ImWithStupid
New member
It seems that the specific language in the Constitution, decisions by Federal Court of the District of Columbia and the Supreme Court of the United States don't mean anything to the Democrats when they aren't limiting gun rights or advocating killing babies...
The District of Columbia: A Federal City
D.C. Representation: How Congress Promotes the Interests of the District of Columbia
Voting Representation for the District of Columbia: Violating the Framers' Vision and Constitutional Commands
Other good reading on the issue...For all of its many ambiguities, on the matter of whether the residents of the District of Columbia can vote in the House of Representatives, the United States Constitution is crystal clear: no. In 2000 the United States District Court for the District of Columbia affirmed this truth, writing: "The Constitution does not contemplate that the District may serve as a state for purposes of the apportionment of congressional representatives." The Supreme Court later affirmed that decision.
Despite the clarity of the law, Senate leaders have scheduled a vote today on S. 160, which would create two new seats in the House of Representatives and give one of them to the District of Columbia. The new fig leaf the left is using to push this blatantly unconstitutional measure is the argument that Art.1 sec. 8's grant to Congress to exercise "exclusive Legislation" over the District, gives them the power to grant the District a seat in the House.
The District of Columbia: A Federal City
D.C. Representation: How Congress Promotes the Interests of the District of Columbia
Voting Representation for the District of Columbia: Violating the Framers' Vision and Constitutional Commands