Senator Joe Lieberman Is The Least Sucky Of All Senate Democrats

7 Responses to “Senator Joe Lieberman Is The Least Sucky Of All Senate Democrats”

1. Nikolas Schiller on January 6th, 2009 3:47 pm

   Lieberman is not a democrat, he’s technically an “Independent Democrat,” who supported John McCain. The bill he is sponsoring is not constitutional and provides DC residents with only 1/3 representation– no senators, just a token vote in the house. This type of partial representation is, as you put it, sucky.

2. andrew on January 6th, 2009 3:51 pm

   You are correct in that this bill is pretty lousy. Which makes it all the more embarrassing that no one besides Joe Lieberman will even bother to support it.
   If the rest of the Senate Democrats were hard at work passing a constitutional amendment to give us the representation we deserve, I’d give them a pass on ignoring this bill. But they aren’t.

3. Nikolas Schiller on January 6th, 2009 4:14 pm

   I think it makes Lieberman look like even more of a pariah!

   The sad fact of the matter is that democrats in Washington, including DC Vote’s leadership, are still advocating a bill that was written when Republicans were in control of congress. DC residents voted for statehood, not 1/3 representation, and I think the leadership should support the voice of the people.

4. andrew on January 6th, 2009 4:20 pm

   Not to be argumentative, but because I had no knowledge of this ever happening: When did DC residents vote for statehood?

5. Nikolas Schiller on January 6th, 2009 4:35 pm

   Via Wikipedia:

   Some aspects of the D.C. statehood agenda were achieved with the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, passed in 1973. Still more were encompassed in the District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment, which passed Congress in 1978 but failed to be ratified by a sufficient number of states to become an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

   Two years later, in 1980, local citizens passed an initiative calling for a constitutional convention for a new state. In 1982, voters ratified the constitution[1] of the state. Since that time, legislation to enact this proposed state constitution has routinely been introduced in Congress, but has never been passed.

   “New Columbia” is the name of the proposed U.S. state that would be created by the admission of Washington, D.C. into the United States as the 51st state according to legislation offered starting in the 98th Congress in 1983 and routinely re-introduced in succeeding Congresses. The Congressional legislation was triggered by the provisional D.C. Statehood constitution that Washington, D.C. voters adopted in November 1982.

   The campaign for statehood stalled after the District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment failed in 1985 because it did not receive the required ratification by the legislatures of at least 38 of the 50 states within the required seven years of the amendment’s submission by the 95th Congress. In 1987, another constitution[2] was drafted, which again referred to the proposed state as New Columbia. The last serious debate on the issue in Congress took place in November 1993, when D.C. statehood was defeated in the House of Representatives by a vote of 277 to 153.

   Although the proposal for statehood, via either legislation or constitutional amendment, has yet to be approved by Congress—typically receiving little attention each term that it is presented—the name “New Columbia” is a part of the statehood movement in the District of Columbia.

6. Obama On Statehood | Andrew Daniller on January 6th, 2009 4:41 pm

   [...] response to the comments below, I did some very quick searching and found a December article from Mother Jones that I can’t [...]

7. citizenw on January 7th, 2009 10:01 am

   “6. That elections of members to serve as representatives of the people, in assembly, ought to be free; and that all men, having sufficient evidence of permanent common interest with, and attachment to, the community, have the right of suffrage, and cannot be taxed or deprived of their property for publick uses without their own consent, or that of their representatives so elected, nor bound by any law to which they have not, in like manner, assented, for the publick good.”

   Virginia Bill of Rights, June, 1776

   Washington DC had been “Governed Without Consent” since 1801

Leave a Reply