dc_dux

The question of a voting delegate in the House is NOT clearly unconstitutional. Many constitutial scholars on both ends of the political spectrum refer to the "seat of government" clause as giving Congress the power:

Artice I, section 8
Clause 17: To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--

This same clause has been used in the past to justify requiring DC residents to pay federal taxes (can I stop paying my fed taxes now?) and be drafted into the military (when we had a draft).

The bill also adds a seat to Utah - a presumed R seat to balance a presumed D seat so how is it partisan or for a political gain rather than to give ME something approaching the same rights YOU have.

I recall the Repub co-sponsor of the bill saying at one time that the reason for the bill, rather than another attempt at a Constitutional amendment (which failed in the past) is because there are many still state legislators, particularly in red states, who make it racial (like you) and equate it with a "black vote" rather than a prvilege of citizenship that should be extended to all citizens.

I agree the Plame and Gore testimony were one-day "shows.

In the case of Plame, I think it was reasonable to give her an opportunity to refute the blatantly false charges against her spread by the right wing. In Gore's case, I would simply refer you back to the global warming hearings conducted by the Repubs.

I guess mismanagement or incompetence by the AG, misleading, contradictory and false information by persons, including the AG, greater potential for undue political influence by dropping the DoJ/WH firewall, and potential ethical violations of members of Congress....does not meet your threshold for oversight. I couldnt disagree more.

How about the 8 Clinton judicial nominees who were never given a hearing by the Repubs....8 lifetime judges vs 1 beaurocrat for 2 years...I would suggest the Repubs got the best of this exchange.

But you're right. They should have had a hearing, then voted him down in committee because his goal is not to protect and ensure the credible administration of SS , but to dismantle the current system.
Rep. David Hobson (R-OH) was also on that trip. But in an interview published in the WaPo, he states that he never received any of the attacks that were thrown at Pelosi:

“Before we left, we met with the State Department people and nobody told us not to go,” Hobson said, adding that none of his Republican colleagues broached the subject, either. “Nobody ever called me to say, ‘Why are you going to Syria with those people?’“

Hobson has also defended Pelosi against his colleagues’ attacks, noting that she “did not engage in any bashing of Bush in any meeting I was in and she did not in any meeting I was in bash the policies as it relates to Syria.”

The Repub attaks of Pelosi and not Hobson or the group of Repubs who went to Syria one month earlier (do you think their trip was "purely political" or just Pelosi's) is about as hypocritical and ugly partisanship as anything I have seen recently.

ace...I would still ask...what is your test for reasonable and responsible oversight?

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire