Thread: House voting rules?

Originally Posted by dg806

I don't buy that.

I don't either. Let's get back to my issue with Washington D.C., if it's so important for people to be represented, why don't they focus on people who are actually here, paying for that representation but not getting it? Something still smells like a rat.

Originally Posted by ALBOB

I don't either. Let's get back to my issue with Washington D.C., if it's so important for people to be represented, why don't they focus on people who are actually here, paying for that representation but not getting it? Something still smells like a rat.

D.C. gets 3 reps dont they?

in response to a few posts on page 2. we dont have a draft currently. so any puerto rican soldiers who died, while tragic, died under the same circumstances as any other U.S. soldier. after they chose to enlist.

Originally Posted by dg806

I don't buy that. I think Doms hit it on the head with his first post.

Gentlemen, gentlemen, praying for Pelosi's death is no way to go. As george carlin would say, leave symbolism to the symbol minded. The territories involved are our functional 51st state--they have access to federal programs, they have federal district courts, they have US military bases; In short, the territories are tied intimately w/ the US and US interests.

Here's a good exposition on the US's relationship with its territories:
http://www.macmeekin.com/Library/terr+commonw2.htm

Originally Posted by NordicNacho

No decisive impact allowed
The rule that existed briefly a decade ago let delegates vote in what is called the "committee of the whole," a term for the procedures the House uses when debating and amending a bill before going to a final vote. But the rule also stipulated that if a delegate's vote has a decisive impact on the outcome, the committee of the whole disbands and the full House votes on the issue without delegate participation.

That was to avoid a constitutional challenge. A federal judge in 1993 upheld the rule letting delegates vote, but only because of the automatic revote feature. He said that because the delegate vote had no ultimate effect on legislative power, it did not violate Article I or any other part of the Constitution.

Virgin Islands Del. Donna Christensen said her fellow delegates would have preferred getting full voting rights. But "it's important because it's a step forward," she said. "It gives the delegate more opportunity to participate in the work of the House."

learn how to read bro

If you don't pay taxes, you should have NO VOICE in congress. End of story.

Originally Posted by Decker

Gentlemen, gentlemen, praying for Pelosi's death is no way to go. As george carlin would say, leave symbolism to the symbol minded. The territories involved are our functional 51st state--they have access to federal programs, they have federal district courts, they have US military bases; In short, the territories are tied intimately w/ the US and US interests.

Here's a good exposition on the US's relationship with its territories:
http://www.macmeekin.com/Library/terr+commonw2.htm

If it's not worth making them into states, it's not worth having them vote. That's not difficult to understand.

Originally Posted by KelJu

If you don't pay taxes, you should have NO VOICE in congress. End of story.

So all the people Reagan dropped from the tax-paying roles get no vote?

Originally Posted by Pepper

So all the people Reagan dropped from the tax-paying roles get no vote?

I am a young'en. I know very little of Reagon's administration. Do you mind explaining what you are talking about.

Originally Posted by KelJu

I am a young'en. I know very little of Reagon's administration. Do you mind explaining what you are talking about.

Well, my point is that alot of people don't pay any income taxes...just b/c they don't make enough.

The bottom 50% pay 3.3% of income taxes (2004 stats.)

Sooooo...paying taxes isn't really relevant when it comes to voting.

I think you should get one vote for $1,000 of income taxes you pay!

I'm really hoping that someone challenges you on that tax info. That stuff is hilarious.

Originally Posted by DOMS

I'm really hoping that someone challenges you on that tax info. That stuff is hilarious.

You do kow he is an accountant??

Originally Posted by dg806

You do kow he is an accountant??

Yes, that's what makes it so funny.

Originally Posted by Pepper

Well, my point is that alot of people don't pay any income taxes...just b/c they don't make enough.

The bottom 50% pay 3.3% of income taxes (2004 stats.)

Sooooo...paying taxes isn't really relevant when it comes to voting.

I think you should get one vote for $1,000 of income taxes you pay!

Bottom 50% all make less than, what, 25k?

Originally Posted by KelJu

If you don't pay taxes, you should have NO VOICE in congress. End of story.

the U.S. voting was largely based on this. initially those who could vote were the property owners. the ones paying the most in taxes. without making it a race issue, it really was white male landowners paying the taxes so they were given the vote. it kind of makes sense, why should anyone not paying taxes get a vote on how others get taxed.

i understand it is much more complicated than that, but im a simpleton at heart.