Voting representation in Congress: hearing before the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia of the Committee on Government Reform, House of Representatives, One Hundred Seventh Congress, second session, July 19, 2002U.S. Government Printing Office, 2003 - Počet stran: 100 |
Další vydání - Zobrazit všechny
Běžně se vyskytující výrazy a sousloví
23rd Amendment achieve American Appleseed Article authority bill Board of Trade Bob Peck Canberra capital cities Caracas Chairwoman COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT CONG CONGRESS THE LIBRARY Congresswoman Norton constitutional amendment Council CROPP D.C. citizens D.C. residents D.C. voting rights Delegate democracy Democrats disenfranchised District citizens District Clause District of Columbia District residents Eleanor Holmes Norton elected officials federal district Federal Government fiscal full voting representation full voting rights GOVERNMENT REFORM grant D.C. Greater Washington Board GRESS House of Representatives issue lack of voting LIBRARY OF CONGRESS Lobby Day Madam Chair Mayor WILLIAMS Mexico City MORELLA national capital national government national legislature oversight pass Peck proposed constitutional amendment question RARY Ray Browne Representation Act representation in Congress RESS right to vote Subcommittee support voting rights Taxation Without Representation testimony Thank Tidewater treat the District U.S. Constitution United voice Voting Rights Amendment Werronen
Oblíbené pasáže
Strana 65 - No right is more precious in a free country than that of having a voice in the election of those who make the laws under which, as good citizens, we must live. Other rights, even the most basic, are illusory if the right to vote is undermined.
Strana 67 - Marshall said in his opinion that it was "extraordinary" that citizens of the District, which is "subject to the jurisdiction of Congress," do not have the same rights as "citizens of every state in the union," but that this is "a subject for legislative, not for judicial consideration." Justice Jackson interpreted this to mean that "Congress had the requisite power under Art. I [the District Clause]" to address the inequity facing District citizens. It is true, said Justice Jackson, that Chief Justice...
Strana 29 - . . .a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections.
Strana 70 - For this reason, the Court held, "[I]nclusion of the District of Columbia in § 1983 cannot be subsumed under Congress' power to enforce the 14* Amendment but, rather, would necessitate a wholly separate exercise of Congress' power to legislate for the District under [the District Clause]." In response, Congress subsequently enacted legislation, pursuant to its power under the District Clause, making Section 1983 expressly applicable to the District.
Strana 64 - MEMORANDUM TO: Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of Columbia Delegate to Congress Hon. Anthony Williams, Mayor of the District of Columbia Hon. Linda Cropp, Chairman, District of Columbia City Council Hon. Robert Rigsby, District of Columbia Corporation Counsel FROM: Walter Smith, Executive Director, DC Appleseed Center L. Elise Dieterich, Esq. Swidler Berlin Shereff Friedman, LLP DATE: May 22, 2002 RE: Congress...
Strana 68 - the term state is sometimes used in its more enlarged sense." Here, as there, "on examining the passages quoted, they do not prove what was to be shown by them.
Strana 74 - As noted, that decision declared that there is "a contradiction between the democratic ideals upon Metro in Brief, Wash. Post, April 13, 2000, at B3. 124 Cong. Rec. 27,253 (1978). 124 Cong. Rec. 27,254-55 (1978). n which this country was founded and the exclusion of District residents from Congressional representation." And, most importantly, the Alexander decision demonstrates that Congress has authority to correct this contradiction and include District residents in our democracy. Conclusion The...
Strana 66 - Constitution authorizes the federal courts to hear cases "between citizens of different States." The question in Hepburn was whether District of Columbia residents are eligible under this Article III provision to bring suit in federal court. Chief Justice Marshall said they are not, relying primarily on the fact that the District is not a State within the meaning of the clauses of Article I of the Constitution granting congressional representation only to States. He believed that just as the District...
Strana 66 - The Alexander court's interpretation and application of the relevant judicial precedents is consistent with House counsel's position. Two key precedents relied on by the court were Chief Justice John Marshall's 1805 decision in Hepburn v. Ellzey,' and Justice Robert Jackson's 1949 plurality opinion in National Mutual Insurance Co. of District of Columbia v. Tidewater Transfer Company? It is important to describe those two precedents before explaining how the Alexander court applied them. Hepburn...