Congress: Still no representation for you! Tom: Odd issue for the Tea Party to ignore. It's too soon to announce winners in U.S. Congressional races, but not too soon to announce the loser.
A right-leaning Supreme Court elects Bush president.
Bush makes the Court even more right-leaning.
The new activist Court legislates the Citizen United decision.
No Taxation without Representation? Folks in DC pay Federal taxes. They are American Citizens. The Tea Party is not racist, certainly not. But adding a bunch of new black-majority districts to the House of Representatives? Why would they want to do that?
The Tea Party is not racist. Nor is the Republican Party.
It’s like Jon Stewart said about the GOP: “They love America. They just hate half the people who live there.”
If you really want an intelligent conversation, look to the facts. The US Constitution specifically grants voting rights in Congress only to the -States-. DC is -not- a state. it is a Federal Territory.
If you wish them to have voting rights either amend the constitution or dissolve the DC and make them part of Virginia and Maryland.
Obviously when written back in 1789 the concept was not racist. Those proposing and those opposing statehood may have racial motives.
The “District Clause” in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution states:
[The Congress shall have Power] To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States.
It took the 23rd Amendment to give them votes for president.
“Since one of the criteria for being liberal is being educated, an “uneducated liberal” is an oxymoron.”
They’re “liberal elitists” up until they’re not “liberal elitists.” Obama is a “liberal elite” because of his education but is NOT a liberal elite because of his education. Understand?
That being said, education really doesn’t determine one’s political affiliation in all cases. For example, there are plenty of educated Republicans, too. It’s just a matter of whether one chooses to ignore science in specific instances if they contradict a dogma. Is the world doomed tomorrow because of global warming? Scientific evidence says no, but that’s inconvenient to instilling panic and immediate action. Is homosexuality a choice? Scientific evidence says no, but that’s inconvenient to blind discrimination. Works both ways.
jmattadams, I would appreciate it if you would correct all my spelling and grammar mistakes. Although, since I don’t fit your mindless “liberal” stereotype (I’m “rich”, and have graduated from both medical and law school), I won’t hold my breath waiting for you.
jack75287: Okay, that’s two. Out of how many? Maybe you could link to a picture of a tea party rally that shows something other than Caucasians?
Libertarian1: When you say “It took the 23rd Amendment to give them votes for president.”, you do realize that none of us have a direct vote for president, right?
Reminds me of my tour of Vietnam a few years ago, where I learned that their communist government is remarkably similar to that of the U.S.A. The same three branches. An elected legislature. The main difference is that their chief executive is elected by the legislature (theoretically representing the wishes of their constituents), whereas ours is elected by the Electoral College*…which in some cases means the state legislature.
(*Except, of course, in 2000, where the chief executive was selected by the Supreme Court).
Anthony wrote “Libertarian1: When you say “It took the 23rd Amendment to give them votes for president.”, you do realize that none of us have a direct vote for president, right?”
Not understanding your point. DC residents have the exact same right to vote for President as you or I. Through the electoral college.
@Rockngolfer: some parlimentarian here will know better (like whether the current non-voting DC rep is actually #436), but my take is that it’s fixed at 435, and that since DC would never have the population for more than one, it would have to come out of some other state’s pocket.
DC statehood proposals will always fail, because the thought of two more senators elected by brown people is enough to keep Saxby Chambliss up ALL NIGHT.
Libertarian1 wrote: “DC residents have the exact same right to vote for President as you or I. Through the electoral college. What did you mean?”
I’m saying that none of us have the right to directly vote for President. For instance, during the 2000 campaign, the Florida (Republican-controlled) Legislature said that if the Florida popular vote turned out to be for Gore, they’d still give their Electoral votes to Bush. The Supreme Court decision was pretty much a moot point; all it did was avoid putting the Florida legislature in defiance of those they were supposed to be representing.
Which, of course, has never been a problem for the Republicans. (E.g. a national health care bill).
ChukLitl Premium Member over 13 years ago
We gave half back to Virginia, a long time ago. Give the rest back to Maryland.
riley05 over 13 years ago
It’s all been so predictable.
A right-leaning Supreme Court elects Bush president. Bush makes the Court even more right-leaning. The new activist Court legislates the Citizen United decision.Republicans now out-spend Democrats seven-to-one.
Doughfoot over 13 years ago
No Taxation without Representation? Folks in DC pay Federal taxes. They are American Citizens. The Tea Party is not racist, certainly not. But adding a bunch of new black-majority districts to the House of Representatives? Why would they want to do that?
The Tea Party is not racist. Nor is the Republican Party.
It’s like Jon Stewart said about the GOP: “They love America. They just hate half the people who live there.”
riley05 over 13 years ago
Doughfoot: “The Tea Party is not racist, certainly not.”
Really? Can you provide a link to some of the more outspoken black, Hispanic or Asian Tea Party spokesmen?
Hopefully your reply won’t get buried in the GoComics-approved spammers….
ARodney over 13 years ago
Jack, the point of the cartoon is that taxpayers in D.C. do not have representation at the Federal Level. You should read some newspapers some time.
Jaedabee Premium Member over 13 years ago
“I could easily correct the spelling and grammar of every lib on this site.”
Oh?Libertarian1 over 13 years ago
If you really want an intelligent conversation, look to the facts. The US Constitution specifically grants voting rights in Congress only to the -States-. DC is -not- a state. it is a Federal Territory.
If you wish them to have voting rights either amend the constitution or dissolve the DC and make them part of Virginia and Maryland.
Obviously when written back in 1789 the concept was not racist. Those proposing and those opposing statehood may have racial motives.
The “District Clause” in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution states:
[The Congress shall have Power] To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States.
It took the 23rd Amendment to give them votes for president.
Jaedabee Premium Member over 13 years ago
“Since one of the criteria for being liberal is being educated, an “uneducated liberal” is an oxymoron.”
They’re “liberal elitists” up until they’re not “liberal elitists.” Obama is a “liberal elite” because of his education but is NOT a liberal elite because of his education. Understand? That being said, education really doesn’t determine one’s political affiliation in all cases. For example, there are plenty of educated Republicans, too. It’s just a matter of whether one chooses to ignore science in specific instances if they contradict a dogma. Is the world doomed tomorrow because of global warming? Scientific evidence says no, but that’s inconvenient to instilling panic and immediate action. Is homosexuality a choice? Scientific evidence says no, but that’s inconvenient to blind discrimination. Works both ways.rockngolfer over 13 years ago
So if DC had one or two representatives, would we still have 435?
Seems like you have to have an odd number because of ties.
riley05 over 13 years ago
jmattadams, I would appreciate it if you would correct all my spelling and grammar mistakes. Although, since I don’t fit your mindless “liberal” stereotype (I’m “rich”, and have graduated from both medical and law school), I won’t hold my breath waiting for you.
jack75287: Okay, that’s two. Out of how many? Maybe you could link to a picture of a tea party rally that shows something other than Caucasians?
Libertarian1: When you say “It took the 23rd Amendment to give them votes for president.”, you do realize that none of us have a direct vote for president, right?
Reminds me of my tour of Vietnam a few years ago, where I learned that their communist government is remarkably similar to that of the U.S.A. The same three branches. An elected legislature. The main difference is that their chief executive is elected by the legislature (theoretically representing the wishes of their constituents), whereas ours is elected by the Electoral College*…which in some cases means the state legislature.
(*Except, of course, in 2000, where the chief executive was selected by the Supreme Court).
Libertarian1 over 13 years ago
Anthony wrote “Libertarian1: When you say “It took the 23rd Amendment to give them votes for president.”, you do realize that none of us have a direct vote for president, right?”
Not understanding your point. DC residents have the exact same right to vote for President as you or I. Through the electoral college.
What did you mean?
seriocomix over 13 years ago
@Rockngolfer: some parlimentarian here will know better (like whether the current non-voting DC rep is actually #436), but my take is that it’s fixed at 435, and that since DC would never have the population for more than one, it would have to come out of some other state’s pocket.
DC statehood proposals will always fail, because the thought of two more senators elected by brown people is enough to keep Saxby Chambliss up ALL NIGHT.
riley05 over 13 years ago
Libertarian1 wrote: “DC residents have the exact same right to vote for President as you or I. Through the electoral college. What did you mean?”
I’m saying that none of us have the right to directly vote for President. For instance, during the 2000 campaign, the Florida (Republican-controlled) Legislature said that if the Florida popular vote turned out to be for Gore, they’d still give their Electoral votes to Bush. The Supreme Court decision was pretty much a moot point; all it did was avoid putting the Florida legislature in defiance of those they were supposed to be representing.
Which, of course, has never been a problem for the Republicans. (E.g. a national health care bill).
rottenprat over 13 years ago
On C-SPAN, President Obama boldly told Americans: “We are out of money.”
Taxpayers need to attach more strings to the money they give their “representatives.”
pirate227 over 13 years ago
Yeah, where are all of those Tea Party candidates on the Democrat side?
Oh, I forgot that’s a lie.
riley05 over 13 years ago
Who told that lie, Pirate? And why?