K-Romulus
Member
Interesting moves re: the DC Personal Protection Act in light of the Parker decision.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/22/AR2007032200683_pf.html
Nasdaq.com (http://www.nasdaq.com/aspxcontent/N...CQDJON200703221521DOWJONESDJONLINE001095.htm&) said the Lamar amendment involved handguns, leading me to guess this was a DC PPA add-on.
Seems pretty bizarre, to me to push the DC PPA right now. Do they know something we don't regarding the Parker rehearing petition?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/22/AR2007032200683_pf.html
House Postpones Action on D.C. Voting Rights
Vote Put Off After Republicans Raise Gun Control Issue
By Mary Beth Sheridan
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, March 22, 2007; 4:30 PM
The House today put off action on the D.C. voting rights bill after Republicans tried to tie the legislation to a drastic weakening of the city's gun laws.
The surprise development came as House Democrats seemingly were on track to pass a measure that would give the District a full-fledged voting member of Congress. Members debated for more than three hours, and the issue appeared headed for a floor vote.
But Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Tex.) derailed the vote when he tried to add language to the bill that would bar the District from enacting laws or regulations "that discourage or eliminate the private ownership or use of firearms."
Smith's language would have repealed the city's ban on semiautomatic weapons. It forced Democrats into a retreat, with members saying they hoped to return to the voting rights issue in a matter of days -- but with rules that would prohibit such attachments.
"They are into gamesmanship," said Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.), a co-sponsor of the measure that would have added a House seat to the District and another that most likely would go to predominantly Republican Utah.
"The fact they are playing games with voting rights will astound the country," Norton said.
Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.), who co-sponsored the bill with Norton, called Smith's measure a "poison pill" and said it caused turmoil because it put conservative Democrats to a test over gun rights. "It makes a great TV ad that could be used against Democrats who voted against the measure," Davis said.
Before the proceedings stalled, much of the debate followed party lines, with Democrats raising issues of fairness and civil rights and Republicans raising questions about the constitutionality of the law.
Today's action marked the first time the full House had considered granting the District a full seat in Congress since 1993, when a statehood measure was defeated. Activists from the advocacy group DC Vote came to the Capitol to watch the proceedings on what they hoped would be a historic day.
The bill, would permanently add two seats to the 435-member House. It was crafted to win bipartisan support by giving one seat to the heavily Democratic District and the other to the next state in line to get a representative, Republican-leaning Utah.
Davis has been pushing a version of the bill since 2003, and last year he and Norton attempted to get it to the House floor without success. This year, with the Democrats in control, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) and Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (Md.) made it an early priority, and lined up members to support the measure.
District residents have not had a vote in Congress since 1801, when the federal legislature was established in the city. Previously, as the capital district was being planned, residents voted in Virginia or Maryland. The city has sought full representation in Congress for decades, with a variety of approaches that failed on Capitol Hill, in state legislatures or in the courts.
Congress gave D.C. residents the right to elect a non-voting delegate in 1971.
The measure to give the District a full-fledged vote in the House easily cleared two House committees last week, with strong Democratic support and votes from several Republicans. This week, however, House Republican leaders campaigned to persuade party members to vote against the bill.
But the threat of a presidential veto could harm the bill's chances in the Senate, where Republican support is needed to avoid a filibuster. The White House sent a statement to Congress Tuesday warning that if the bill reaches President Bush, his top advisers "would recommend that he veto the bill."
The White House's statement opposed the bill on constitutional grounds, echoing concerns raised by numerous House members. "The District of Columbia is not a State," the statement said.
D.C. Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D) has vowed to keep up the pressure on the issue, and is organizing a march on the Capitol for April 16.
Supporters of the legislation argue that it is legal under another part of the Constitution, the "District Clause," which gives Congress sweeping powers over the city.
During the debate today, Rep. Al Green (D-Tex.) said that constitutional arguments, pro and con, can be raised on many important matters. The question, Green said, is "Which side are you on?" He said he chose to stand with more than 500,000 D.C. residents.
Legal scholars have issued widely varying opinions on the constitutionality of the legislation.
Bush has cast only one veto in his presidency, on an embryonic stem cell bill. But since Democrats gained control of Congress in January and began passing bills in the House, the president has threatened to veto several measures.
Congress needs a two-thirds majority vote in the House and Senate to override a White House veto.
Nasdaq.com (http://www.nasdaq.com/aspxcontent/N...CQDJON200703221521DOWJONESDJONLINE001095.htm&) said the Lamar amendment involved handguns, leading me to guess this was a DC PPA add-on.
Seems pretty bizarre, to me to push the DC PPA right now. Do they know something we don't regarding the Parker rehearing petition?
