And Now, The Good News. Hopefully.

It looks like they will be bringing the D.C. Voting Rights Act to the floor of the House soon.  My prediction is that it will pass with the Senate pro-gun amendment.  With Fenty caving on the gun issue, it just seems likely to me.  If they already had the votes, I’m not sure you’d see groups running ads like this.

The Washington Post is busy running letters on the topic today.  Just keep scrolling through.  You can find Chris Cox’s here, after three letters in opposition to passing the Voting Rights Act with the NRA amendments.

12 thoughts on “And Now, The Good News. Hopefully.”

  1. We definitely have different ideas of what constitutes good news. With, or without, the gun amendment, this is an incredibly flagrant violation of the constitution. Having the gun amendment in there would be like icing on a dog turd.

    Personally, I think anyone in Congress that votes for thing belongs in jail, or at least unemployed.

  2. I understand the sentiment, but the DC Voting Rights is going to pass, and it can either pass with a pro-gun amendment or without one. Very few congress critters are willing to buck interest group politics for the sake of constitutionality. It’s not how it should work, but it’s how it does work. I’m counting on the federal courts to do the right thing on the constitutionality side. That’s risky, as any person who supported BCFRA, based on the same reasoning, will tell you, but while I don’t celebrate DC Voting Rights, I will celebrating tacking on a rider that will help some other part of the constitution.

  3. Laughingdog gets it right. This is a blatantly unconstitutional bill. My question is: When the representation is struck down, will the new gun laws stay?

  4. Any idea if there’s a clause that revokes the entire thing if part is found unconstitutional?

    Best-case scenario, the part giving DC a seat is thrown out, the expansion to 437 and the gun-rights parts stay up, and the census puts the 2 seats in their proer place (Utah and, damn, I can’t remember who the next one in line on expansion would be, but it’s probably in the south or southwest)

  5. Blatantly unconstitutional, but I doubt it will get struck down. I get the feeling that any challenges will get struck down on “standing” issues.

  6. One online ad includes an image of a gun and reads, “D.C.’s rights held hostage.”

    Well … their gun rights are indeed held hostage. At least they have the stones to run truthful ads …

  7. Standing, I don’t think, will be an issue. Technically any of the other 49 states who have their representation in Congress diluted are directly harmed, as would be any of the citizens of those states.

  8. I’m quite sure that at least one statehouse could be found to sue – the state itself should have standing even if a citizen or congresscritter doesn’t.

  9. I agree that the states and the citizens of the states should have standing, I’m just not confident that the courts will actually acknowledge that. Just like they decided that a voting citizen doesn’t have standing to force a presidential candidate to prove his citizenship when reasonable doubts are raised.

    (For the record, I don’t really believe that BHO is not a natural citizen – for reasons of the Democratic Party’s own self-interest , if nothing else – I’m just disgusted that the courts decided that the people don’t have a right to make him prove it when there is doubt.)

  10. I agree, Jake. The “birther” kooks are silly, but I was rather appalled that the courts found that no individual citizen has proper “standing” to challenge a presidential candidate’s constitutional eligibility for the office. If nobody can challenge it, then why have the requirement at all? If I’m not mistaken some congresscritter has attempted to introduce legislation that compels candidates to provide some proof of domestic birth. It sounds silly at first, but if the courts aren’t going to allow John Q. Citizen to make officeholders comply with eligibility requirements, then I suppose a law like that is the next best solution.

  11. For standing on that issue, presumably his opponent would have standing to challenge. Anyone who was subject to a law signed by the president who was unqualified could also have standing.

Comments are closed.