PDA

View Full Version : DC Voting Act Passes Senate - Strips DC of Gun Control


hoffmang
02-26-2009, 11:07 PM
Heh.

from http://www.dcexaminer.com/local/Senate-passes-final-DC-voting-bill-measure-strips-out-city-gun-laws_02_27-40396397.html


Senate passes final D.C. voting bill; measure strips out city gun laws

The U.S. Senate on Thursday took the historic step to grant the District of Columbia a voting member in the House of Representatives, but not before adding language to strip the city of its gun laws.

The voting rights act won final approval by a 61-37 vote, closing three days of debate that featured numerous attempts by opponents to freight the measure with amendments. The bill, as approved, expands the House by two seats, one for Democratic-dominated D.C. and the other, at least initially, for Republican-leaning Utah.

“Finally, the citizens who live in the capital of the free world will have the right to exercise the most basic freedom — the right to choose who governs them,” said Sen. Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn., the bill’s lead Senate advocate.

The gun amendment, backed by a 62-36 vote, eliminates most of D.C.’s firearm laws which were installed last year after the Supreme Court struck down the city’s handgun ban. Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., described his proposal as a “civil rights amendment.”

Voting rights supporters hope to drop the amendment when the House and Senate conference over differences between their respective versions of the legislation. The House is set to approve its version next week.

“We want to assure that when the bill gets signed into law it does not have the gun amendment,” said Ilir Zherka, executive director of D.C. Vote. “That’s our challenge. That’s our fight.”

D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty described the Senate vote as a “historic breakthrough” in D.C.’s “200-year-old fight for full voting rights.”

The effect of the gun amendment is unknown. Gun-control advocates, including many city leaders, condemned it.

“I believe the amendment is reckless,” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. “I believe it is irresponsible. I believe it will lead to more weapons and violence on the streets of the District of Columbia.”

Voting rights supporters fought off several other amendments, including an attempt to cede most of the District to Maryland.

Senators did amend the bill to permanently bar the Federal Communications Commission from reinstating the Fairness Doctrine. But they also backed language offered by Majority Whip Richard Durbin, D-Ill., which encourages diversity in media ownership.

Critics say the voting rights act is flagrantly unconstitutional because it provides voting representation to a non-state.

President Barack Obama is expected to sign the bill if it reaches his desk, at which point the measure would face certain court challenges. Both the House and Senate versions provide for expedited judicial review.

What’s in the final Senate bill
— 436th and 437th House seats, one for D.C. and the other for Utah
— Language barring reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine
— Language calling for diversity in media ownership
— Language stripping the District of its gun laws

They even got the fairness doctrine!

-Gene

ke6guj
02-26-2009, 11:13 PM
hopefully its got severability language where if an part of the bill is ruled unconstitutional, the rest of the bill stays. So, that when they throw out the voting seat for a non-state, the rest of it stays :D

zachary2287
02-26-2009, 11:14 PM
It would be awesome if the fairness doctrine gets permanently banned.

lioneaglegriffin
02-26-2009, 11:45 PM
Wait they lose our Roster too? i thought Mr. Gura was gonna chew it up and spit it out? :(

hoffmang
02-26-2009, 11:47 PM
Wait they lose our Roster too? i thought Mr. Gura was gonna chew it up and spit it out? :(

A bittersweet situation. We'll see how the final cards play out vis-a-vis the conference on the bill.

-Gene

Sam
02-27-2009, 12:10 AM
was the Utah seat a negotiation chip?

ke6guj
02-27-2009, 12:24 AM
was the Utah seat a negotiation chip?yah, it was.

IIRC, in the 1990 census, UT just missed out on getting a 4th seat due to its rapidly growing population. So, they've been trying to get a 4th seat for a while, and this way, they get to offset an democrat DC seat with a republican UT seat.

However, in the 2010 census, it is expected that UT would be gaining that 4th seat already, so are they screwing themselves by gaining that 4th seat early instead of waiting a couple years and earning it properly.

NSR500
02-27-2009, 12:26 AM
Do any of you think the "Fairness Doctrine" in name was killed, but the wording or intent lives on in the Media Diversity language?

252yft
02-27-2009, 12:50 AM
Please look at the bigger picture. Utah gets a seat to off set an extra Dem seat. BFD. How long will this last? Two years? So when lines are redrawn in a couple of years, both those DC seats will go to the Dems. That's two more Dem votes. May I suggest that the Dems pulled a fast one once again and picked up two more solid seats for the long run.

Publius
02-27-2009, 5:43 AM
hopefully its got severability language where if an part of the bill is ruled unconstitutional, the rest of the bill stays.

There is a severability clause for the DC gun law parts, but a nonseverability clause for the other parts, including the Fairness Doctrine prohibition. I'm going to urge my representative to vote against it, though, because I'd like to think he respects the Constitution.

1859sharps
02-27-2009, 6:51 AM
we have got to stop looking at 2nd amendment issues as a pro republican cause. If we frame this important civil right as a republican issues we will lose. we need to keep it focused on what it is.... a civil right that transcends party lines.

Yes, I know the republicans over the last 20-30 years have a better track record for supporting and protecting the 2nd. And yes I know it's almost a guarantee anyone who represents DC will be a Democrat and be anti gun. But lets remember, even Bush would have signed an AWB just like Obama will if one ever reaches his desk. When it comes to big cities even Republicans sometimes are anti gun

So, please, please lets stop making restoring and protecting the 2nd a republican cause. it's a civil rights issue plan and simple. I personally welcome any democrats or any non republican political party to join us in defending this important right.

Oh, and no I am not a democrat.

PatriotnMore
02-27-2009, 6:57 AM
“I believe the amendment is reckless,” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. “I believe it is irresponsible. I believe it will lead to more weapons and violence on the streets of the District of Columbia.”

Have no doubts as to her, and her cronies plans for this State.

Nodda Duma
02-27-2009, 7:18 AM
I don't like this bill for the fact that a non-state entity gains representation. It sets a dangerous precedent in that aspect, and also shows that lawmakers have no problem violating the US Constitution. I hope this gets shot down and then maybe they'll go about this the proper way: via Constitutional amendment.

The add-on about the gun control laws is nice, but at what cost.

-Jason

IGOTDIRT4U
02-27-2009, 7:30 AM
All arguments aside about the consitutionality of having DC gain a rep, if this passes with the gun amendment in it, this is good news for CA. CA lawmakers were gaining traction with their ever increasing proposed gin control measures partly due to them finding new confidence in what they were doing whne DC mimicked the handgun roster, 10 rd mags, etc. This takes a bit of the wind out of the CA lawmaker's sails.

Judging by the numbers that voted for the gun control measures amendment, I doubt this amendment gets set aside in the final version.

Can'thavenuthingood
02-27-2009, 8:33 AM
I don't like this bill for the fact that a non-state entity gains representation. It sets a dangerous precedent in that aspect, and also shows that lawmakers have no problem violating the US Constitution. I hope this gets shot down and then maybe they'll go about this the proper way: via Constitutional amendment.

The add-on about the gun control laws is nice, but at what cost.

-Jason

I agree. My concern has been all along that they are looking for ways to circumvent the Constitution as the belief is its a living breathing document. Setting precedents this way sets the foundation for future consolidations of power and authority. The gun amendment while on the surface is nice to see, I think its a giveaway to be returned in spades in a future bill.

The President is overseeing the Census.
Representatives are decided by the Census.

Some state is going to lose while another will gain, who decides?

Who's counting?

Vick

jas000
02-27-2009, 8:42 AM
I'm going to urge my representative to vote against it, though, because I'd like to think he respects the Constitution.

I say vote for it. The DC House seat will be ruled unconstitutional as the Const is clear that Congress is made up of reps "from the several states". Meanwhile, the severability will leave the DC gun laws stripped.

Unfortunately, I think the gun laws part will get killed in conferrence.

hoffmang
02-27-2009, 9:10 AM
I say vote for it. The DC House seat will be ruled unconstitutional as the Const is clear that Congress is made up of reps "from the several states". Meanwhile, the severability will leave the DC gun laws stripped.

Unfortunately, I think the gun laws part will get killed in conferrence.

I completely agree with the analysis you present with the one exception that I think the pro-gun law has about 50%-50% odds of surviving.

-Gene

Publius
02-27-2009, 9:40 AM
I say vote for it. The DC House seat will be ruled unconstitutional as the Const is clear that Congress is made up of reps "from the several states". Meanwhile, the severability will leave the DC gun laws stripped.

Members of Congress swear an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. I've taken a similar oath multiple times in my life. You don't obey that oath by knowingly voting for a grossly unconstitutional law in the hope that someone else will take care of it.

That's the same cop-out Bush took with the McCain-Feingold Free Speech Infringement Act: He said he had "reservations about the constitutionality of the broad ban on issue advertising" but signed it anyways expecting the Supreme Court to deal with it. No, sir. YOU took your OWN oath to support the Constitution. What YOU sign (or vote for) is YOUR responsibility.

If I were in Congress, I would vote in favor of any amendments to keep the gun provisions in the bill while voting against final passage. That says "I do not support this bill and will not contribute to it being made law, but if the rest of you are going to insist on passing it I will do what I can to make what YOU (not me) pass as harmless as possible."

One more thing: the analysis you propose is the exact same one applied by many of the "conservatives" who voted for the 1994 AWB. It was part of a larger crime control bill, see, and they supported more cops on the street and getting tougher on criminals. Maybe the AWB was unconstitutional and they "support" the right to bear arms, but the courts can deal with that, not their problem. Does the analysis change when it's an unconstitutional provision closer to your heart that congressmen are punting to the courts?

Bad Voodoo
02-27-2009, 10:14 AM
I don't like this bill for the fact that a non-state entity gains representation. It sets a dangerous precedent in that aspect, and also shows that lawmakers have no problem violating the US Constitution.

Winner-winner, chicken-dinner.

7x57
02-27-2009, 10:27 AM
I completely agree with the analysis you present with the one exception that I think the pro-gun law has about 50%-50% odds of surviving.

-Gene

I don't. Or rather, it seems like a reasonable prediction of what might happen but not a reason to support the bill. It seems quite a bit of the unconstitutional gymnastics we are subject to (and I use the word "subject" advisedly) were passed on this basis, and the courts did not do their job. I think it is *always* a mistake to do this sort of horse-trading. If I'm willing to play fast-and-loose with the Constitution then I will have no rational grounds for complaint about what might be pitched as a "reasonable" gun-control measure.

I think we should take one for the principle of the thing and not support this bill. This is part of the fatigue of supporting liberty. Let's win by the rules, because we're the ones who insist the rules are what they are and not what someone thinks they should evolve into.

I'd be *quite happy* to start setting a precedent that one can be prosecuted for failing to keep one's oath to uphold the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic, but since it is those enemies domestic that will decide what "uphold" means it doesn't seem to be workable in practice. Still, dreaming of a world in which elected officials serve hard jail time for trying to break the Constitution brings a smile to my face and a tear to my eye.

7x57

hoffmang
02-27-2009, 10:37 AM
Idealistically I do not at all like Congress of the President passing bills that they strongly suspect are unconstitutional. However, its a current reality of our Republic that I don't see a near term solution to.

-Gene

BTF/PTM
02-27-2009, 10:48 AM
we have got to stop looking at 2nd amendment issues as a pro republican cause. If we frame this important civil right as a republican issues we will lose. we need to keep it focused on what it is.... a civil right that transcends party lines.

Beautiful, thank you. I for one am registered as a NON republican voter. Which one is irrelevant, the important issue has been stated above. It is of utmost importance, especially for Californians who stare a total gun ban much more closely in the face than any of the remaining 49 states, to approach our cause as a GROUP, not as a PARTY. Fighting under partisan cause is just as silly as the laws we're fighting, it only serves to add fuel to the misrepresented cause; "defeat the republicans, get rid of guns". I work with dozens of democrats and independents, many of whom are active/reserve or discharged military, who all own and enjoy multiple types of firearm. The important thing is that every one of these people has the same freedom in common, and we should all be working as the one group we are to fight for the one freedom we all want to retain. We'll pick up a lot more steam in a lot less time if this fight can be kept across party lines instead of beside them.

Publius
02-27-2009, 11:27 AM
Idealistically I do not at all like Congress of the President passing bills that they strongly suspect are unconstitutional. However, its a current reality of our Republic that I don't see a near term solution to.

-Gene

So long as you realize that leaves you with little room to complain when a politician who claims to be pro-gun votes for an otherwise good bill with something like an AWB attached as a rider (e.g. the 1994 crime bill). If he says "sure that bit's unconstitutional, but SCOTUS will take care of it, and the rest is good," how do you object? You've already conceded that standing on constitutional principle is not an adequate reason for voting against a bill if you reasonably expect the constitutional principle to eventually be upheld by the courts.

Charliegone
02-27-2009, 12:03 PM
well...as long as it makes Feinstein mad.:hide:

7x57
02-27-2009, 12:06 PM
Idealistically I do not at all like Congress of the President passing bills that they strongly suspect are unconstitutional. However, its a current reality of our Republic that I don't see a near term solution to.


I agree, and I'm willing to profit by it if it cuts our way, and maybe there are acceptable ways to use it when doing back-room politics. What I do not want to do is give away the moral right to say that Original Intent is the only acceptable hermeneutic, and that means I have to accept OI when it cuts against me (as it does, for example, on the insane provision that allocates electoral votes based on non-citizens and thus overrepresents a citizen's vote--it's plain law though). It's the same principle as supporting the right of very confused idiots to speak too, of course.

I'd not be a bit surprised if the 2A stuff was intended as bait to support the unconstitutional creation of permanently far-far-far-far left seats. I'd also not be surprised if that eventually hurts us much more than any possible benefit--making the difference for an anti-2A fillibuster-proof majority for example.

As a second and perhaps more feasible line of defense, given that lawmakers will certainly do as much of this as they can possibly get away with, I'd like to do away with the "no judicial activism" conservative argument. I *want* judicial activism in striking down unconstitutional laws, rather than the deference so many otherwise sound judges seem afflicted by. The only answer to living-constitution activism I can see is original-intent activism, and that appears to be both principled and Constitutional.

It will lead to its own troubles, but I guess it doesn't seem that it could possibly be worse than discouraging friendly judges from enforcing the plain meaning of the law.

7x57

mymonkeyman
02-27-2009, 12:24 PM
Everyone is missing the most important part:
"The gun amendment, backed by a 62-36 vote"

Nearly 2/3rds of the Senate is at least somewhat pro-gun?!

Charliegone
02-27-2009, 12:35 PM
Everyone is missing the most important part:
"The gun amendment, backed by a 62-36 vote"

Nearly 2/3rds of the Senate is at least somewhat pro-gun?!

Yeah pretty much...Boxer and Feinstein voted against it most likely because of the gun law part. BTW, nearly all the Repubs voted for it except Luger (IN), the rest who voted against it were Demos.

mymonkeyman
02-27-2009, 12:45 PM
Yeah pretty much...Boxer and Feinstein voted against it most likely because of the gun law part. BTW, nearly all the Repubs voted for it except Luger (IN), the rest who voted against it were Demos.

Here's the vote (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00072) for the actual amendment regarding stripping DC gun laws (rather than the final vote on the amended bill).

There goes Gillibrand's 100% NRA rating, that didn't take long. I'm shocked Reid voted for it though.

IGOTDIRT4U
02-27-2009, 1:56 PM
Here's the vote (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00072) for the actual amendment regarding stripping DC gun laws (rather than the final vote on the amended bill).

There goes Gillibrand's 100% NRA rating, that didn't take long. I'm shocked Reid voted for it though.

Could be that the more rabid gun banning left leaning pols are voting on some gun issues to improve their NRA rating and also so they can point back in time at the next election go around and say, "See I vote for gun rights".

CSDGuy
02-27-2009, 2:46 PM
It could also be that the gun banner folks voted to strip gun so that they can say that they helped the DC citizens... while making themselves look good to the "NRA crowd". Or they voted for the bill, and will say that the amendment, while important, didn't override their need to vote for the rest of the bill...

They'll try to spin their pro-gun vote in some way to make it palatable to the anti constituents.

N6ATF
02-27-2009, 3:35 PM
“I believe the amendment is dangerous for criminals,” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. “I believe it is counter-anarchistic. I believe it will lead to less criminals and violence on the streets of the District of Columbia.”

Fixed, since she loves everyone but her being an unarmed victim. :p

hoffmang
02-27-2009, 7:35 PM
So long as you realize that leaves you with little room to complain when a politician who claims to be pro-gun votes for an otherwise good bill with something like an AWB attached as a rider (e.g. the 1994 crime bill). If he says "sure that bit's unconstitutional, but SCOTUS will take care of it, and the rest is good," how do you object? You've already conceded that standing on constitutional principle is not an adequate reason for voting against a bill if you reasonably expect the constitutional principle to eventually be upheld by the courts.

That's a false analogy. It's been quite clear for a long time that DC wants its day in court on the "no taxation without representation issue." This bill is going to give them that - it even includes expedited judicial proceedings.

It's far better than e.g. McCain-Fiengold. The bill itself acknowledges the constitutional question.

-Gene

Vectrexer
02-27-2009, 8:27 PM
Could be that the more rabid gun banning left leaning pols are voting on some gun issues to improve their NRA rating and also so they can point back in time at the next election go around and say, "See I vote for gun rights".


Inhofe for President!

leelaw
02-27-2009, 9:35 PM
Yay for the rest, but stuff like this frightens me:

— Language calling for diversity in media ownership

DDT
02-27-2009, 9:40 PM
Yay for the rest, but stuff like this frightens me:
— Language calling for diversity in media ownership

Diversity is typically used by collectivists to refer to a hegemony of thought expressed by people of diverse skin colors. I am all for diversity; Diversity of thought and ideas expressed by people of any skin color.

leelaw
02-27-2009, 10:19 PM
Diversity is typically used by collectivists to refer to a hegemony of thought expressed by people of diverse skin colors. I am all for diversity; Diversity of thought and ideas expressed by people of any skin color.

Until they go "there are too many X-owned media outlets. We'll have to seize them on behalf of the Y"

Replace X, Y with

White, minority
Conservative, Liberal

Etc...

What's the point of getting rid of the fairness doctrine if you can make an endrun with similar race-based language.

7x57
02-27-2009, 10:40 PM
It's been quite clear for a long time that DC wants its day in court on the "no taxation without representation issue."

Words fail to express how happy I would be to resolve that issue by giving them their freedom and tossing them out of the union so they can form the Socialist collective or whatever it is they want instead of America. If we pay them enough maybe they'll keep the feds too, and we can start from scratch and try to keep it from growing uncontrollably via the magic genie interstate commerce clause this time.

Maybe that would set a precedent that could be used for Santa Monica and San Francisco too.

Man, I'm crabby tonight.

7x57

Publius
02-28-2009, 11:05 AM
That's a false analogy. It's been quite clear for a long time that DC wants its day in court on the "no taxation without representation issue." This bill is going to give them that - it even includes expedited judicial proceedings.

It's far better than e.g. McCain-Fiengold. The bill itself acknowledges the constitutional question.

-Gene

Then perhaps a compromise on the AWB issue is possible to make everyone happy: Congress passes a new ban, but includes a provision for expedited judicial proceedings to determine its constitutionality. ;)

hoffmang
02-28-2009, 11:14 AM
Then perhaps a compromise on the AWB issue is possible to make everyone happy: Congress passes a new ban, but includes a provision for expedited judicial proceedings to determine its constitutionality. ;)

Well, that might actually be a major positive. Locking out the folks who think they're constitutional law experts would be a benefit.

-Gene

N6ATF
02-28-2009, 11:18 AM
Any time Congress tries to pass a law containing any important word or synonym of an important word in the Constitution, it must be expedite-reviewed by SCOTUS.

Meplat
02-28-2009, 1:29 PM
No, you are a libertarian. And so am I. But, Libertarians do not have enough clout to matter. During the last 8 REPUBLICAN years there have been NO meaningfully attacks on the 2A at the federal level. Bush gave us the court that gave us Heller. The republican congress let the AWB sunset. Would the dems have done that? It's all well and good to take the supposed high road and say it's the cause, not the party. But unless a lot more of you folks start feeling the responsibility to dance with the boy that brung ya, we will be buried by Pilose, Reed, and Obama. You may take solace in blue dog democrats, but those blue dogs still put the dem leadership in control of the agenda. The dem leadership is virulently anti-gun and anti-liberty. They only complain about invasions of privacy and the patriot act when it is in their political interest, but embrace it and take it to their bossom when they are in charge. FBI files anyone?

Republicans are not wonderful, but, democrats, in the parties present incarnation, are evil.



Oh, and no I am not a democrat.

CA_Libertarian
02-28-2009, 4:43 PM
Members of Congress swear an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. I've taken a similar oath multiple times in my life. You don't obey that oath by knowingly voting for a grossly unconstitutional law in the hope that someone else will take care of it.

Thank you for being honorable to your oath(s). It seems a lack of honor is all-too-common.

I would love to see DC's gun laws struck down and a perma-ban of the Fairness Doctrine. However, the easy way isn't the right way in this case.

If our elected officials ignore their oath when it is convenient to their cause is very dangerous behavior. It should be very boldly opposed and punished, regardless if we stand to benefit from it. You can undoubtedly expect the next time it happens we will not benefit from it. (E.g. the unconstitutional federal income tax, which was allowed to pass because it only affected the top 1% of income earners. Look where we went from there...)

It saddens me to see otherwise good people condoning this sort of unethical behavior. It is a very dangerous attitude, and is IMO the key to the downfall of our great nation.

gazzavc
02-28-2009, 7:22 PM
Diversity is typically used by collectivists to refer to a hegemony of thought expressed by people of diverse skin colors. I am all for diversity; Diversity of thought and ideas expressed by people of any skin color.

And it leads to crap like this.........

BBC NEWS
Mugabe vows to seize more farms

Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe has vowed to continue seizing land from white farmers after a spate of "farm invasions" over the past month.

Speaking at a rally to celebrate his 85th birthday, he also promised to push for majority Zimbabwean ownership of companies operating in the country.

Mugabe supporters raised $250,000 (£176,000) for a lavish birthday party in Chinhoyi, north-west of Harare.

Zimbabwe asked African states for $2bn (£1.4bn) in economic aid just days ago.

“ Farms will not be returned back to former farmers ”
President Mugabe

Morgan Tsvangirai, the new prime minister and former opposition leader, did not attend the celebrations despite earlier indications that he might.

Mr Mugabe's spokesman, George Charamba, told Reuters news agency Mr Tsvangirai had opted out of the event after realising it had been organised by the president's Zanu-PF party.

"People should not read this as a snub - he excused himself," Mr Charamba said.

Mr Mugabe turned 85 on 21 February but his party is being held a week later.

SADC 'nonsense'

Mr Mugabe told the rally in Chinhoyi there would be "no going back" on planned and already executed seizures of land owned by white farmers.

The Southern African Development Community (SADC) tribunal in Namibia had no right to intervene on the farmers' behalf, he said.

"Farms will not be returned back to former farmers," he told the audience.

"Some farmers went to the SADC... but that's nonsense, absolute nonsense, no-one will follow that.

"We have courts here in this country, that can determine the rights of people. Our land issues are not subject to the SADC tribunal."

In November, the tribunal ruled that Zimbabwe's plans to seize dozens of white-owned farms were illegal under international rule and should be halted immediately.

Zimbabwe's Commercial Farmers Union says that, in the past month, operations at about 150 farms have been disrupted. Some farmers have been evicted.

Mr Mugabe said the new government would continue to push for a majority stake in companies operating in Zimbabwe.

"We would want to see a greater participation of our people in them, not less than 51%, in certain companies we would have designated," he said.

Mr Mugabe also urged his supporters to accept the new power-sharing government but his latest message on land reform is a sign that he is still firmly in control, BBC Southern Africa correspondent Peter Biles reports from Johannesburg.

This week, Mr Tsvangirai's Movement for Democratic Change said the government must intervene to stop farm disruptions, in order to enhance productivity.

Economic woes

The birthday celebrations come as Zimbabwe struggles with the world's highest inflation, food shortages and a cholera epidemic which the World Health Organisation says has killed 3,894 people since August last year.

There have been more than 84,000 reported cases, says the WHO.

More than half the population is believed to need food aid, while just 10% of adults have a regular job.

Mr Tsvangirai - who was sworn in two weeks ago in a unity government with Mr Mugabe ending months of political deadlock - has said it will cost as much as $5bn to fix Zimbabwe's economy.

The country has asked for $2bn in emergency aid to revive public services and the business sector.

Following a two-day meeting of regional ministers in Cape Town, South Africa, members of the Southern African Development Community (SADC) and the African Union pledged to "pursue measures in support of Zimbabwe's economic recovery programme".

But Western donors have said they are waiting for proof that the unity government is really working before sending in funds.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/africa/7916312.stm

Published: 2009/02/28 18:14:25 GMT

jas000
02-28-2009, 7:34 PM
Hypothetical 1: We're back in 1995 and the DC House rep bill is up for vote. The rider is a repeal of the 94 AW ban. How would you like your rep to vote? (an unconstitutional DC rep likely held while challenged; unconstitutional AW ban actually in effect)?

(Hypothetical 1A: It's 2010 and the rider is to repeal the 2009 AW ban.)

Hypothetical 2 (a little more out-there): The DC City Coucil can give Puerto Rico a voting House rep and that bill before them (in this hypothetical) has a rider that repeals California's AW bans. How would you like them to vote?

In an absolute democracy where each citizen could vote directly on each issue separately, everyone could feel more principled about being idealistic. Baring that, it may not be less than honorable to think practically and strategically (still knowing that may negatively affect other things in the future). (Please don't read more into this than this specific bill / issue (on my part) - I evaluate things separatly wrt judical activism (good points 7x57), other social issues). Each issue / combination of issues can be evaluated in it's complexity, including future effects, too (yes).

IMHO.

dfletcher
02-28-2009, 9:07 PM
Here's the vote (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00072) for the actual amendment regarding stripping DC gun laws (rather than the final vote on the amended bill).

There goes Gillibrand's 100% NRA rating, that didn't take long. I'm shocked Reid voted for it though.

I suppose Reid voted for it simply because he's part of Senate leadership and doesn't want to be seen on the losing side? I don't know his position in general regarding guns though.

And that was a short honeymoon with Gillibrand - she voted wrong on her first opportunity.

I also noticed that Ted Kennedy was not present, not voting.

hoffmang
03-01-2009, 9:07 AM
Being from Nevada, Reid is actually mostly pro-gun. If he wasn't he'd lose his next election.

-Gene

dfletcher
03-01-2009, 3:24 PM
Being from Nevada, Reid is actually mostly pro-gun. If he wasn't he'd lose his next election.

-Gene


I'm pretty sure he was a Rep in '94 - did he vote for or against the Clinton AWB?

Citizen Snips
03-01-2009, 3:37 PM
It's too bad about Gillibrand. I knew something was fishy when around the time of her appointment she only mentioned rights of hunters and we all know what code/doublespeak that is for. Still good news for DC residents, the mass adoption of screwy CA laws was daft after having lost the Heller case. Here's to hoping for good news from Nordyke.

hoffmang
03-01-2009, 4:28 PM
I'm pretty sure he was a Rep in '94 - did he vote for or against the Clinton AWB?

He claims he voted against but I haven't looked it up.

-Gene

dfletcher
03-02-2009, 6:57 PM
A week or so old, but haven't seen it posted:

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/reid-joins-pelosi-in-opposing-weapons-ban-revival-2009-02-26.html

According to the article Reid voted against the 94 AWB and opposed reviving it in 04.