tinygiraffe wrote:i'm all for a 51st state too, but not for blacks, for everyone that wants it. i do admit to entertaining the idea that it hurt the chances that it would be such a liberal state. racism is a more serious charge, however- just because the paty is *too often* guilty of it doesn't mean it's the basis for everything. also if you make that charge in petty, ridiculous ways, you rather cheapen it.
The bill Herbert is referring to wasn't to make D.C. a state. The bill would have given D.C. congressional represetation
wihout it being a state - hence the reason it was killed.
The Constitution provides that
"The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature." and "
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote."
The position of those who opposed the bill is that the only way to have voting representation in the Congress is to be a state. The bill's supporters prefer an end-run around the Constitutional requirement instead of amending the Constitution itself (which was tried back in the 1980s and failed).
Herbert is a tooll of the DNC. In this piece (which, interestingly enough, is largely plagerized from a piece he wrote
2 years ago) he argues that the GOP is holding up legislation that is clearly unconstitutional yet in his
Sept 22nd piece (3 days earlier) he argues against another GOP action because he supports the Dem. claim that it is unconstitutional. He doesn't care whether legislation is constitutional or not. His only concern is pushing the Democratic party agenda.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace