Holy Crap! BarJockey is a DOJ lawyer?

i don't see how that is really the purview of the department of justice. the supreme court, yes, but the DoJ?

burndtdan: i don't see how that is really the purview of the department of justice. the supreme court, yes, but the DoJ?

The Department of Justice includes multiple departments that are expected to provide direct legal advice to the president through the Attorney General. It's literally part of their job description.

The Executive Branch is in charge of executing laws, and so it has to look out for unconstitutional laws.

I don't understand how DC residents do not deserve representation. How is that constitutional?

mattharvest: burndtdan: i don't see how that is really the purview of the department of justice. the supreme court, yes, but the DoJ?

The Department of Justice includes multiple departments that are expected to provide direct legal advice to the president through the Attorney General. It's literally part of their job description.

The Executive Branch is in charge of executing laws, and so it has to look out for unconstitutional laws.

Yep. Opinion papers are quite routine in the DOJ and with state AG offices. Lawyers don't like surprises.

Rain-Monkey: I don't understand how DC residents do not deserve representation. How is that constitutional?

basically, the article says its because DC is not/may not be considered a state.

But, frankly, this is an absolutely retarded issue. I'm sorry, but I don't farking care if some randomly lawyer thinks it exactly follows the letter of the constitution- if the Supreme Court wants to strike it down, it will. And they're the only decision that will matter.

Rain-Monkey: I don't understand how DC residents do not deserve representation. How is that constitutional?

Because "taxation without representation" isn't actually set out in the Constitution, but it does say that representatives are elected "by the States," not "by districts" or "by territories." I'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed to have voting representation via some legal mechanism, but the Constitutional question is a valid one. It seems to me the obvious solution is to make DC a state, but since that probably won't happen, just redistrict Virginia and Maryland to include DC. Maryland already "reclaimed" its part of DC years ago, if I am not mistaken. Let Virginia reclaim its part, let the federal government "lease" the land from the states, and let the residents in DC register to vote in their respective state's district. Problem solved.

mattharvest: burndtdan: i don't see how that is really the purview of the department of justice. the supreme court, yes, but the DoJ?

The Department of Justice includes multiple departments that are expected to provide direct legal advice to the president through the Attorney General. It's literally part of their job description.

The Executive Branch is in charge of executing laws, and so it has to look out for unconstitutional laws.

but this isn't a law they "execute". they don't go out there and vote for the people. and people voting does not require the president's approval or any action from him.

so i repeat, how is this the purview of the DoJ, or the executive branch?

and i'm not saying the law is constitutional, i'm just saying we already have a branch of government that is explicitly tasked with this sort of thing.

Nabb1: Rain-Monkey: I don't understand how DC residents do not deserve representation. How is that constitutional?

Because "taxation without representation" isn't actually set out in the Constitution, but it does say that representatives are elected "by the States," not "by districts" or "by territories." I'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed to have voting representation via some legal mechanism, but the Constitutional question is a valid one. It seems to me the obvious solution is to make DC a state, but since that probably won't happen, just redistrict Virginia and Maryland to include DC. Maryland already "reclaimed" its part of DC years ago, if I am not mistaken. Let Virginia reclaim its part, let the federal government "lease" the land from the states, and let the residents in DC register to vote in their respective state's district. Problem solved.

You've got that backwards: Virginia received it's part of DC back, so that DC is now entirely on Maryland "territory".

burndtdan: but this isn't a law they "execute". they don't go out there and vote for the people. and people voting does not require the president's approval or any action from him.

so i repeat, how is this the purview of the DoJ, or the executive branch?

If it is Constitutionally challenged, it will be up to the Department of Justice to defend the government and respond. So, Eric Holder himself or one of his US Attorneys will be representing the government, and he might want to know before the law is passed whether it is likely going to be stricken so that he can advise the President that it is, in his legal judgment, a bad law.

Nabb1: If it is Constitutionally challenged, it will be up to the Department of Justice to defend the government and respond.

see, that's a good answer. that's what i was asking for.

I don't really see what the problem here is... Holder was given the opinion that the bill was unconstitutional so he went to the solicitor general to see what he thought, the solicitor general said he would be able to defend the law in front of the supreme court so Holder decided to keep backing the bill. There is a difference between listening to the lawyers and doing everything they say.

Nabb1: Because "taxation without representation" isn't actually set out in the Constitution, but it does say that representatives are elected "by the States," not "by districts" or "by territories." I'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed to have voting representation via some legal mechanism, but the Constitutional question is a valid one. It seems to me the obvious solution is to make DC a state, but since that probably won't happen, just redistrict Virginia and Maryland to include DC. Maryland already "reclaimed" its part of DC years ago, if I am not mistaken. Let Virginia reclaim its part, let the federal government "lease" the land from the states, and let the residents in DC register to vote in their respective state's district. Problem solved.

Eh, they don't want the country's capital to be in any state and I don't see a problem with this. They should just pass a constitutional amendment to give them representation in the House and be done with it that way.

Ryan2065: They should just pass a constitutional amendment to give them representation in the House and be done with it that way.

yes, that would be the intelligent thing to do.

Nabb1: Rain-Monkey: I don't understand how DC residents do not deserve representation. How is that constitutional?

Because "taxation without representation" isn't actually set out in the Constitution, but it does say that representatives are elected "by the States," not "by districts" or "by territories." I'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed to have voting representation via some legal mechanism, but the Constitutional question is a valid one. It seems to me the obvious solution is to make DC a state, but since that probably won't happen, just redistrict Virginia and Maryland to include DC. Maryland already "reclaimed" its part of DC years ago, if I am not mistaken. Let Virginia reclaim its part, let the federal government "lease" the land from the states, and let the residents in DC register to vote in their respective state's district. Problem solved.

Now that is a perfectly reasonable solution. We're growing closer together all the time, good sir.

/no not really
//but it's a start

Redistricting DC back into Maryland is a stupid idea for obvious reasons.

DC needs statehood. The reason it shouldn't be part of Maryland is that the constitution explicitly creates a district that is not beholden to any state.

So what do you do?

Make DC a state and keep all federal property under the control of congress, and then make all the other ares under the purvue of the DC state.

There is a LOT of non-federal land in DC, and the residents of that land deserve statehood.


http://www.dcstatehoodgreen.org/ (new window)

absoluteparanoia: DC needs statehood. The reason it shouldn't be part of Maryland is that the constitution explicitly creates a district that is not beholden to any state.

So what do you do?

Make DC a state and keep all federal property under the control of congress, and then make all the other ares under the purvue of the DC state.

There is a LOT of non-federal land in DC, and the residents of that land deserve statehood.

So cut down the size of the "seat of government" that the Feds have exclusive jurisdiction per the Constitution over to include the White House and the Executive Office Buildings, the Capitol and House/Senate Office Buildings, Supreme Court, and Library of Congress. If need be, make the Mall and Lafayette Park federal too to make the district contiguous. Everything else gets turned over to Washington, which is retroceded to Maryland. Problem solved.

Rain-Monkey: I don't understand how DC residents do not deserve representation. How is that constitutional?

B/C the constitution says that DC is not a state and only states can have votes.

Now, when the Constitution was written, the framers didn't think anyone would live in the district, except maybe the president's servants and such, and those people didn't have a vote then.

The Constitution is clear on this issue. But the Constitution is WRONG, and needs to be amended, not violated.

The founders of this country knew that we would need some leeway, so they were very clear on how to fiddle with the document.

Ryan2065: Eh, they don't want the country's capital to be in any state and I don't see a problem with this. They should just pass a constitutional amendment to give them representation in the House and be done with it that way.

They could do that, too, sure, but I think that would take far more time to get the states to ratify such a thing even if it made it out of the House and Senate. I'm just thinking in terms of both legality and the path of least resistance.

what_now: But the Constitution is WRONG, and needs to be amended, not violated.

This.

Some of the red states may not go for it, since it will increase the effective Blue votes in the House (and possibly Senate). One eventual solution for that might be for Congress to change the punishment for murder in DC to a lifetime prohibition on re-entering the district (on penalty of life in prison), and immediate transportation... to a state that has not approved the Amendment.

Nabb1: Because "taxation without representation" isn't actually set out in the Constitution, but it does say that representatives are elected "by the States," not "by districts" or "by territories."

Yes, but the 16th Amendment also says that taxes may be apportioned on the states. Following your logic, it's unconstitutional to make DC residents pay federal income tax. It's an internal inconsistency - the definition of state applies to DC for tax purposes, but not representation purposes.

what_now: The Constitution is clear on this issue. But the Constitution is WRONG, and needs to be amended, not violated.

This is no place for rational thought!

/ Knows someone who thinks the proper solution is "everyone moves away from DC"
// Ugh

what_now: The Constitution is clear on this issue. But the Constitution is WRONG, and needs to be amended, not violated.

The founders of this country knew that we would need some leeway, so they were very clear on how to fiddle with the document.

I also agree with this.

absoluteparanoia: DC needs statehood. The reason it shouldn't be part of Maryland is that the constitution explicitly creates a district that is not beholden to any state.

So ... having the nation's capital be beholden to a state is a bad thing unless it is a newly created state?

Not really seeing a difference here.

So he wants to give them the right to vote but not let them have their right to a firearm?

/Unconstitutional AG is unconstitutional

Wolf Blitzer is a Substitute Teacher: Nabb1: Because "taxation without representation" isn't actually set out in the Constitution, but it does say that representatives are elected "by the States," not "by districts" or "by territories."

Yes, but the 16th Amendment also says that taxes may be apportioned on the states. Following your logic, it's unconstitutional to make DC residents pay federal income tax. It's an internal inconsistency - the definition of state applies to DC for tax purposes, but not representation purposes.

that's an interesting argument.

What's the justice department got to do with it? If congress wants to pass an unconditional law, the courts will have their say if it's challenged.

Presumably, Holder would defend the position -- that doesn't mean it will work.


This is very different than setting excutive orders on internal legal opinion.

what_now:
B/C the constitution says that DC is not a state and only states can have votes.

... says someone living in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

what_now: Now, when the Constitution was written, the framers didn't think anyone would live in the district, except maybe the president's servants and such, and those people didn't have a vote then.

The 1790 residents of Alexandria, Virginia would like a word with you.

JimmyCarter'sSecondTerm: So he wants to give them the right to vote but not let them have their right to a firearm?

/Unconstitutional AG is unconstitutional



Your point stinks like fish.

This is only an issue because the democrats want another 2 guaranteed senate seats.

It would be like the Republicans demanding that Sugarland, TX becomes its own state so that they could pull the same stunt.

Give everything but the White House, Capitol, SC, and Mall back to MD. Problem solved.

/MD will take it back if the feds sweeten the deal enough

Wolf Blitzer is a Substitute Teacher: Nabb1: Because "taxation without representation" isn't actually set out in the Constitution, but it does say that representatives are elected "by the States," not "by districts" or "by territories."

Yes, but the 16th Amendment also says that taxes may be apportioned on the states. Following your logic, it's unconstitutional to make DC residents pay federal income tax. It's an internal inconsistency - the definition of state applies to DC for tax purposes, but not representation purposes.

Text of the 16th Amendment, bolded for your pleasure:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

burndtdan: that's an interesting argument.

And it's what I've always used. We cannot allow inconsistencies in the Constitution as glaring as that. Either stop taxing us or give us representation. (I say us, but I actually don't have permanent residency here anyway, I just live here while paying taxes and voting in NH.)

Wolf Blitzer is a Substitute Teacher: Yes, but the 16th Amendment also says that taxes may be apportioned on the states. Following your logic, it's unconstitutional to make DC residents pay federal income tax. It's an internal inconsistency - the definition of state applies to DC for tax purposes, but not representation purposes.

And more than that -- it counts as a state for "interstate commerce" as well, as with "controversies between two or more states", etc.

Plus, I bet if D.C. tried to do anything forbidden of states via Article I Section 10, such as coining their own money, it would be struck down as unconstitutional.

Wolf Blitzer is a Substitute Teacher: Nabb1: Because "taxation without representation" isn't actually set out in the Constitution, but it does say that representatives are elected "by the States," not "by districts" or "by territories."

Yes, but the 16th Amendment also says that taxes may be apportioned on the states. Following your logic, it's unconstitutional to make DC residents pay federal income tax. It's an internal inconsistency - the definition of state applies to DC for tax purposes, but not representation purposes.

Hardly the case. The text of the 16th Amendment is:

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

The original Constitution in Art. I Sec. 3 envisioned a direct tax on the states based on their population. The Amendment opened up the ability of Congress to tax all income within the United States regardless of where it was derived.

Cataholic: Wolf Blitzer is a Substitute Teacher: Nabb1: Because "taxation without representation" isn't actually set out in the Constitution, but it does say that representatives are elected "by the States," not "by districts" or "by territories."

Yes, but the 16th Amendment also says that taxes may be apportioned on the states. Following your logic, it's unconstitutional to make DC residents pay federal income tax. It's an internal inconsistency - the definition of state applies to DC for tax purposes, but not representation purposes.

Hardly the case. The text of the 16th Amendment is:

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

The original Constitution in Art. I Sec. 3 envisioned a direct tax on the states based on their population. The Amendment opened up the ability of Congress to tax all income within the United States regardless of where it was derived.

Yeah, I just saw that. F*ck. But the treatment of it as a state for other purposes is still valid.

Cataholic: The original Constitution in Art. I Sec. 3 envisioned a direct tax on the states based on their population. The Amendment opened up the ability of Congress to tax all income within the United States regardless of where it was derived.

Yeah, I was thinking that there was probably a good reason that NOBODY ELSE was using that argument.

Theaetetus: ... says someone living in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

*grumble*

nlscb: It would be like the Republicans demanding that Sugarland, TX becomes its own state so that they could pull the same stunt.

Do people in Sugarland, TX have congressional representation? B/C if they do, that argument fails.

burndtdan: i don't see how that is really the purview of the department of justice. the supreme court, yes, but the DoJ?

This.

DarnoKonrad: JimmyCarter'sSecondTerm: So he wants to give them the right to vote but not let them have their right to a firearm?

/Unconstitutional AG is unconstitutional



Your point stinks like fish.

So you think that it is constitutional to deny DC residents the right to bear arms as laid out by the supreme court last summer?

burndtdan: i don't see how that is really the purview of the department of justice. the supreme court, yes, but the DoJ?

It seems to me that someone has to file the papers in court to have the Supreme Court review it. Holder probably would need to weigh in with a friend of the court or whatever.

I'm no lawyer, so that all might be utter nonsense.

what_now: Rain-Monkey: I don't understand how DC residents do not deserve representation. How is that constitutional?

B/C the constitution says that DC is not a state and only states can have votes.

Now, when the Constitution was written, the framers didn't think anyone would live in the district, except maybe the president's servants and such, and those people didn't have a vote then.

The Constitution is clear on this issue. But the Constitution is WRONG, and needs to be amended, not violated.

The founders of this country knew that we would need some leeway, so they were very clear on how to fiddle with the document.

You get this this.
⇑ THIS.

You know you're in a good old-fashioned reasoned debate when someone will say the Constitution is wrong because it IS wrong.

The ability to adapt and improve: it's what made America great.

With 40% of the population already not paying taxes, the taxation without representation argument starts to get weak.

Washington D.C. is a major city that is 70% black and shiathole. I'm willing to bet that way over 50% of the residents are not paying any federal income taxes.

/that, and the Constitution is already clear on their status.

bartink: It seems to me that someone has to file the papers in court to have the Supreme Court review it. Holder probably would need to weigh in with a friend of the court or whatever.

I'm not even sure who would have to jurisdiction to challenge this. I think it would have to be a resident of DC who can prove that they are harmed by the District getting a representative.

cchris_39: With 40% of the population already not paying taxes, the taxation without representation argument starts to get weak.

Washington D.C. is a major city that is 70% black and shiathole. I'm willing to bet that way over 50% of the residents are not paying any federal income taxes.

/that, and the Constitution is already clear on their status.

Wow. There is a way to get your point across without being a dick, but it seems that you aren't aware of how to do this.

Wolf Blitzer is a Substitute Teacher: I'm not even sure who would have to jurisdiction to challenge this. I think it would have to be a resident of DC who can prove that they are harmed by the District getting a representative.

F*CK again, I look like a fool. I wrote jurisdiction when I meant grounds. Wow.

I believe I speak for the entire State of Maryland when I say "do not want".

I'm pretty sure the crime rate and the people that get elected there have shown that DC residents are not yet ready for the responsibility of voting. Or guns really. Or knives. Or long bits of string.

Maybe one day, when the place isn't run like Baghdad without the car bombs.

cchris_39: Washington D.C. is a major city that is 70% black and shiathole. I'm willing to bet that way over 50% of the residents are not paying any federal income taxes.

First, DC's closer to 55% black, I find it a tad telling that you would inflate that number while simultaneously calling it a sh*thole.

Second, it's not a sh*thole in the slightest. Sure, there are bad neighborhoods, don't cross south of the Anacostia for sure, but there's a lot of very upscale neighborhoods too. Gentrification in many of the formerly bad neighborhoods is rapid. But take a look at Foggy Bottom, Georgetown, Columbia Heights, the Convention Center/Mount Vernon Square area, up by the National Zoo, down by the new Nats Stadium, Dupont Circle, Logan Circle, the Federal Triangle, they are all very wealthy, very safe places to live and work. Like any city, DC has it's ghettoes, but it's not the majority of the city and it's not even close to Baltimore or Detroit in it's sh*ttiness.

Al_Ed: I believe I speak for the entire State of Maryland when I say "do not want".

Yeah, but the rumblings I hear in The District is that they may decide to go that way. They want representation somehow. Even if it means sealing that unholy alliance.

/staying safe on my side of the river