Open thread: First lady edition
From Reuters: The Senate has approved congressional voting rights for Washington, D.C. The House is expected to follow suit. And President Barack Obama has promised to sign legislation that grants such rights to D.C. But opponents of such rights likely would sue on constitutional grounds, claiming the Constitution grants congressional voting rights only to states — not cities or districts.
The measures would grant the district a voting member of the House.
Should D.C. have a voting member in Congress?
And, according to this AP story, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has lifted the ban on photographing the flag-draped coffins of soldiers killed in action. But family members of the dead soldiers must give approval before photographers will be admitted to the ceremonies at Dover Air Force Base, Delaware.
Meanwhile, the Christian Science Monitor drops in on St. Louis and its schools. In a quick-hitter, it seems to frown on the Special Administrative Board prohibiting charter schools from opening in any school buildings it sells.
And, seriously, is everything so sunny and perfect in Utah that the folks there don’t have more serious issues to talk about?
And, speaking ofr first ladies, former FL Laura Bush will be on ABC tonight and tomorrow to talk about life after the White House.
Jamie Riley is the P-D letters editor and gatekeeper of the letters blog. Before joining the editorial page in May 2005, she was a reporter and page designer. Jamie lives in University City with her husband, Charles, daughter, Elise, and the world's best Jack Russell terrier, Logan, better known as Stinky. 
D.C. should get a representative when the St. Louis Country Club gets one. This is like asking for a seat designated for the Democrat party. It will be quickly overturned by the Court. Shame on Orin Hatch for making this possible.
D.C. should have a representative, but no senators. I’ve heard that’s the fear: the one will prompt the other. Also, what does it matter what the Constitution says in this regard? We know it’s a living, breathing document, and some things change over time. Obviously, the district is no longer what it was when the Constitution was approved.
Good point, EJ. I hadn’t considered that. How will you feel when they tell you society has evolved to a point where that pesky First Amendment really doesn’t work anymore.
jjk, they are already working on that. The Fairness Doctrine will be coming soon.
WOW, the Constitution, a living, breathing document…..right out of the liberal playbook…..How does the country song go, “if you don’t stand for something, you will fall for anything” Constitution, by definition, is the rigid core of a person, state or country, the ‘line in the sand’, not something that just blows in the wind of the current fad. Yes, it can be altered, as our certainly has…….but under the SPECIFic rules as to HOW. Read it fool, it will tell you, and that is ALL that is Constitutional.
jjk… I think it’s obvious the growth of the District of Columbia is different than the right embedded in the First Amendment. Tartan… You’re going to call me `a fool’ and then quote a country song? Quite telling. And, by the way, I have read the Constitution.
I am with you jjk. the constitution seems to be just words for liberals, and they always try unconstitutional ways to try and back door their agenda. this is just another attempt to ignore our laws, the rule of law, and the foundation of our nation by liberals. if DC residents want representation so much, they should move to a state, and leave the federal enclave of DC. if they don’t like that idea, perhaps they should amend the constitution to reduce the size of the federal enclave, and return the land to the surrounding states, that donated the land at the birth of this nation, so those residents can be represented by those state senators and representatives from virginia, maryland, and delaware.
Thanks JJK! Yeah, i love the whole ‘living and breathing’ thing the left talks about…but only when it comes to taking away rights. I’ve wondered what their response would be to taking away first amendment rights…or perhaps we could go back to slavery (oooops…. we’re already on the road to serfdom).
There is a way to change the Constitution. If they want to give DC reps and senators, they can do that by amending the Constitution.
Matt… As I wrote before, there’s a big difference between the growth of the district since this country was started and the certain right that jjk was referring to that is guaranteed by the First Amendment. Society changes in concrete ways, as the district has. I’m sure the founding fathers didn’t foresee the development of the district as it is today. Sure, nearly all issues dealing with the U.S. Constitution should require the passage of an amendment, but this isn’t one of them. I also find it laughable that conservatives would now be staunchly defending a piece of paper that Dubya saw fit to wipe his butt with the past eight years. Where were your wails then?
Missouribroker… Funny how so many people only have the courage to speak their mind under a pseudonym. Thanks for joining the team of the Cowardly Conservative Lions.