DC to have to allow for firearms to get voting rights in the house

[Azzy]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

How about we just dont tax them, or, if you want the right to vote... move! There was a reason they dont have that ability.

[5711-Marine]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

How about we just dont tax them, or, if you want the right to vote... move! There was a reason they dont have that ability.

How about violating the Constitution?

Article I Clause 17

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 Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock–Yards, and other needful Buildings.

The Meaning of “State” and the District of Columbia Problem.— In Hepburn v. Ellzey,953 Chief Justice Marshall for the Court confined the meaning of the word “State” as used in the Constitution to “the members of the American confederacy” and ruled that a citizen of the District of Columbia could not sue a citizen of Virginia on the basis of diversity of citizenship. Marshall noted[p.763]that it was “extraordinary that the courts of the United States, which are open to aliens, and to the citizens of every state in the union, should be closed upon them. But this is a subject for legislative, not for judicial consideration.”954 The same rule was subsequently applied to citizens of the territories of the United States.955

How about amending the Constitution without the proper procedure?

The XXIII amendment gave the citizens of DC a vote for President. It followed the proper procedure and was proposed by Congress on June 17, 1960, and ratified by the states on March 29, 1961.

Why do they feel they can make this change statutorily when the process for amending the constitution is clear?

There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how to propose an amendment. One has never been used.

The first method is for a bill to pass both houses of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd).

The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.

Regardless of which of the two proposal routes is taken, the amendment must be ratified, or approved, by three-fourths of states. There are two ways to do this, too. The text of the amendment may specify whether the bill must be passed by the state legislatures or by a state convention. See the Ratification Convention Page for a discussion of the make up of a convention. Amendments are sent to the legislatures of the states by default. Only one amendment, the 21st, specified a convention. In any case, passage by the legislature or convention is by simple majority.

The Constitution, then, spells out four paths for an amendment:

* Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state conventions (never used)
* Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state legislatures (never used)
* Proposal by Congress, ratification by state conventions (used once)
* Proposal by Congress, ratification by state legislatures (used all other times)

It is interesting to note that at no point does the President have a role in the formal amendment process (though he would be free to make his opinion known). He cannot veto an amendment proposal, nor a ratification. This point is clear in Article 5, and was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Hollingsworth v Virginia (3 US 378 [1798]):

[LittleRedToyota]

meh...why bother changing the constitution when SCOTUS is quite happy to just let them ignore it.

[Azzy]

Or Congress, or the president....

[headcase]

Well, look at the bright side, we only have a few more thousand points to drop before the economy completely collapses and there is fighting in the streets. Maybe when the smoke clears, we can go back to being America....