Washington Post
February 27, 2009

The Senate on Thursday passed a bill that for the first time would give Washington, D.C., a full voting member of the House of Representatives. But senators managed to attach an amendment that would scrap most of the city's gun-control laws.

The 61-37 vote marked the first time in 31 years that the Senate had approved a Washington, D.C., voting rights bill.

The addition of the gun language could complicate the bill's passage, however, because it will be necessary to reconcile the Senate version of the legislation with the companion bill in the House. Voting rights supporters hope the gun amendment can be removed in those negotiations.

The House is expected to approve the bill next week, and President Obama has indicated he will sign it.

"We are coming to a pivotal moment in a march that has gone on for years and years," Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), the co-sponsor of the legislation, said in a brief speech before the vote.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said the bill violated the constitutional provision that House representatives should be chosen by the "people of the several states." Washington, D.C., is not a state, he noted.

"The Constitution is short because its authors wanted it to be clear," McConnell said. He added that "it could not have been more so" on the issue of House representation.

The bill would expand the House permanently by two seats. One would go to strongly Democratic Washington, D.C., while the other would go to the next state in line to pick up a seat based on population count. For two years, that seat would be Republican-leaning Utah. It would then pass to whichever state qualified based on census results.

Similar legislation died in the Senate two years ago after passing the House. But it benefited this time from Democrats picking up at least seven Senate seats in the last election.

If it becomes law, the bill will expand the House for the first time since 1913. But it is likely to face a legal challenge that could go to the Supreme Court.

The gun amendment is similar to a sweeping measure approved by the House last year that was fiercely opposed by the Washington, D.C., government.

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

But no, it's not part of Virginia. It's in the name, dude. "District of Columbia."

Washington DC was set aside so that one state could not say "We are the Nation's Capital State!" It is a district, not a state, not a territory, just a district.

They should not have a voting member in Congress. Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, and our other territories do not have a voting member in congress. DC should not either.

I don't think that the original founding thought that people would be living full time in DC anyway.

Then everyone would move to D.C.

And the 17th and 23rd Amdendments.

The Seventeenth Amendment (Amendment XVII) to the United States Constitution passed the Senate on June 12, 1911, the House of Representatives on May 13, 1912 and the states completed ratification on April 8, 1913. The amendment supersedes Article I, § 3, Clauses 1 and 2 of the Constitution, transferring Senator selection from each state's legislature to popular election by the people of each state. It also provides a contingency provision enabling a state's governor, if so authorized by his state's legislature, to appoint a Senator in the event of a Senate vacancy until either a special or regular election to elect a new Senator is held.

Amendment XXIII was the twenty-third Amendment to the United States Constitution which permits the District of Columbia to choose Electors for President and Vice President. The amendment was proposed by Congress on June 17, 1960, and ratified by the states on March 29, 1961. The first Presidential election in which it was in effect was the presidential election of 1964.

Washington DC was set aside so that one state could not say "We are the Nation's Capital State!" It is a district, not a state, not a territory, just a district.

They should not have a voting member in Congress. Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, and our other territories do not have a voting member in congress. DC should not either.

I don't think that the original founding thought that people would be living full time in DC anyway.

I wish someone would have told me Puerto Rico doesn't pay federal income taxes when I lived there for two years.

Citizens should be denied their vote because of some politicians ego?

the reason dc is not a state or part of a state is because that would make it or its state the de facto capital state, and in theory all states are supposed to be equal in the eyes of the constitution

People who live in DC are just as American as the rest of us.

Since when have you been an American?

Tyral, Devil and I have chatted for a few years now and we're on friendly terms. I don't know where exactly he was going with that, but given our past I assume he didn't mean it as mean-spirited as it may have come off.

As for you Tyral, you sir need to not be so quick to judge and call names. People who quickly start name calling show there lack of respect for them selfs which is very sad.