| Author | Post |
|---|
Thundar
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Oct 29th, 2009 05:56 pm |
|
Amazing isn’t it. Voting rights are seen as civil rights even though the Constitution does not afford persons living in the Federal District congressional “Voting rights”. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms, which is an individual right is seen as “Poisonous” by the Washington Post.
DC gun laws will be gutted by SCOTUS next year when they tell the District what “Bear” means. Too bad they didn’t learn when they were told what “Keep” means.
Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/28/AR2009102804142.html?wpisrc=newsletter
The Washington Post
The Democrats' dodge on voting rights
D.C. representation in Congress isn't being seen as the civil rights issue it is
Thursday, October 29, 2009
"DO THE DEMOCRATS have the political will to get this done?" That's the question recently posed by an advocate for voting rights for the District. If action is the measure, the answer -- sadly -- is no. Despite Democratic control of the White House and Congress, the 600,000-odd residents of the nation's capital are no closer to getting their rights as American citizens.
A bill that would give the District a voting member in the House of Representatives, along with an extra seat for Utah, remains in limbo even as advocates such as DC Vote executive director Ilir Zherka say that there's majority support in both houses. The immediate problem is that the Senate passed the bill with a poisonous amendment (courtesy of the ethically challenged Sen. John Ensign of Nevada and other Republicans) gutting D.C. gun laws. Democratic leaders say that they are at a loss as to how to proceed; bringing the bill to the floor would probably mean a messy floor fight with Democrats forced to cast a politically difficult vote on guns. The gun language is unpalatable to D.C. leaders, but the National Rifle Association is threatening to retaliate against any lawmakers who oppose it.
We don't deny the legislative difficulties. But when they really care, Democratic leaders manage to devise legislative strategies around far greater obstacles. They extended hate-crime protections to gay men and lesbians by attaching the measure to the must-pass national defense authorization act; there's talk now of attaching an increase in the debt limit to the equally important defense spending bill. It seems that righting the historic wrong of disenfranchised Americans is less vital as far as they are concerned.
D.C. Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D) has proposed a variety of ideas on how to advance the bill. But the reaction from party leaders, as the Web site Politico reported, seems to be "forget it." No doubt Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), looking ahead to his own tough reelection battle, sees no gain in irritating the powerful gun lobby. In fact, Mr. Reid voted for the Ensign amendment, making it easier for other Democrats to follow suit. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) says that she's looking for opportunities to pass the bill, but to date that hasn't involved pressing members to put principle ahead of political interests. President Obama, who sponsored voting rights legislation as a senator, has done nothing on the issue.
It is increasingly clear that D.C. voting rights are being treated as a special-interest issue that is losing out to other party priorities -- and not as the civil rights issue that it is and that Democratic leaders have long claimed to believe it to be.
Last edited on Thu Oct 29th, 2009 05:57 pm by Thundar
|
deanf
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Oct 30th, 2009 04:09 am |
|
The Right to Keep and Bear Arms, which is an individual right is seen as “Poisonous” by the Washington Post.
Not in the context of the article (or the bill in question).
The gun amendment is poisonous to the bill. It will kill it. That's the purpose of the amendment; to ensure that the bill is never passed.
As to the ethics of adding poisonous provisos to bills: It's wrong. It's wrong in all cases, including this one. Bills should be debated and decided on their merits, not forced to-and-fro in the process by manipulative amendments.
|
The Donkey
Regular Member
| Joined: | Thu Sep 21st, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 519 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 30th, 2009 11:02 pm |
|
deanf wrote: The Right to Keep and Bear Arms, which is an individual right is seen as “Poisonous” by the Washington Post.
Not in the context of the article (or the bill in question).
The gun amendment is poisonous to the bill. It will kill it. That's the purpose of the amendment; to ensure that the bill is never passed.
As to the ethics of adding poisonous provisos to bills: It's wrong. It's wrong in all cases, including this one. Bills should be debated and decided on their merits, not forced to-and-fro in the process by manipulative amendments.
Amen. Citizens of the district should have their right to vote and their right to keep and bear arms: both -- through separate legislation.
|
riverrat10k
Regular Member
| Joined: | Mon Aug 25th, 2008 |
| Location: | Bon Air, Va |
| Posts: | 394 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 6th, 2009 09:06 pm |
|
deanf wrote: Bills should be debated and decided on their merits, not forced to-and-fro in the process by manipulative amendments.
I agree 100%. To behave otherwise is politics, not governance.
ETA: did I just agree with Donkey?
Last edited on Fri Nov 6th, 2009 09:08 pm by riverrat10k
|
The Donkey
Regular Member
| Joined: | Thu Sep 21st, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 519 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 6th, 2009 09:51 pm |
|
riverrat10k wrote: deanf wrote: Bills should be debated and decided on their merits, not forced to-and-fro in the process by manipulative amendments.
I agree 100%. To behave otherwise is politics, not governance.
ETA: did I just agree with Donkey?
Heaven forbid! Lets say you just agreed with Dean! 
|
Thundar
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Nov 6th, 2009 10:09 pm |
|
The Donkey wrote: deanf wrote: The Right to Keep and Bear Arms, which is an individual right is seen as “Poisonous” by the Washington Post.
Not in the context of the article (or the bill in question).
The gun amendment is poisonous to the bill. It will kill it. That's the purpose of the amendment; to ensure that the bill is never passed.
As to the ethics of adding poisonous provisos to bills: It's wrong. It's wrong in all cases, including this one. Bills should be debated and decided on their merits, not forced to-and-fro in the process by manipulative amendments.
Amen. Citizens of the district should have their right to vote and their right to keep and bear arms: both -- through separate legislation.
The Federal District has an observer in the congress. They have no right to vote for a congressman any more that those that live in Puerto Rico or Guam, though there is some hope for those in Puerto Rico and Guam because those territories can become states because they are not part of the Federal District.
We will soon have a right to bear arms in the federal district in spite of the freedom hating democrat party henchmen on the city council that made unjust laws.
They do not deserve statehood. Have you seen their "New Columbia State Constitution." No Mention of the right to keep and bear arms. Bunch of certified Anti-Freedom Nut Jobs.
P.S. Why would we want to give the people that re-elected a felon and crack addict to their city council?
|
Current time is 02:17 am | |
|
