Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Guns and Roses From Kwame Brown

At-Large D.C. Councilmember Kwame Brown has an idea on how to fight for voting rights and statehood.

Brown, who sits on the council's new special statehood committee, has an answer to the run rider that Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) attached to the D.C. vote bill. Ensign vexed District legislators and residents with an amendment that would strip D.C. of much of its gun-regulating abilities.

Yesterday, Brown wrote to House Leader Steny Hoyer (D) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D) with his idea: introduce legislation to regulate the sex trade in states like Nevada.

"I recommend you cointroduce the "Roses Amendment." The "Roses Amendment" would revise the Mann Act by prohibiting U.S. citizens from crossing state borders to solicit sex in states where prostitution is legal," Brown wrote, elaborating on restricting Internet traffic as well.

Brown concludes: "If we must compromise our local governing authority in order to satisfy the moral arguments of a few representatives, I believe it is reasonable to ask them to consider our moral values in return. Therefore, I believe we should fight guns with roses and continue moving the DC Voting Rights Act forward."

Click here to read the entire letter.

By Marcia Davis  |  March 26, 2009; 9:00 AM ET
Categories:  Voting Rights  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Budget Battles Continue for City
Next: No More Money For Burials?

Comments

I'm sorry. But every time I read something that K. Brwon has said or even hear his voice during council hearings, I just can't help remembering that infamous vote of "present" at Nickles confirmation. From that point on I've not been able to entertain that he might be saying something valuable because when it came to voting for the people's interest, he blew it. He can never get a vote from me or members of my family ever again

Posted by: candycane1 | March 26, 2009 9:29 AM | Report abuse

Someone on his staff seems to be quite clever...

Posted by: LoveDC2 | March 26, 2009 9:51 AM | Report abuse

How is it clever to propose a total waste of time like this? He is useless, though "present."

Posted by: mendelsonmustgo | March 26, 2009 10:52 AM | Report abuse

What a waste of time and total lack of surprise. Internet = 1st Amendment, arms = 2nd Amendment. If Brown understood the Congress at all, he'd know that this would have NO support, unlike the support Congress has for the Bill of Rights.

Posted by: Timmeroo | March 26, 2009 11:01 AM | Report abuse

Way to go. I am glad to see Kwame engaged and pushing for change. He is doing what I voted him to do...represent everyday folks like me...be a voice for those who do not a have a voice but we have a vote.

Posted by: dcvoter_waitingforvotingrights | March 26, 2009 11:35 AM | Report abuse

Hoyer and Norton have not been able to get enough votes to secure a "closed rule" on the DC Vote legislation. To get the bill passed, they either need to find some magical way to get a closed rule on this legislation without the NRA scoring it (unlikely), or they need to allow the legislation to go to the floor with an "open rule".

If they agree to allow a vote on the bill with an "open rule", it'll pass with a gun amendment identical to the US Senate's, meaning no conference committee and no chance to get rid of the gun amendment.

However, an amendment like this is guaranteed passage. A vote against the so called "roses" amendment would be a vote for prostitution. Who in Congress wants to defend prostitution?

With both amendments tacked on, we get a different version than the Senate bill, triggering a conference. The conference committee would give us another chance to strip all the unrelated amendments from the DC Vote bill.

Posted by: nwrepresent1 | March 26, 2009 12:09 PM | Report abuse

Oh, what a bunch of crabby patties! The argument presented earlier is useless. Promoting our interests (meaning the interests of DC residents) begins with voting rights and continues with finding ways to grow our local economy. At least Kwame Brown works to achieve both. A vote ‘present’ for Nickles doesn’t diminish that. His approaches may seem a little odd, but you can’t hate the man for trying to stop what has become a ridiculous method to control the nation’s capitol once again…

Posted by: sjwhatevau03 | March 26, 2009 12:34 PM | Report abuse

I am thrilled to see an outside-the-box solutions to this offensive gun amendment to the DC Voting Rights Bill. I would like to how many members of the GOP will choose hookers over guns. If this ammendment goes through, I think we will see a quiet withdrawal this gun ammendment.

Posted by: KwameFan | March 26, 2009 1:39 PM | Report abuse

Wawwwwwwwww! He wants What he wants when he wants it! Wawwwwww! So Mary Cheh, Phil Mendelson, Vincent Gray and now Kwame Brown are all neophytes when it comes to the inter workings of the congress. Guess that bachelor of arts in marketing gives Kwame superior ideas in political science or is it Mr. Gray's lies that are the psychology behind fooling the masses into believing that not having a 2nd amendment right is the right thing.
Shame on Mary Cheh since she is actually a lawyer but still deceives the public with her fear mongering she knows not to be true. Guess her opinions trump her education.
As for Mr. Mendelson; he is a true politician willing to do anything to promote his stubborn beliefs.

Posted by: civilrightist | March 26, 2009 3:12 PM | Report abuse

Where in the United States Constitution does it say that all individuals have a right to prostitution? No where, that is something the states CAN regulate on an individual basis. Where does it says in the US Constitution that individuals have right to keep an bear arms? 2nd amendment; the states and DC cannot regulate or infringe on this right.
Kwame, get real or at least stop exposing your sophomoric tendencies.

Posted by: civilrightist | March 26, 2009 3:37 PM | Report abuse

Apparently Councilman Brown not only wants to deny District Residents their constitutional rights, but he’s also a budding monopolist. His “Roses Amendment” would prohibit crossing state lines to solicit prostitution in STATES where prostitution is legal. If he’s successful, no doubt he’ll be getting lobbied by his constituents on 14th Street to legalize prostitution in the District, which—because it’s NOT a state—would be the only city in the Nation that would be exempt under his amendment. Who knows? When all’s said and done he might even find his burning ardor for D.C. statehood cooling, or at least re-directed elsewhere.

Posted by: Hoya74 | March 26, 2009 7:56 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company