These People Are Idiots
David Weigel | March 22, 2007, 4:07pm
So the measure to give House of Representatives voting rights to DC failed. Why,
Jim Abrams of the Associated Press?Legislation to give the District of Columbia voting representation in the House stalled short of passage Thursday when Republicans unexpectedly injected the volatile issue of gun control into the debate.
Apparently fearful they might lose control of the proceedings, Democrats decided to postpone action on the voting rights measure, which had appeared to be moving methodically toward passage.
Republicans protested futilely, seeking a quick vote on their attempt to repeal the capital city's ban on handguns.
To recap - a measure to give D.C. a vote, which opponents claim would violate the Constitution, is killed after Republicans demand that D.C. not violate the Constitution. Says the DCist:
Well, it seems that the Republicans may have played a brilliant game of politics.
Uh, brilliant? Republicans have been on that horse for years and years now. The Democrats just refused to grow up and recognize it.
rob | March 23, 2007, 10:44am | #
"Seriously, RC, you do realize it's better to be represented in the government than not, right? Taxation without representation is tyranny, and all that, right?" - joe
You do realize that all DC citizens currently have the right to vote, right?
joe, the idea that it's actually a good thing to have "crooks and mediocrities in the system" because it "them to both know ... and care about ... you and your community" is certainly a novel excuse for criminals and incompetents but that doesn't have much bearing on the actual discussion, IMO.
Frankly, I think giving DC its own representative seems pretty lop-sided and weird considering that DC residents can already vote, but I actually don't have a dog in that fight and tend to lean to the idea that it's a pretty good idea - even if they carve up the voting along state lines.
Best summation of two positions that I've seen on this subject somes from the Wiki:
"The justification against statehood for the District is explained in the Federalist No. 43, where it is noted that the federal government needs to ensure a level of stability in order to perform its duties that could not be guaranteed by a reliance upon any state. The necessity of this provision is borne out by the riots outside the Pennsylvania hall that Congress met in before the District was established.[citation needed] Any organization has reasonable expectation that it control the rules governing how it conducts its business. Whether or not this implies that the residents of the District should not have representation in Congress or the Electoral College is debatable. Also debatable is whether this requires that Congress needs the same absolute control "in all cases whatsoever" as asserted by the British Parliament in the Declaratory Act of 1766, or whether the same result could be achieved with some lesser degree of control, while respecting the principles that power derives from the people, and that just power flows from the consent of the governed. DC residents would argue, with James Madison, that "EQUAL LAWS PROTECTING EQUAL RIGHTS ARE THE BEST GUARANTEE OF LOYALTY & LOVE OF COUNTRY." (Madison to Jacob de la Motta, August, 1820).
In 1961, the Twenty-third Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified, allowing District residents to vote for president and vice president. This right has been exercised by D.C. citizens since the election of 1964."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_voting_rights
joe | March 23, 2007, 3:11pm | #
Yes, just not for Congress - the subject of the this thread, remenmber? Representation in Congress.
Put it this way - American colonist had exactly the same role in choosing the Chief Executive as residents of England, but did not have any role in choosing Parliament. How did that go over?
Now statehood, that brings in a whole other question. There is a national interest in how Washington DC operates, because it is the capital, that simply doesn't exist for Baltimore. This certainly implies that a greater role for the federal government is appropriate.
BTW, I was just using R C's language "crooks and mediocrities," not actually arguing in favor of crookedness and mediocrity in legislators. I really didn't expect that anyone would be confused about that.
"Put it this way - American colonist had exactly the same role in choosing the Chief Executive as residents of England, but did not have any role in choosing Parliament. How did that go over?" - joe
I didn't know you believed that the King of England was elected...
Now statehood, that brings in a whole other question. There is a national interest in how Washington DC operates, because it is the capital, that simply doesn't exist for Baltimore. This certainly implies that a greater role for the federal government is appropriate.
BTW, I was just using R C's language "crooks and mediocrities," not actually arguing in favor of crookedness and mediocrity in legislators. I really didn't expect that anyone would be confused about that.
rob | March 23, 2007, 3:13pm | #
Gah! I have no idea how I ended up posting as you, joe! I sincerely apologize for that and the bat cut and paste job I did with my response. It should have read:
“Yes, just not for Congress - the subject of the this thread, remenmber? Representation in Congress.” – joe
All I’m saying is that it makes more sense for them, IMO, to vote as part of a state. The way, say, residents of NYC do.
“Put it this way - American colonist had exactly the same role in choosing the Chief Executive as residents of England, but did not have any role in choosing Parliament. How did that go over?” - joe
I didn't know you believed that the King of England was elected...
“Now statehood, that brings in a whole other question. There is a national interest in how Washington DC operates, because it is the capital, that simply doesn't exist for Baltimore. This certainly implies that a greater role for the federal government is appropriate.” – joe
I don’t think I agree with that line of thought at all, really. Just because you do business with the Federal gov’t or are the State Capitol, it doesn’t seem you should get even more representation than the rest of the country. Although having less is certainly wrong, as well!
“BTW, I was just using R C's language ‘crooks and mediocrities,’ not actually arguing in favor of crookedness and mediocrity in legislators. I really didn't expect that anyone would be confused about that.” – joe
I apologize for attributing a novel idea to you, and not sharing the credit for it with RC Dean.
libertreee | March 23, 2007, 8:11pm | #
Tobycat seems to believe that Puerto Ricans do not pay income tax...I disagree. He may have posted on a similar thread that that the citizens of the territories do not pay income tax...
Here is copied from the web. Last night I also looked up Guam and the US Virgin Islands. The territories are where the income tax IS paid by compulsion.
It is in the 50 states where for the most part it is legally voluntary.
About Puerto Rico:
Income taxes
Friday, March 23, 2007
HOME CONTENTS SEARCH RECIPES IMAGES SEND US EMAIL TELL YOUR FRIENDS
Who must file a return?
(1) Every individual resident of Puerto Rico, single or married and not living with his (her) spouse, who earned a gross income greater than $3,300
(2) Every individual resident of Puerto Rico, married and living with his (her) spouse, who earned a gross income, singly or jointly, in excess of $6,000
(3) Every individual not a resident of Puerto Rico, American citizen, single or married and not living with his (her) spouse, who earned a gross income greater than $1,300, unless the corresponding income taxes were withheld and paid in full at the source
(4) Every individual not resident of Puerto, American citizen, married and living with his (her) spouse, who earned a gross income, singly or jointly, greater than $3,000, unless the corresponding income taxes were withheld and paid in full at the source
(5) Every individual who is an alien non resident of Puerto Rico who earned any gross income from sources within Puerto Rico, unless the corresponding income taxes were withheld and paid in full at the source.
When should the income tax return be filed?
Individuals who do not keep accounting books should file the corresponding income tax return by April 15th of the next calendar year. The date is moved forward when April 15th falls on a weekend or holiday. For calendar year 2003, the deadline for filing individual income tax returns is April 15, 2004.
To file a personal income tax return online
Visit the following website:
http://www.hacienda.gobierno.pr/pel03_eng.asp
libertreee | March 24, 2007, 11:28pm | #
Can you expand on that a bit? Guy Montag
Not in this short space. OK, I will try.
The US power to tax is in ART 1. It states that all direct taxes have to be apportioned first among the states. Any tax that is not a direct tax has to be an excise, duty or impost and has to be uniform among the states.
Due to the "flaw" in the Constitution (as some have called it, actually I think there are several major flaws) giving the Congress exclusive legistative power over the Capitol and the Territories and Possessions and ceded areas, the taxing clause does not apply to Washington DC, and said territores and possessions.
Washington DC is the premier territory. In fact, Congress Assembled can be used in a legal sense as the "United States". Quoting Black's Law Dictionary, which quotes "Hooven & Allison Co. vs Evatt", US Ohio, 324 US 652...[United States] may designate territory over which sovereignty of the United States extends, or it may be collective name of the states ...united"
Congress has exclusive legislative authority over Washington DC, the territories and possessions, and lands ceded by the states for "forts, dockyards, and other needful buildings (federal courthouses)...
Now, do the math:: the taxing clauses do not pertain to the territories. Washington DC is the premier territory, and can be called the United State in statutes. If Washington DC is the United States for legal purposes, then what are Guam, US Virgin Islands, Northern Marietta Islands, etc...
The states of (meaning belonging to) the United States!
And income taxes can be levied without apportionment!
This is only part of the fraud. For more info, one must dig deeper. Start with the wethepeople.org meeting in Arlington VA this coming weekend.
By the way, I am more of an anarcho-capitalist than a constitutionalist. If the feds can get away with this crap at least since WWII, then the Constitution doesn't matter. But, we have to try!
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSS
