Re: Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnelL Nixes District Of Columbia Voting Rights In Sente

"Kent Finnell" <kentfinn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> said:
"The Lone Weasel" <loneweasel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Xns99B0617C12001loneweaselgml@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


Senate Derails Measure on Full Voting Rights for D.C.
House Member

[begin excerpt]

By CQ Staff1 hour, 45 minutes ago

The Senate on Tuesday dealt what may be a fatal blow to a
bill that would give the District of Columbia full voting
representation in the U.S. House.

An effort to invoke cloture drew a 57-42 majority but fell
short of the 60 votes needed to limit debate on a motion
to call up the measure (S 1257). Eight Republicans voted
"yes," and one Democrat, Max Baucus of Montana, voted
"no."

The bill would grant full voting rights to the District's
current delegate and create one additional seat in the
House, initially to be given to Utah, bringing the chamber
to 437 voting members and four non-voting delegates.

The vote likely dooms the bill for this session and
hampers its chances for this Congress.

Opponents, led by Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.,
said the Constitution limits membership in the House to
representatives from "the several states," and the
District is not a state.

He hailed the Senate's action, declaring the bill was
"clearly and unambiguously unconstitutional." He added,
"If the residents of the District are to get a member for
themselves, there remains a remedy: Amend the
Constitution."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/cq/20070919/pl_cq_politics/senatede
rai lsmeasureonfullvotingrightsfordchousemember;
_ylt=ApG9tpyUcwwcIZedX8s_xJms0NUE

[end excerpt]

I didn't know Sen. McConnell was anti-gun. You boys know
what it means when the REPUBLICANS come out against DC
having any state status, right?

"A well regulated militia being necesary to the security
of a free STATE..."

So, peanut brain, people aren't individuals, just Soyent
Green on the hoof?

So Funnelhead, you can't conceive of legal terms in the US
Constitution having two meanings? You can't imagine a world
in which "the state" and "the people" were, in certain
contexts, considered as synonymous?

You're a pretty stupid man aren't you, Kent? Or maybe
thinking like a gunlobby propagandist has made you just seem
stupid.

So what do you think Republicans really believe about the
Second Amendment, even though they take NRA handouts and
spout NRA propaganda?

It's a right for the people in their political and
governmental context, as a state.

_____


PEOPLE. A state; as, the people of the state of New York;
a nation in its collective and political capacity. 4 T. R.
783. See 6 Pet. S. C. Rep. 467.

- Bouvier Law Dictionary

_____


people. The state: the nation: any consolidated political
body. United States v Three Friends. 166 US 1. 41 L Ed
897. 17 S Ct 495. The subjects or inhabitants of a nation.
The Pizarro (US) 2 Wheat 227, 246, 4 L Ed 226. 211.

- Ballentine's Law Dictionary, Third Edition


--

Individuals have rights, Lee.

Correct, Funnelloon.

Groups of persons also have rights.

I have the rights to free speech,

Correct; like all rights not an unlimited right. Also a
collective right.

to worship (or not) as I please,

Yes, but not to inflict your superstitious frenzy on others
against their will.

Entire religious groups, churches, sects,

to petition,

The government for redress of grievances, yes.

None of these rights is solely individual. They're all
collective rights too.

But wait - how can a right be an indicidual right and a
collective right at the same time?

In reality, contexts sometimes merge.

to
assemble with other people (individuals),

Collective mainly, although in Tennessee I guess assembly with
others might be a little - spaced out - the smell...

to not be
searched (person or papers),

That's a collective right. Cheney/Bush's NSA illegally
wiretapped millions of US citizens, Fourth Amendment rights
violated for the whole country.

and to keep and bear arms

In the Second Amendment it's a collective right of the PEOPLE,
not of the PERSONS. Proof being that the Tennessee
Constitution grants only a right to bear arms for the common
defense:

[begin text]

§ 24. Militia

That the sure and certain defense of a free people, is a well
regulated militia; and, as standing armies in time of peace
are dangerous to freedom, they ought to be avoided as far as
the circumstances and safety of the community will admit; and
that in all cases the military shall be kept in strict
subordination to the civil authority.

[...]

§ 26. Weapons; right to bear arms

That the citizens of this State have a right to keep and to
bear arms for their common defense; but the Legislature shall
have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a
view to prevent crime.

[end text]

So your personal right to keep and bear arms is granted by the
state legislature which has power to regulate the personal
right.

Point proven.

And for your state militia "the sure and certain defense of a
free people, is a well regulated militia".

A free people, echoing the Second Amendment's "a free state".

Point proven.

(so
individuals can defend that free state [nation]

Tennessee, you ridiculous dumbass.

Next.


--

Yours truly,

The Lone Weasel

.

Relevant Pages