The Ghost of Snapped Shot

Or, welcome to my low-maintenance heck.

Tom Davis, STILL insane

... Okay, so maybe "insane" is too harsh a characterisation, but how else would you describe someone who ought to know better continuing down the same path?

Mr. Davis, a refresher--Consitution, Article I, Section 8:

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

With that in mind, I find it hard to imagine why a Virginian would even think of participating in something like this. Something that's literally un-Constitutional, rather than merely supposedly (think "wall of separation, folks).

Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton and Rep. Thomas M. Davis III reintroduced the D.C. voting rights act yesterday in Congress, giving D.C. residents another chance to gain a House vote.
Mr. Davis, Virginia Republican, and Mrs. Norton, a Democrat and the District's nonvoting congressional delegate, co-sponsored the bill, which last year received bipartisan support in one committee.

Read my lips: NO vote for DC, without a constitutional Amendment. EVER. The federalism practiced by our forefathers indicates that it was intended that, because the District was administered by Congress, the District is represented by all of Congress, therefore it's unneccessary to craft some workaround legislation to create two Seats that don't need to exist.

Here's the scenario for you, if you live in the District: Say you want to go and speak to a congress critter, but you don't have a representative or Senator to go and talk to. In ye olden days, rather than whining perpetually about not having one, people would go to a member of Congress from somewhere else. Anywhere else.

With at least 200 liberal congress critters on Capitol Hill, there's got to be at least one that would sit and listen to your concerns, right? No matter which part of the District you're from, there's got to be someone that you can talk to that shares your values.

Mr. Davis, a POX on thee, for misrepresenting this fair Commonwealth on this issue. Why don't you stick to your conservative roots, and let this be settled constitutionally, sir? Do you even have any conservative roots?This is a little bit long-winded for the front page, but here's what James Madison, the esteemed Virginian, had to say about the Federal district:

The indispensable necessity of complete authority at the seat of government, carries its own evidence with it. It is a power exercised by every legislature of the Union, I might say of the world, by virtue of its general supremacy. Without it, not only the public authority might be insulted and its proceedings interrupted with impunity; but a dependence of the members of the general government on the State comprehending the seat of the government, for protection in the exercise of their duty, might bring on the national councils an imputation of awe or influence, equally dishonorable to the government and dissatisfactory to the other members of the Confederacy. This consideration has the more weight, as the gradual accumulation of public improvements at the stationary residence of the government would be both too great a public pledge to be left in the hands of a single State, and would create so many obstacles to a removal of the government, as still further to abridge its necessary independence. The extent of this federal district is sufficiently circumscribed to satisfy every jealousy of an opposite nature. And as it is to be appropriated to this use with the consent of the State ceding it; as the State will no doubt provide in the compact for the rights and the consent of the citizens inhabiting it; as the inhabitants will find sufficient inducements of interest to become willing parties to the cession; as they will have had their voice in the election of the government which is to exercise authority over them; as a municipal legislature for local purposes, derived from their own suffrages, will of course be allowed them; and as the authority of the legislature of the State, and of the inhabitants of the ceded part of it, to concur in the cession, will be derived from the whole people of the State in their adoption of the Constitution, every imaginable objection seems to be obviated.



#1 matthew 12-Jan-2007
I don't think that Madison quote has anything to do with whether or not the District should be able to elect representatives to Congress. Madison is just saying that the federal government should have complete control of the District, and that the states ceding territory retain no authority. Nobody's arguing against that.

Ditto the constitutional provision you quoted. Saying that the federal goverment shall "exercise exclusive legislation" over the District does not mean that it would be unconstitutional to allow residents of the District to elect representatives to the federal government -- it just means that Virginia and Maryland have lost any authority over the seat of the federal government.
#2 MB 14-Jan-2007
Well, since you have no worries about Congressional representation, it's quite easy to sit there and stomp on about the Constitution. At least Davis recognizes what an appalling thing it is that we have a huge population of Americans who have no representation.

As for your inane suggestion about finding a sympathetic Member - so you'd be happy to give yours up, knowing that there might be someone from another state, who might listen? Didn't think so. Hey, go try this - write a Congressman from another state with a concern. And then tell us if you get back anything other than a letter that says - thank you for your concern, but we can only help our constituents.
#3 Roci 16-Jan-2007
No representation, my foot.

They are in fact represented by all of congress. The amount of federal tax dollars spend in the district is a pretty good proxy for the value of that representation. It is huge. much higher than the states get.

Further, if residents of DC REALLY wanted representation, they could freely move to a state that has it. No one would try to stop them or care that they did. The fact that DC has residents and that no DC "citizen" has ever had direct representatives is proof that the issue is not that important to them. With the exception of the President, no one is forced to live in DC.
#4 MB 16-Jan-2007
Oooh, I can see I'm up against a pretty sophisticated political thinker here.

First up is an apparent complete lack of knowledge about our federal system of government. I'm thinking that if you don't get it by now, you never will, but let me try, just in case - unless there is a member of Congress accountable to you by vote, you are not represented in Congress.

Second, and I know this really goes without saying, you're a complete idiot when it comes to understanding the cost of the federal gov't, and how DC bears it.

Finally, really, I need to applaud you. I mean, who ever would have thought of such an excellent solution - love it or leave it! And on a related point, I'm so glad that you are perfectly happy with everything VA has ever done. Otherwise, you'd be gone, right?

Thank you, for this opportunity, to see the undeniable intellect of modern conservatism at work.
#5 Brian 16-Jan-2007
Hey MB,

Maybe if you actually exercised your "right to flight," and lived somewhere more to your liking, you'd be happy, and as a result be less snarky?

I'd be delighted to point you to the historical record (i.e., contemporary journals, news accounts, and other anecdotal evidence) illustrating the relationship between the citizens of the District and the *entire* Congress in historic times, but I don't think you have the mental capacity to handle it.

Perhaps there's a "Dummies" guide for it somewhere?


(Okay, so I'm snarking back.. In all seriousness, if you have any *facts* to support your case, you're welcome to prove us wrong right here, right now. Otherwise, I think Roci and I will stand comfortably by our positions.)

#6 MB 16-Jan-2007
Sadly, Brian, what causes my snark isn't my own unhappiness, but rather proximity to stupidity. Now, I'll grant that in this case, I could probably fix that by ambling on to other environs with less of a concentration, but every once in a while I figure I ought to check, just in case things have changed and there might be something to learn.

I see they haven't and there isn't. Ah, well. Maybe your kids will have a fighting chance. Maybe.
#7 Brian 17-Jan-2007

Next time, you might want to try presenting actual "facts" supporting your argument, before calling the rest of us stupid.

At least you've done an excellent job of illustrating the sheer depth of the Left's intelligence and class. Thank you for doing your best to represent all of Trolldom so faithfully,

#8 Roci 17-Jan-2007
It is not "love it or leave it". It is about values.

people make choices depending on the things they really value. The ability to live in a commuting suburb of DC in VA or MD is a real possibility for anyone who truely VALUES voting representation above other conserns such as metro access, walking distance to the washington monument, or that great view of the slum next door.

Rational people make choices to get the things they really value at the expense of things they don't. Irrational people, (democrats), try to have it all by changing the rules that have existed since before they were born, paying no cost in exchange for the benefits they want, while demanding other people pay.

The DC representation vote is only about getting three permanent democrat seats in the congress (1 HR, 2 senate). It is purely partisan. Which explains why partisan hacks take it so personally.
#9 MB 17-Jan-2007
Brian, sometimes the stupid is the biggest thing in the room. It really makes little sense to try and address, in depth, an actual argument until you're sure the other side is sincere or able to comprehend it.

Further, one of the problems in this country is that stupid isn't called out for what it is. Until recently, decent and sensible people thought that stupid and senseless would be recognized for what it is, and were just too polite to point it out. What did that get us? Pointless war, a wrecked federal gov't, and it being acceptable to say that some people simply don't deserve a vote. Yeah, well, f--k that. [i](ed.: Moderated. You're in sad shape if you [u]need[/u] profanity to make a point)[/i]


So what you're saying, Roci, is that you don't fundamentally support democracy. Nice.

Anyway, bored now. Have fun in your merry little echo chamber of ignorance and hate.
#10 Brian 17-Jan-2007

Good thing you're smarter than us, otherwise you might figure out that the United States is not a "democracy." And I must say, that's a mighty high horse you're on, considering your extreme, well, eloquence.

I hope you continue to enjoy your little Democratic fantasy world, totally free from the worries of actually having to [u]study[/u] things like "history" and present pesky little "facts" in order to bolster your argument. May your posts remain here forever to illustrate the utter ignorance of your position.

Powered by Snarf ยท Contact Us