And decides to accept that reality and not pursue a court challenge.

Ugh.  Another public display of indignation from another Illinois governor wannabe.  Note to Illinois: a perfectly viable remedy exists.  Have the legislature pass a law for a special election.  Then have the executive sign and enforce the law.  Notice that none of this requires involving the court system.

No it clarifies that DC was not entitled to a Rep or Senators because it's not a state.  I also find it amusing that, if DC does get a Rep, would they lose two electoral votes?

And the distinction "people of the several states" vs. "each state" was because the framers mandated that the House be done by popular vote, ergo, "the people".

Amendment 23
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,

Explicit acknowledgment that the District is not a state is not entitled to those Representatives and Senators.

So in your opinion, the 23rd Amendment was uneccessary then?

But if Congress has authority over the DIstrict, they could just pass whatever they wanted.  They could appoint people who they trusted to represent the District.  You can't apply one constitutional formula while ignoring another one.

The question is whether passing this law brings us closer to the situation where DC has voting representation.  I think all this does is just delay for a couple of years the ability to pass a constitutional amendment.  The makeup of the COngress is about as favorable as it ever will be for getting 2/3 of each house in favor of an amendment and wasting time on a clearly unconstitutional legislative effort wastes a rare opportunity.

I think it's based on the theory that Congress' legislative authority over the District gives them the power to do so.  If that were true, why don't they grant the District 100 representatives and a dozen Senators?

As much as this is a good thing, this thing is so unconstitutional I can't even think of a counter argument.  Is there one?

Richardson can go suck an egg

My sentiments exactly.

"Tom made a mistake, which he has openly acknowledged. He has not executed [sic] it, nor do I."

So I'm guessing this is no longer operable...

I have to say, Obama's vaunted "vetting" process has proven to be terrible.

You seem to be trying to argue that criminalization of homosexuality around the world is, in part, caused by Western Christian evangelicals such as Rick Warren.  I am saying that the areas of the world where the laws against homosexuals are the absolute worst correlate with areas of the world where Christian evangelicals have zero influence.  In those areas where Christian evangelicals do have influence, draconian laws against homosexuals came about less because of the influence of those western Christian evangelicals than because of the cultural attitudes already present in those areas.

But the Muslim regions are even worse.  You going to blame those on the Western Christian evangelicals too?