Republicans to DC: Drop Dead
Do Republicans hate DC more than they love guns? Or is it the other way around? Or both equally? Missing no opportunity to show their contempt for the Old Plantation, Republican congressmen derailed the House vote on the DC voting rights bill by introducing an amendment tying that to repeal of the DC gun control law. Maybe we should change the slogan on the license plates to "No representation without guns and ammunition."
Well, Shrub was probably going to veto the bill anyway, so this is basically just a gratuitous thumb in the eye. Actually, am I the only one who's a little embarrassed at all the groveling being done to get a bill passed that will still leave District residents second class citizens by keeping us unrepresented in the Senate? Maybe it's better to remain unrepresented and aggrieved.
It does seems that some folks like to screw with DC just because they can. Hope everyone saw the WaPo article on Sunday about the man--not a DC resident and not a gun owner--who organized and bankrolled the suit against the DC gun control law. Just a matter of principle, you see. So he searched out six people with suitable demographic attributes to be the plaintiffs. Just saying...
posted by DaddyFiveOh @ 3:40 PM
15 comments
15 Comments:
Thanks for your update and link to the NBC News article covering this issue.
Do you know which Congressman sponsored the pro-gun amendmentment, effectively destroying the vote on Voting Rights for DC? Was it Mark Souder (R-IN)? There was mention of his name in the NBC news article, but it doe not specifically state that it was him that sponsored it.
Apparently it was Lamar Smith (R, Texas), according to the Post website.
i listened to the whole thing on c-span at work today. when it got to the end, right before the noxious amendment was added, i thought we were going to pull through on this one. then that just came out of right field, like a stomach punch. it's obvious to me now that the only way we're going to get anywhere in this battle is via a constitutional amendment. any legislative attempt will always be bogged down with other tangentially-related at best crap.
I think that's just the way politics is. It's nothing personal - the Republicans know that any seat elected by DC residents is almost definitely going to be a Democrat. Because no one any more can vote anything but the party line, one more Democrat is a HUGE deal, and the Republicans will do what they can to stop it. Adding on a repeal of the gun ban will both appeal to many of their constituents and prevent many of the DC voting rights supporters from voting for the bill.
So, it may be BS, but it's not personal, it's just politics.
we should't ever be charged a federal tax or send our kids to war if we're going to be real pure about the constitution.
and daddyoh both parties deliver bullshit
Bob isn't a current DC resident, but he grew up in Petworth, is a graduate of AU and Mason, and spent most of his career here. Hard to see, of course, why its relevant.
"Anonymouses": Please see comment policy in previous post. Just a warning this time.
Jon: The bill would also give a new safe Republican house seat to Utah, so there would be absolutely no effect on the party balance in the House. Sorry, but I think there is a special dose of nastiness when it comes to the GOP and DC.
Richard: Actually the Constitution was amended to allow an income tax. And sure, no party has a bullshit monopoly, but this brand is being slung from one side of the aisle.
Anonymous 2: "Bob" (you know the guy?) Levy hasn't lived in DC in 40 years, according to the Post. In my book, that means he has created a case involving matters in which he has no evident interest. If he's such a libertarian maybe he should go after the smoking ban in Montgomery County--a place where he actually has some ties.
right daddyoh about the constitution, that's why i said pure. :-)
Yeah, I do know Bob. He was born and raised in DC and lived in the larger Metro area for most of his career. I count Bethesda as part of the larger DC metro-area. He probably has greater historical ties to DC than you or me.
Second, the suit is filed by several DC residents. Bob's just funding the suit for them and helping serve as co-counsel. Its not as though these folks are simply puppets; they support the litigation--its their rights the litigation is vindicating, after all.
In short, the suit has arisen because the interests of a number of DC residents have found a wealthy person willing to fund the litigation. That's the American way--no less than the fact that Falls Church partners at wealthy DC law firms bankroll litigation by Guanantamo detainees in the D.C. Circuit, or bankroll suits by DC immigrants seeking asylum, or any other lawsuits by those who otherwise couldn't afford access to the judicial system.
If you don't like the suit, argue against the arguments. But its a bit of a red herring to argue against the source of funding based on where that source happens to live.
I would add that I've known Bob to attend a Chuck Brown go-go show as recently as two years ago. I also know that Bob was a Chuck fan was Chuck was just getting his start. Anyone who was born and raised in DC and is a fan of Chuck from the beginning has as much right, if not more, to call himself a DC native.
MM: (You're still a leetle bit shy of the requested i.d., why so timid?)
I like your phrase "those who otherwise couldn't afford access to the judicial system." That says a lot, doesn't it? Actually, in this case I'm pretty sure that at least some of the named litigants aren't exactly indigent. And it looks like Levy sought them out, not the other way around. Obviously it's legal, I just question the ethics.
And please, don't cite musical taste as an indicator of character. Ann Coulter goes to Grateful Dead concerts but it doesn't make her a hippie or any less loathsome.
I think we should worry about the message more than who is posting the message.
I know its important to hate NAMES, but give the anonymous posters a rest and let them post anonymously. After all this is not "Life in...", let the power hungry have the RULES.
Daddyfiveoh are you not breaking your own rule by not posting using your name and/or initials? I am not sure I agree with your "do as I say, not as I do" policy.
:)
Mighty: Your blog, your rules; my blog, my rules. Besides, I've been publicly outed (blogwise, that is) often enough times that my identity is no mystery. I'll accept the blog link as sufficient.
Probably enough on this string anyway.
Did you all hear about Senator Webb's aide being arrested for carrying a loaded gun in DC? apparently it was the senator's gun.
We should, without witness to race, gender, class, or mind, objectively determine the basis of our civil organization. I am beyond weary, of the tales, myth, and opinions of those who articulate an argument based upon "what white people" believe. The question is a simple one... Do you agree with the Explicit Rights recognized within the US Constitution? It is not, "What do whites associated with the NRA support?", or "What can black folk be trusted with?". Should we find ourselves at odds with the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution, then we should demonstrate an ability to argue against the Amendment, instead of the poorly articulated rhetoric offered by the articles author.
And please, please, please, stop relying upon partial facts and Black Myths. The US Constitutional Amendments , specifically, the 2nd Amendment, is well rooted in Common Law (i.e. 13 Century Common Law....Magna Carta). Should we take acception to anything, it would be the infringement of this right and all others. It is the epitome of hypocracy that you cry from "Mount High" for voting representation, a right I believe recognized within the US Constitution for all citizens, but selectively opt to honor all other rights. This simply represents the baseless nature of your stance, as you have decided that the laws of the country are most comfortably accepted when convenient.
Post a Comment
<< Home