was their intention for a large body of people to live there and thus they probably didn't think people would live there permanently.

Of course if the federal government did not expand as much as it did since then this wouldn't be an issue. DC residents vote on local issues and supposedly the residents would be paying taxes for the local infrastructure of DC. However DC has no real tax base now.

I am honestly not sure how much having a voting delegate in the House would affect the independant nature of DC which was supposed to be a neutral territory.

Obviously this requires an amendment to the constitution since at this time non states are not allowed to have voting members in the house.
 
Times change. And people change. That's completely unfair that DC residents have to pay 25% in taxes and have absolutely no say whatsoever.
 
And on the thisg of DC electing a demoncrat, perhaps not, remember 30% are illiterate. That sounds like prime hunting ground for Republicans to me :)
 
I'd rather exempt them from the income tax but even then they would be taxed.

However citizens of Puerto Rico, US virgin islands, American Samoa also pay taxes and they are also not represented.

I think if DC is to have representation they should become a state.
 
IHateGovernment said:
Interesting question. When it comes to government procedure I consider myself a conservative. The disctrict of Columbia was established with the Constitution by the same men who cried for No Taxation without representation. I do not think it was their intention for a large body of people to live there and thus they probably didn't think people would live there permanently.

Of course if the federal government did not expand as much as it did since then this wouldn't be an issue. DC residents vote on local issues and supposedly the residents would be paying taxes for the local infrastructure of DC. However DC has no real tax base now.

I am honestly not sure how much having a voting delegate in the House would affect the independant nature of DC which was supposed to be a neutral territory.

Obviously this requires an amendment to the constitution since at this time non states are not allowed to have voting members in the house.
Click to expand...


Obviously this requires an amendment to the constitution since at this time non states are not allowed to have voting members in the house.


"Most scholars say an amendment is unnecessary. The Constitution says that the House shall be composed of members chosen by "the people of the several states." But it also gives Congress the power "to exercise exclusive legislation" over the seat of the federal government, interpreted to mean that Congress can, if it wants, give D.C. voting rights."


http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/01/02/america/NA_GEN_US_DC_Vote.php
 
And on the thisg of DC electing a demoncrat, perhaps not, remember 30% are illiterate. That sounds like prime hunting ground for Republicans to me

Two words.........Marion Barry
 
I do not agree with their assertion Cypress. Congress is given executive authority over DC however that does not allow them to pass any law of executive power over it that violates the constitution.

The Congress cannot vote to suspend Habeus Corpus in DC and use the executive power clause to justifiy it.

The Congress cannot appoint 100 delegates to the House in order to weaken the power of the states.

This executive power clause is limitless under their interpretation. I strongly disagree with them.
 
IHateGovernment said:
I do not agree with their assertion Cypress. Congress is given executive authority over DC however that does not allow them to pass any law of executive power over it that violates the constitution.

The Congress cannot vote to suspend Habeus Corpus in DC and use the executive power clause to justifiy it.

The Congress cannot appoint 100 delegates to the House in order to weaken the power of the states.

This executive power clause is limitless under their interpretation. I strongly disagree with them.
Click to expand...


I'm not an expert on how Congress's constitutional power and authority over DC, can be exercised. I just think DC residents should have representation in congress. It's the right thing to do.
 
uscitizen said:
HiYA Thorn, where ya been ?
Click to expand...

Spring break was last week; I was sick for the first part of it.

Someone broke into our house on Wed. and took our computer (wow, what a find! 4 Gig hard drive and a Windows 95 OS), so I haven't been able to get online.

Dogs are fine, though; that's what really matters.
 
Thats fine Cypress but 38 states will have to agree.

Of course they may do a straight vote because the Constitution is ignored but it is unconstitutional to give DC voting rights in the House just as much as it would be to give them to Puerto Rico.

On its face there's nothing really bad about giving DC residents a voice in the House but if we ignore the Constitution we are going further down a dangerous road which we have already embarked on.
 
IHG:

For purely partisan reasons, the GOP will never allow DC statehood status, so that they can have representation in congress. From the GOPs perspective, giving DC statehood status means two new Democratic Senators.
 
Thorn said:
Spring break was last week; I was sick for the first part of it.

Someone broke into our house on Wed. and took our computer (wow, what a find! 4 Gig hard drive and a Windows 95 OS), so I haven't been able to get online.

Dogs are fine, though; that's what really matters.
Click to expand...

bummer on the illness and theft, but glad to see ya back. Yes I forgot about spring break, a sister of mine teaches at Virginia Tech.

I am going to go over there and give her a break in a couple of weeks for her finals period. Take care of Mom, and work on a laptop from there.
Been thingking of getting a motor home and working from everywhere :)
 
IHateGovernment said:
And on the thisg of DC electing a demoncrat, perhaps not, remember 30% are illiterate. That sounds like prime hunting ground for Republicans to me

Two words.........Marion Barry
Click to expand...


Marion Barry gets a bad rap, and not without good reason.

But, anyone who voted for Bush twice, shouldn't be high fiving each other and laughing at the citizens of DC for bad electoral choices: What did Barry do? Bought some cocaine. What did Bush do? Started and mismanaged an illegal war, and abused the constitution of the United States.
 
For purely partisan reasons, the GOP will never allow DC statehood status, so that they can have representation in congress. From the GOPs perspective, giving DC statehood status means two new Democratic Senators.

I am aware of this.

But, anyone who voted for Bush twice, shouldn't be high fiving each other and laughing at the citizens of DC for bad electoral choices: What did Barry do? Bought some cocaine. What did Bush do? Started and mismanaged an illegal war, and abused the constitution of the United States.

Are you informing me or just saying this rhetorically. I'm not saying voting for Bush two times is not a bad choice. Criticism of Barry is not praise of Bush
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top