Friday, April 20, 2007

"I Will Not Yield!"

TELL IT, Del. Norton!



It's about freaking time the District of Columbia got a vote somewhere in Congress. Sure, the White House is opposed to it and may veto the bill -- why would the Administration break from its neverending train of anti-freedom initiatives and principles? -- but it's a step in the right direction.

I do emphasize, it is but a step in the right direction. Delegate Norton's one vote in a 435-seat chamber of Congress is really just a drop in the bucket. It's far from true "representation." But it's a start.

Me, I'd like to see true self-governance, including the removal of Senate oversight for District laws. If we in the District want to pass medical marijuana laws, no freaking Republican Senator from Oklahoma -- or anyone whose name does not actually appear on a District of Columbia ballot -- should have a right to smack us down.

As tax-paying citizens of the United States of America, it truly is our right.

DC Vote.

2 comments:

Carrie B. said...

I think the issue with the current bill is it technically could be seen as un-Constitutional. There are other proposals that have been brought forward that would allow representation without violating the Constitution. I'm really not a fan of any of them as they are all compromises from truly giving DC residents equal treatment in Congress to all other Americans. Frankly I think the best idea is that we are treated like Puerto Rico. We get no vote but in exchange, we don't pay for the federal government - no taxes. Behind that, I think retrocession to Maryland is the most logical. Maryland would get a few more electoral votes in Congress and we would have true representation AND lower taxes. The idea of DC self rule, while completely logical, scares me since I see how DC manages public services with oversight. Imagine it without.

Dennis! said...

Carrie: You know, I pretty much agree with you. One measly House vote isn't much and won't be much. Relieving us of federal taxation or retroceding to Maryland are actually better options -- though politically not viable.

BTW, I think the constitutionality of the House vote is a question that various legal scholars have reached different conclusions on. The Bush administration will insist that it's not constitutional (gee really?), but then many other constitutional scholars -- including some who are very right-of-center (Kenneth Starr, Viet Dinh) have reached the conclusion that it is constitutional.