Comments about ‘D.C. voting act is best way to ensure that Utah gets its 4th seat’

Nice. Way to smack down the mentally-deficient "but DC isn't a state" argument.

Utah will get a 4th seat after the 2010 census. Don't give an unnecessary House seat to the always one-sided DC voting public. There is a much better chance that Utah will vote for Obama next time around than there is of DC EVER voting for a Republican.
If DC should get a representative, then add their residents to Maryland. The residents would get the same benefit but one less bureaucracy to deal with.

The D.C. voting act is certainly one way of getting Utah an additional seat. However, the Congressional Research Service, Congress's own public policy research arm, told Congress two years ago that they likely do not have the authority to grant D.C. voting representation in the House. Personally, I see this attempt as a backdoor method of getting what we want at the possible expense of the Constitution. I'd like another representative too, but I'm not willing to try and contort the U.S. Constitution to get one. D.C. does not deserve representation under the Constitution. If Utah does, we will get it.

I have always supported you Sen. Hatch, but this REALLY strains that support. IT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL! It also HURTS Republicans. Utah will get that fourth seat anyway in two years. This plan will just give liberals one more free seat in congress forever! Maybe your Republican naysayers are right. You've been in Washington too long. You've done some VERY good things over the years, but you are dead-wrong on this one.

Will Senator Hatch's enthusiasm for this deal with the devil to get Utah an additional House seat be there when they demand two Senate Seats? After all, if they are a "state" and entitled to a seat in the House, why are they being deprived of TWO Senate Seats?

Surely this strategy is on the minds of the Democrats seeking to "help" poor old Utah, and Hatch is smart enough to see it as well.

Personally, I think Hatch is wrong on this, and that the "DC is a non-state for representation" argument is what was intended in the Constitution.

However, Hatch has been coming down on the wrong side of too many issues lately.

Perhaps he would like to fill the DC seat in the House? He seems to be representing Washington DC interests more than those of Utah these days.

Yes, Chuck, we need to worry about what hurts republicans. A healthy republican party should be our focus.. Geez, is there anybody left who actually puts the COUNTRY'S interest ahead of a party's? Chuck, you go on being a republican-american, I'll just be a plain ol American-American.

increase the size of the House. There is no magic to the current number of representatives in the House. The power to change it is right there, just use it.

The last thing we need are more crooks back in DC to steal and waste our tax money. The house should be cut in half and the senate should be made to work or go home.

Utah only needs to wait until the 2010 census, following the constitutional guidelines to obtain its fourth House seat. The "give D.C. a representative" crowd is nothing more than the Democrats pushing an agenda to get more representatives in the House, and throwing Utah a political bone to counterbalance the heavily Democratic district. Senator Hatch, shame on you for having become their spokesperson with such lofty reasoning and skillful rhetoric to hide the real agenda. We have nothing to lose in this cobbled solution except our integrity and willingness to wait until the constitutionally sanctioned process plays out. We don't need a "counterbalanced" seat on political terms that re-write the Constitution on whatever grounds may be asserted as reasoned and rational. It's time to give up on our two Senators from Utah, despite the seniority system that gives them lofty seats as ranking members in the committees. Time to begin again, Utah, and look for fresh faces who won't forget how they got there. Bennett's advocacy for the bailout and now this advocacy for a sham political horse trade are ample evidence of the need for new blood from Utah in the Senate.

Hatch makes some very good aguments,

But it still must done by an admendment and not an act.

That's how the constitution works, and our constitutional based government works.

And after all that comes to pass with "just one more representative from D.C.," balanced by another Utahn the state deserves anyway, don't think for one minute there won't be another Constitutional amendment proposal headed our way from the Dems in the Senate, this time with no Republican counterbalance from Utah to guarantee two more Senate seats to boost their filibuster 60-seat majority over the top. It's so thinly veiled it makes this old Republican blush. Doesn't anybody else see this for what it is, or am I the only one who has to be right all the time?

Not everyone is stupid Orrin. We all know we will get the seat after the 2010 Census, and get it fair and square. Leave it alone and quit trying to give the liberal democrats another seat. Not that they need it after you and the other republicans let them take all of the power.

Virginia Declaration of Rights, June, 1776
Article 6.
"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 public 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 public good."

Any questions how the Founders felt about voting rights?

That's as far as I got with your message before getting nauseous. It says it all about you. You believe that you and your DC buddies govern us. You have long forgotten or never excepted the fact that it is the Constitution that governs us within the bounds of moral law. You receive your power from the consent of the governed, who receive their authority from and are bound only by moral law.

For the good of the country please keep your promise and don't run again. Americans are too dumbed down to be able to discern a nice guy from a good candidate.

Orrin, I have some concerns about your motivation. Surely you know that D.C. would consistently vote for a legislator that doesn't represent the values this country needs in order to avoid self-instituted implosion. So why would you support a plan that would trample those values?

Moreover, your reasoning is flawed. The proof is in the pudding: evidence that the founders intended to exclude D.C. is manifest in THEIR not doing anything about it in 1800 (or 1810, 20, 30, or 40!). If they were amenable, why didn't they address the issue? Furthermore, if the courts have ruled that Congress has legislative authority over the district, why not just keep it that way?

Finally, why the Faustian bargain, Hatch? Do you already have someone in mind you'd like to push into a potential Utah 4th District seat, like you did by setting up the Canons?

Senator, you've just gone way too far with your influence-peddling (witness: get out of jail free cards to cocaine users you're friends with).

I suspect there's something behind the scenes on this one, as there always seems to be with you...

Hatch swore to uphold the US Constitution and, once again, shows an arrogant disregard for it.

We have written to him numerous times over constitutional issues. His attitude and strategy is always the same: talk down to the complainant 'You don't really understand, m'dear, just leave it to me' is the essence of the responses to our every petition.

Utah has a clear opportunity to stand up for the Constitution. I hope we don't let the country down by agreeing to a transparent ruse to get our support at the expense of our 'Supreme Law'.

It looks like I'm the only one here who is totally opposed to this move (and the Senator who is promoting it) and at the same time thinks that D.C. should have a voting representative. To get one will take a Constitutional Amendment since the residents oppose retrocession.

As for Orrin's argument that this is the best way to ensure a fourth seat for Utah - look at the language of the bill - it adds an extra seat for D.C. and for "the state next in line for a seat." That was Utah in 2000, but since we are not the fastest growing state since 2000 maybe it's not Utah in 2010. Balance schmalance Senator - let's ram this through before anyone picks up on the fact that we'd be selling our integrity for only a very temporary benefit.

@Lupef - it's interesting to note that our federal government did not really start growing until after the size of the house was capped and the number of voters per representative shot upwards. We really should expand the house to shrink our government.

I still think Rep. Chaffetz is correct and Sen. Hatch is wrong.

Don't give DC a vote directly. The people living there should get a vote through Maryland. We are going to get a 4th seat anyway. I don't want to give DC as seat and have our 4th seat challenged in Court.

Change the constitution or count part of DC part of Maryland.

We get or lose the seat by the Census anyway, Orrin! Why sell out with your bill just so we get 2 years of a 4th Utah seat? We'd either get the 4th seat anyway via the census, or if your bill passes, there is a slight potential (not likely) that population readjustments nationwide might combine to give the 4th seat to another faster-growing state. In the meantime, then D.C. is given guaranteed liberal Democratic voting representation in the Congress. Give DC back to Maryland! Keep the federal buildings as a federal reservation.

Senator Hatch, it's time to step down. You've totally lost all perspective. You job is to support and uphold the US constitution, AND to represent Utah. Forcing an unconstitutional mandate down our throats - one that will surely be challenged in the Supreme Court - is NOT the way to go about it. Yes, let them have voting representation, but not at the expense of the constitution.