This article announces proposed legislation to add two seats to the U.S. House: one for D.C. and one for Utah, the next state in line up for a representative. The bill is greatly supported by the Democrats. Many of the Republican representatives, however, argue the bill is unconstitutional due to the constitutional requirement that reps come from states. The White House has threatened a veto on the bill and it is suspected that it will eventually end up in court. All the same, "Supporters called the bill's passage their biggest victory since 1978".
I think this is very important legislation and it will be very interesting to see how it all pans out. The article makes a very good point that a rep for D.C. would lead to increased representation for many people, not to mention multimillionnaires. I think it's pretty ironic that our nation's center for politics is struggling for increased representation.
This is a class blog for the students of POLSCI 426: Congressional Politics at the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Blog Archive
-
▼
2007
(218)
-
▼
April
(58)
- Republicans go negative -- on one another
- Law and Order's Other 2008 Presidential Character:...
- Murtha: Four Ways to Influence a President. One i...
- Bush Tells Immigrant Graduates to Solve Immigratio...
- The Gift That Keeps on Giving
- House panel votes to subpoena Rice on Iraq
- I Learn From Mistakes
- Pelosi Won't Attend Briefing on Iraq
- Bridging a Divide -- and Crossing an Ocean
- Kohl amendment extending SeniorCare likely to be v...
- Doyle lobbies for more UW funds
- here's the mccain article
- Sen. McCain gets tough on global warming & foreign...
- Bill Clinton: World Ambassador
- Senate Majority Leader says War Withdrawl Bill to ...
- Boris Yeltsin, RIP
- Lobbyists Profit From Power Shift In Congress
- House Approves A Full D.C. Seat
- Expectant House Member Is a Congressional Rarity
- Congress Skeptical of Warhead Plan
- Renzi Resigns from Intelligence Chair
- MCs from Both Sides Dip Into Taxes for Vacations
- "Obscure Procedural Fights" Does it Get Any Better?
- Mazel Tov Tommy
- Will Virginia shootings spur Congress to Act?
- Liberals to Pelosi: Hey! We're Still Here!
- Guard, Reserve leaders speak before Senate
- Is it Political?
- GOP presidential candidates distance themselves fr...
- Betwen Obama and Clinton for the Dems
- Romney, Giuliani Have Money to Burn
- Gonzales: I have nothing to hide
- Cheny thinks Democrats will Drop Timetables
- House Hesitates on Ethics Changes
- NASA Causes Turnabout on Fiscal Responsibility
- Amendment to FISA Proposed
- Kerry and Gingrich Hugging Trees -- and (Almost) E...
- congress and morals???
- Bush vs. Congress: The Looming Battle Over Executi...
- Romney targets Pelosi in foreign-policy speech
- Obama Challenges McCain on Iraq Stroll
- House committee to hold Tillman hearings
- Details of GOP's Immigration Bill Strategy
- Wisconsin Might Just Hang Up on "Robo-Calls"
- Flaws in W2
- Stem cell vote set for Congress this week
- kerry v gingrich...debate on climate change
- Fundraising numbers shake up White House race
- Will Dems get Gonzales through Monica Goodling?
- Who Cares About the Next American President When W...
- lets see how we rate...taxpayers
- Feingold and Reid Propose Funding Cut for Troops
- Bush berates Dems over Iraq war funding
- Pelosi is welcomed in Syria
- The Decoy Effect, or How to Win an Election
- Former Wis. Governor Enters Race for Nomination
- Senate Democrats Vow to Push Withdrawal
- White House criticizes Pelosi's planned Syria visit
-
▼
April
(58)
5 comments:
This bill proves that the Constitution is subject to interpretation. Because the representation of the house is capped at 435 representatives in the Constitution, the Republicans can argue that our founding fathers did not intend for additional representation. While that is true, the Democrats should attempt to change the Constitution because if this ends up in court, there is nothing the court can do about it. Also, I would think the Republicans would support this bill because they would most likely gain another seat, Utah because it is slightly Democratic. I am confused as to why they don't.
a d.c. seat would be quite interesting. The diversity there is unseen in any other part of the country.
Is this even constitutional?? Have they lost their minds??? this is where a drug abuser was elected mayor repeatedly.
BTW.. the House is not capped at 435 in the Constitution, that is a federal law...
it will be interesting to see if this bill actually goes any farther. d.c. is very diverse, as mentioned earlier. it's interesting because it is not a state and therefore isn't represented, but maryland wants nothing to with d.c. which complicates the issue further
Post a Comment