I don't think having the Senate repeat what the S. Ct. has already said, that you can have guns in DC, is worth the price of pissing on the constitution by allowing a non-state representative to vote in Congress.
Quote:
Article I, Section 2. The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature.
No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen.
Remember, we had to AMEND THE CONSTITUTION to let the residents of the District vote in the presidential election.
Quote:
Amendment XXIII
Section 1. The District constituting the seat of government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct:
A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a state, but in no event more than the least populous state; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the states, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a state; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.
Clearly the District is NOT a state. The 23rd Amdt. wouldn't have hypothesize IF it were a state.
If passed into law, S.160 would be clearly unconstitutional in my opinion.