Washington D.C. to get representation at cost of gun control

[BirminghamExaminer]

Excerpt:

It appears that if the citizens of D.C. want representation in Congress, they will have to trade their current laws on gun control to get it. Despite opposition from the residents of D.C. to the stripping of their gun laws, the House is expected to pass the bill next week and President Obama has promised to sign it.

But there are more obstacles ahead for the bill. Opponents like Mitch McConnel (R) of Kentucky, insist that the Constitution on Congressional representation is clear: "only states elect members of Congress." The District of Columbia is not considered a "state."

The bill will probably wind up in the Supreme Court to test its Constitutionality.

You can read the entire article here. Please leave comments there.

[babylonsister]

1. You work for this paper? If so, you might want to check spelling.

Minority leader? Two "L's".

And what's with the tit for tat crap? DC needs to be represented, finally. Don't you agree?

[BirminghamExaminer]

2. Yes D.C. certainly deserves representation

I'm not sure they're going to get it. I hope they do.

I wish they would leave the gun control laws to the District however, and not make it part of the bill. Right now semi-automatic weapons are banned in D.C. If this bill is signed into law, all the gun control that D.C. will go out the window (as the bill stands now anyway).

Do you live in D.C.? If so, how do you feel about not getting any say so over gun control laws there? Are you willing to give that up for representation?

[aquart]

3. Once the rep is in Congress, try to take it away.

Gun laws can be enacted another day.

[BirminghamExaminer]

4. thanks...

I was just curious about how people feel about it. I think it's outrageous that DC'ers haven't had representation all these years. I hope the bill passes. I suspect the gun control amendment may be the one thing that will save it ....

Personally I think that any city, technically could be called a state anyway but I'm not sure how the Constitution defines a state or even if they do.

[Igel]

5. DC in on land provided by MD.

IIRC, it returned all the land that VA offered.

It will almost certainly wind up in front of SCOTUS. DC tried several times to get a Constitutional amendment passed, which, to my mind, says that they accepted that one was required. One was required to provide electors, and did pass.

Personally, I think DC should just be its own state.

[Still Sensible]

6. I think the framers of the Constitution didn't

see the District as a population center. If you read the text closely, it is almost as if they envisioned this District "not exceeding ten Miles square" as somewhere that Congress and the Court and the various departments met and worked but not necessarily lived.

Both sides of the D.C. question have a Constitutional argument. But it took the 23rd Amendment just to get the District Electoral College representation.

In the end, it seems to me that the argument against the constitutionality of this measure that may ultimately strike it down is not the D.C. argument, but rather that one state--Utah--is getting an extra seat through a means not mandated by the Constitution.

As for the gun control issue, that's a Congressional matter anyway because all laws in the District are. The way the courts have been lately, there's probably a good chance it would happen anyway. That might have something to do with the administration looking to reinstate the assault weapons restrictions.

I hope the representation measure gets through, but there is probably a better than 60% chance it will be struck down by the Supreme Court. And getting a constitutional amendment ratified in 38 states on this issue would be beyond hard IMO.