A Bargarian View on DC Voting Rights (Taxation without Representation)

Congrats to Lisa for having her first segment on Fox TV for a monthly feature. While she needs to work on her teleprompter skills (her words, not mine), she did well. Well, except for the fact that she should be looking at the viewer, not the screen.
:)


Speaking of Lisa, her blog Liberal Common Sense has a complaint; apparently, she doesn't like how Whalertly writes/argues his points in the previous two posts on DC and voting that he did. With that in mind, I decided that I am going to go ahead and take a crack at it myself: Here goes nothing.



As a starter, I want to say that I agree with Whalertly's main argument. The Constitution is clear on this issue, and it clearly says that only states can have a say in Congress. To me, this should mean that they have a vocal voice in congress, but no non-state entirety has a vote, even if it doesn't count. Nor should they be part of any committees at all. The Founding Fathers intended this to be, as they clearly worded this in the Constitution. Our government doesn't follow the Constitution enough, maybe it is time that they started here.

There is no way that you can interpret the Constitution to say something that it clearly says it is against. There is room for interpretation in privacy, in freedom of speech, and in freedom of the practice of religion. All of these are not fully defined, and they are all set up to adapt. However, there is no logical wriggle room in the statement:
”hall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states “. Additionally, as you need to be a citizen of the state that elected you, there is no way to get around this. Arguably, if the State of Ohio were to decide who represents DC then you have an interesting loophole. keep in mind, this would probably not hold up in court.

So, we know that there is no real way to get representation CONSTITUTIONALLY to DC or any of our islands, but there is a bigger issue here: That of taxation without representation.

A common argument brought up by those arguing for sovereignty is the concept that there should be no income tax unless they have representation. In fact, this is a point that Lisa brought up a few times. This believe stems from the assumption that the Boston tea party was a main factor in the revolution. This is a faulty belief, as most of our issues stemmed from the fact that we believed that the king was our leader, no parliament. We can safely assume that tax with no rep. Was simply the straw that broke the camels back. There is no backing what-so-ever to this argument historically based.

Furthermore, this argument falls apart when it comes to practice. We tax anybody who buys anything, tourists, kids, adults, yet most don't have representation. Taxes are covered on products and services, yet the people who end up paying them (consumers) do not always have representation. Obviously, they believe that only one tax matters...

Several groups pay income taxes and have no vote. Kids with jobs, felons in certain states, and illegal immigrants all pay income tax. Hell, those with a green card that are permanent residents also pay income tax. We don't want these groups to vote, but they are being deprived of the same 'right'. Obviously when you use selective enforcement you have an issue.

Overall, I believe that DC should not have the vote Constitutionally. This also applies to all of our territories and islands. Furthermore, I do not believe that the argument about taxation holds any water, as it is selective and not really historically based, regardless of how people argue it. If we amend the Constitution then I will support them having the vote, but, until then, they should not have it.

for the smart readers out there, you might have noticed that I never actually posted my own opinion on this issue... :)
Read more ...

Lieberman Get A Slap On The Wrist

Before I start, I would like to say that I am pleased that the Obama administration is starting to look a lot like the Clinton's did. Also, I hope that Hillary gets the SOS spot.


According to the Keeler Report, the democrats had a secret ballot to decide if Lieberman would keep his chairmanship or not. Over on Liberal common Sense, Lisa tells us that the vote will show us how much power the actual left has in the Senate. And over on CNN, it was shown that Lieberman would be keeping his chairmanship, while losing his seat in another committee. While most of the left believe that Lieberman should be kicked out, President-elect Obama deemed that Lieberman should stay, letting bygones be bygones, and keeping his pledge of a less partisan Washington.

So, the question becomes, should Lieberman actually have kept his position? Many on the right said yes, many moderates seemed indifferent, and many on the left said hell no. Frankly, I think that he should have, and I think that it is very obvious that he should.

1) Lieberman gave the Democrats power for two years, and made sure that they had it. By caucusing with the left, Lieberman made sure that his true party was given the power in Washington, and made sure that they could do as they wished with the country, and that they could fight Bush.
2) He is a Democrat. While he might have run as a Independent (due to his far-left party kicking him out, yet he still won handidly), he caucused and is a registered democrat. Kicking him out could cause our former veep candidate to switch parties, which would take a lot of moderates with him.
3) He appologized. Sure, he said some things while out campaigning for McCain that he shouldn't have. He made accusations, slanderous ones actually, and attacked Obama on a personal level. But, he has appologized, and seems honest about it. With this in mind, I think that he should be allowed to keep his post.
4) He votes Democrat most of the time. While he might not have been elected as a Democrat, he clearly is one. He was not elected in the primary due to the fact that he was pro-war, and that is really the only area he breaks from the party. Why should you remove a respected and aged member simply because he disagrees with you on two main issues?

So, with this in mind, I think that the punishment placed on Lieberman is exactly as it should be. Lieberman is a true democrat, but is not just voting party lines, which I like. Thus, in the end, I think that it was a good decision to keep him. Read more ...