Who would've thought a fake-Congressman would be the political tour-de-force with which the GoP would have to contend in this budget battle? But make no mistake, Delegate E. H. Norton has unsheathed her sword and may well have dealt the mortal blow to Republicans:
"WASHINGTON - Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) said on Friday that if the government does shutdown she will donate her salary for each day to non-profit organizations that are working to for D.C. voting rights and statehood."
Wow! Powerful stuff. What commitment to the cause of District statehood. I guess those non-profits are on their own once she gets back to pseudo-governing?
"Norton has also declared her entire staff essential, which means they will be on the job during a shutdown, but [her personal hairdresser] will not be guaranteed pay"
Okay, [that] was just mean of me but I can't help my rhetoric, being a member of the right and all.
As for DC statehood--a non-starter. Why should a city get two senators and a representative? I say carve out the center for government, evict all residents except the President and his immediate family, make it a place of federal government work only and give the rest to Maryland. They're so like-minded politically and PG County wouldn't be the worst county in Maryland any more. And for God's sake--don't even think about bringing that colossal mess into Virginia.
Posts
9 comments:
The Dems turned on EHN as soon as they realized a budget could be signed if it were not for that pesky DC. In this time of tight budgets, why is EHN getting paid a salary and why is she allowed to have a paid staff. If you don't get a vote, you are not a congressman.
Want to vote? Then MOVE.
Screw DC! While the rest of the country has suffered through Obamanomics, the federal city has prospered beyond belief. I haven't noticed Marcel's or The Hay-Adams closing down.
I get the vote thing, but the home rule - that congressman from other districts can make rules about how DC's own money is spent - is ridiculous.
Wyoming's population is less than DC's.
Yeah, so is NYC, LA, Chicago, etc. I don't hear any of them arguing for statehood. Argue for a representative to have a vote, maybe. But statehood? Never. And as for home rule, as long as they continue to elect the likes of Marion Barry to anything, they will always need adults overseeing the care of the nation's capitol.
How is that conservative thinking? Saying a city shouldn't be able to decide for itself because they elect someone we find ridiculous and criminal runs against good conservative principles, no?
Yes, it does. If it is just their city; however, this city is also our nation's capitol. So it seems appropriate to have national elected officials have at least a veto authority in preserving it as such when others attempt to turn it into a den of local thieves. Plus, being human, my love of Marion Barry sometimes eclipses my conservative values.
Far be if from me to believe Mudge needs help in anything, but I am obligated to hop in here.
The framers of the constitution created a federal district under the specific jurisdiction of Congress because of their experience with the Articles of Confederation government, and the extent to which its legislative activities were messed with by demands/restrictions placed on it by the state and city governments in which the Articles capitals had been cited. During the Constitutional Convention and the discussion over the creation of a federal district, there was GREAT consensus over the necessity for a legislative body to exercise ultimate dominion over that geographic space in which it met and legislated. Hence, the federal district would be under its own jurisdiction. That you find this quaint and out of step is somewhat irrelevant--hewing to the line of Congressional oversight of the District is not only THE Conservative view of this subject, it is the Constitutional view.
Yeah, that too.
Post a Comment