Why do that when congress has authority now to grant DC residents voting rights? Your idea makes as much sense as reapportioning West Virginia back to Virginia.
http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1035&context=cong
Keep it in mind? Are you kidding me?
You’ve proposed to strip the Speaker of the two single most important powers that the Speaker has: setting the agenda and controlling committee assignments. The first determines what the House of Representative can and can’t vote on; the second is the heart of party discipline. And you’ve proposed to give those powers to someone else, while installing a female minority in the Speaker’s chair for the following purposes:
- “To improve the fortunes of the Democratic Party…”
- “To maintain minority turnout with President Obama no longer on the ticket.”
- " A commitment to visit black churches in the home district would be a real benefit to vulnerable Representatives."
This is beyond patronizing. The more I think about it, it sickens me to appoint a minority to a position of responsibility for such non-substantive reasons, and then strip that position of its most important powers.
Then just cut through the chase and lay out some cites from legal experts backing up what you claim.
Yeah, and when the tokenism of appointing Norton to the Speakership comes to an end, either by her retirement or by the Democrats never having gained control of the House in the first place, what’s in it for us DC residents to redress this national disgrace?
Nothing, that’s what.
This plan is awful. It solves nothing in the most callous, condescending, and intolerant (teetering on sexist and racist) way possible.
My idea makes as much sense as taking an area - that was carved out of two states for the express purpose of not being IN a state - and then torturing law & logic in order to make it a state in just about every way short of adding an extra star to the flag.
Virginia’s section was returned to the state in 1846. The current district consists entirely of land that was part of Maryland.
Being unable to accurately restate an opposing argument is an even stronger clue that it’s time to rethink. Those first 2 there represent a single purpose: an electoral advantage to Democratic Party. The third refers to influence that will accrue to Speaker Norton (at the expense of other House Democrats). The other actual purposes are to enfranchise thousands of Americans (including you), give minorities another strong voice in the federal government, and establish political symmetry.
Also, the person who would be giving up the Speakership (but retaining leadership) to Eleanor Holmes Norton would presumably be Nancy Pelosi. So I don’t see a female angle here. Not that simple logic deters rhetoric of course.
If it bothers you so much then why are you introducing it into the discussion? My idea certainly does no such thing. The idea is to separate party leadership and the duties of the chair and then offer the latter to the DC Delegate and not to run the 2014 campaign and only afterwards pull out the rug on the newly reduced Speaker. Speaker Norton with the powers I’ve outlined above would be the most powerful African-American within the federal government not named Barrack Obama ever. At least domestically (with a nod to Condoleezza Rice).
“Patronizing” my ass. It’s good politics. The Democratic Party wants to maintain minority support but have a “what have you done for me lately” problem in that they just haven’t done anything lately to support minorities. So House Democrats (Pelosi in particular) trade some power for an electoral advantage. Speaker Norton wouldn’t just be a token appointment but would have real power to address issues so that there could be more reciprocity going forward. Whether she would or not is another question. If DCers aren’t happy with her they (you) can vote her out. The next Delegate can take the Speakership and life goes on. There’s nothing that limits this idea to Eleanor Holmes Norton in particular. I was thinking it would continue until the federal district was otherwise given voting representation in Congress and it could no longer be argued that it was justice to seat the DC Delegate in the Chair of the House in order to enfranchise Americans.
Sorry, if I had any legal cites I would naturally have posted them. At this point I’m not even certain about the legality of the Speaker’s right to vote in this situation given Saint Cad’s excellent breakdown. But that doesn’t mean that I think much of your argument about the wording of the first article of the Constitution. I still think you are wrong for the reasons I have given. (Which you are free to continue ignoring.)
Hey, if you think this idea isn’t going to be called racist and patronizing by the folks you intend it to appear to, there is absolutely some rethinking that needs to be done.
And since you aren’t even sure that the idea would give my elected representative a vote, once again, I’m not seeing any upside here.
I’m introducing it because it’s patently obvious. I’ll also note that nobody in the Republican party suggested giving Condi Rice that important job and then giving Donald Rumsfeld more control over our foreign relations.
Perhaps your argument would be stronger if you cited some facts about declining African American support of the Democratic party. Seems like a made-up issue as far as I can tell, seeing as how Hillary Clinton’s and Obama’s approval rating among African Americans remains about 90%.
Or, wait… are you suggesting that African Americans don’t pay attention to issues, and instead may more attention to the race of political leaders?
Why would Republicans put a DC delegate in as Speaker if they control the House?
And let’s get a dose of reality here: control of the House doesn’t depend one whit on race. Gerrymandering is the biggest obstacle to Democratic control of the House, and I’m fully prepared (but not predicting) that the balance of power in the House will remain about the same until the next redistricting.
First of all, because of the unique nature of legislative bodies, most use Mason’s Manual. Using Robert’s Rules really doesn’t apply.
Second of all, each House of Congress makes their own rules so even using Mason’s as a reference wouldn’t apply.
It did always seem faintly ridiculous to me that DC residents were effectively disenfranchised, but this seems like a really goofy way to correct the problem.
I don’t think that the system ever really planned for a capitol district with permanent residents. I don’t understand why large portions of DC aren’t just given back to Maryland.
That was my thought, too, but I couldn’t figure out why Washington, L’Enfant, et al. needed so much land in the first place if they didn’t want a city to grow up around the organs of government. 100 square miles seems a bit excessive for the dozen buildings they probably envisioned.
Thanks but I’d already realized that any campaign along these lines would find detractors determinedly declining to discuss the details of the deal. No demonstration was necessary.
You’ve proven adept at not seeing things. Even if you choose to ignore them the three other purposes of the plan are still right there for anyone to read. You even quoted them. Though I don’t think the plan is doable without fully enfranchising the DC Delegate.
That it is obvious to you is evidence of your wrongheadedness here. The OP clearly states that the idea of dividing power preceded the inclusion of the DC Delegate. It was you who brought this “give then take away” narrative to the table. So yes, it’s noted that no Republican treated Condi Rice in a way that is completely unrelated to this discussion here. With that vital task accomplished perhaps now you can take the time to note some relevant arguments.
I’m not sure what you are getting at here. Clinton and Obama aren’t running in 2014. Do you not believe that African-American turnout was higher in 2008 and 2012 than in 2010 or is expected to be in 2014? Or do you not believe that there are a lot of African-Americans who don’t trust that the Democratic Party really has their best interests at heart? I find the latter hard to believe. I mean, you live in DC and presumably talk to people.
I think we can safely predict that they wouldn’t.
Your connection to reality while contributing to this thread has been murky to say the least and making such obviously false assertions isn’t helping you in that regard. This is America. It’s hard to imagine any institution in which race isn’t a factor. Gerrymandering is no different. The very practice of carving out minority-majority districts has been enshrined in law.
Can you provide a site for the claim that they never planned on the capitol district to be populated? Why did Pierre L’Enfant go to all the trouble of designing a city if it was to be a ghost town? There is a misperception that voting rights would require an amendment to the constitution. Please see my two previous posts in this thread on the subject.
It’s frustrating that so many people throw around ideas about DC and its voting rights without any effort to be informed on the subject. Earlier we had someone suggest giving back part of DC to Virginia, even though no part of DC was part of Virginia at this point.
You get upset when I make the relevant argument that the whole scheme will be viewed as racially insensitive. What else would you like me to say, that I don’t like the font you’re using?
Turnout of white voters is less in off-year elections, so your point is moot. Fewer people vote in off-year elections, period.
Yes, I want a cite for that. Hopefully including a definition of the words “a lot.” While you’re at it, throw in a cite that the Democratic Party is losing African American voters at a rate that the party should be concerned. You haven’t shown that there’s any problem, you’ve just pitching an idea you find clever.
What, specifically, is my false assertion? That your plan will be viewed as racially insensitive?
I notice that in your lengthy response to my post, you ignored the question of whether you are “suggesting that African Americans don’t pay attention to issues, and instead pay more attention to the race of political leaders?” I think it is an important question that deserves an answer.
Right. I realized it wouldn’t be binding. I was looking for an understanding of the parliamentary tradition. Unfortunately we don’t seem to have any precedents for this in this country. Jefferson’s Manual didn’t help. I found a reference from Justice Story’s Commentaries of a precedent for the outside appointment of the Vice President as presiding officer of the Senate from the appointment by the king of the Lord Chancellor who presided over the House of Lords. See here. Presumably he voted only to break ties though I was unable to confirm that. But as you say, none of that applies specifically to the House.
So I looked in Deschler’s Precedents. Unsurprisingly it doesn’t contain any direct information on our unprecedented situation here but under the section on “Precedents as Law” I found this interesting paragraph:
*“Parliamentary law has come to be recognized as law, in the sense that it is binding on the assembly and its members except as it may be varied by the adoption by the membership of special rules. Thus, the precedents may be viewed as the ``common law,‘’ so to speak, of the House, with much the same force and binding effect.” *
Cite.
It appears that Deschler’s Precedents say that precedent in the House is superseded by specific rules. So if the House has drafted rules saying that the Speaker will vote, as you say they have, and the House then elects a non-constituent member as Speaker then those rules take precedence over whatever precedent there could have been against that Speaker voting. So I now believe the entire procedure I have proposed is entirely regular. If the House decides to name a nonmember or a nonvoting member to the Chair of the House then it is the right (and duty) of that person to vote in accordance with the rules.
As you say, there are also the lawsuits to consider. I’m cynical enough to expect the Republican majority on the Supreme Court would vote against anything that benefits the Democratic Party but this whole thing is extremely hypothetical to begin with so I won’t let that stop me from considering constitutional arguments. It looks to me as if the one you offered in the 12th post in this thread has been invalidated by the precedent I just described. Again I offer my observation that the Constitution doesn’t empower the VP to vote in the Senate but merely restricts that vote to when ties occur. Seeing nothing in the Constitution to the contrary I have to say that I do believe my idea is constitutional.
You have completely misunderstood the passage.
First of all, there in no precedent for a non-member to be Speaker and as explained before, the Rules make a tacit assumption that that will always be the case.
Second, even by your own quote it is not precedents but rather parliamentary law that determines legal action. For example, the motion to adjourn needs a majority votes so suppose Boehner gets all pissy and adjourns the House (very common in small bodies). Under Paliamentary Law, the members can elect a chair pro-tem and continue the session. Let’s say they then pass the Hat on Cats law and someone claims that it is not a valid law because the House was adjourned. The courts should rule that since Parliamentary Law was followed that it is in fact a valid law.
There was a landmark case in the 1880’s that’s an example of that but the name escapes me right this second. I’ll post it when I can remember it.
I’m afraid that you lost me. I mean, both of your points make sense and I don’t disagree but I don’t see how they are relevant. Are you maintaining that adopted rules do not trump parliamentary law in the House?
Having a non-member vote (even a Speaker) is a violation of parliamentary law.
Ravenman’s point is that being elected Speaker does not make them a member.
Ergo, if a Speaker were ever a non-Member the rules allowing and requiring them to vote would be a violation of Parliamentary Law and are out of order.
Was that a “yes” or a “no”?
If the will of the assembly (as expressed in the rules adopted) does indeed trump parliamentary law in the House then your whole argument is undone. You say I have misunderstood the passage from Deschler’s Precedents but if so then what does it mean? I mean, that seems to be the plain reading of the paragraph to me.
Also, where are you taking this principle of parliamentary law from? Any source that is authoritative in the House of Representatives?
Thanks, that’s the perfect way to describe my idea. It certainly is out of the ordinary. But then it’s about more than just enfranchising DC residents. When coming up with these reform ideas (and I’ve got plenty and more peculiar than this) I keep in mind what happened with the 26th Amendment. The difficulty of amending the Constitution in the face of opposition was overwhelming until the federal government demonstrated (in Oregon v Mitchell) that 18-20 year olds were going to have the vote anyways (if only in federal elections). Then the procedural hurdles melted away as opponents cut their losses and consented to amend the Constitution to eliminate irregularities.
The same process could happen here. Republicans are naturally opposed to enfranchising DCers who are never going to vote for this GOP in large numbers but if the Democrats succeeded in doing so Republicans might find it suddenly in their interest to push a constitutional amendment to deprive the Dems an electoral advantage.
I haven’t given this much thought but if you are interested you might dig up something from The Founders’ Constitution.
I’m confused - Republicans would push for a constitutional amendment to do what? Give or prohibit enfrancising DC voters?