It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Politics at work again

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 11:02 PM
link   
source



The lingering debate over gun rights appears to have killed legislation pending in Congress that would have given the District of Columbia a representative in the House, Democratic lawmakers involved with the negotiations said today.

In a statement, District of Columbia Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton, a non-voting Democrat in Congress, said she asked House leaders to yank the legislation after supporters were unable to reach a compromise over gun language that was inserted into the bill last year by Senate Republicans.


Now that sounded just a little too abbreviated until I found this article



Hoyer made the decision with Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.), the non-voting representative of the District, who was uncomfortable with the gun legislation that was being attached to the bill, a Democratic aide said.

Norton said the bill would not have made it through the Senate anyway because the gun-related amendment would have allowed wide open gun ownership in D.C.

Norton said gun provisions – which she said were drafted by the National Rifle Association – would “surely bring down the support we have had of anti-gun Democratic Senators."


Now let's keep in mind that the Supreme Court upheld a lower court decision that overturned the draconian gun laws in DC in 2008. So the language and reasons for asking for the bill to be dropped are very peculiar. But what is more interesting is that DC is even allowed to have a (non-voting) member of the House in the first place.

The District of Columbia is not a state. Unless there is an amendment to the Constitution, it can never become a state as new states can not be formed from new ones. Like West Virginia was, but I digress. An amendment did give the people of DC 3 electoral votes.

But ultimately, the people of DC should have representation, especially since the Federal Government can and still does make laws specifically for DC. It is very shameful that the lone (non-voting) voice for the people would rather the people have no real voice than to comply with the law of the land.




posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 12:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Ahabstar
 


So if I read this correctly, Hover and Homes-Norton are admitting that there is a demoncratic conspiracy against our Constitution, that was written to protect the people, since the birth of America!



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 07:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Violater1
 


So it would appear, or at least a collusion to prevent the residents of DC to enjoy freedoms and immunities of the rest of the people. Perhaps the people of DC should remove their vocal (but non-voting) representative by force of arms for using a personal opinion to prevent the proper and just enfranchisement of DC.

But conversely, should DC have a voting representation in the fact it is to be a neutral area for the country? By having an elected and voting Representative in the House, would it not follow that they should be allowed two Senators as well? The 23rd Amendment does not provide for DC to even have a non-voting member in the House.



new topics
 
1

log in

join