Posted on 06/28/2019 10:51:04 AM PDT by fightin kentuckian
The whole citizenship question is predicated on a much larger question: Do you count illegals for the apportionment of Representatives. Quite simply I say it’s unconstitutional for many reasons but the best reason is the constitution itself and the intent of the founding fathers. I wrote this to a lib friend of mine. Have a read and let me know what you think.
Honestly, do you really think that the founding fathers were in Philly, debating and drawing up the Constitution and B. Franklin says something like “What if we include illegal people for the purpose of apportionment of Representatives” and G. Washington, says “I fought the best army in the world and kicked it’s ass, and during that war we lost lots of American lives in order to create this new nation and you want to count people from other countries who have absolutely no loyalty to this country, and they take and don’t contribute, they are a burden to society, a burden that a young nation cannot bare unless it comes to ruin, and you want to count them for apportionment of Representatives....hmmm, yea, I kinda like that Benji, lets run with that.” And Hamilton says, “Effin A Benji, I’m with you. Lets count illegals for apportionment, I love the idea for the reasons George just laid out!”
You gotta be kidding me if you think counting illegals is constitutional, because if you do then you believe this scenario actually happened. hahahaha.
“Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.”
The Federalist papers might be a good place to start.
Yup.
All the “explanations” like “we count people, not citizens!” are crap; the two items were synonymous for the Founders.
The only relevant debates are the ones over counting slaves. The people who actually thought up the Constitution wanted to have nothing to do with that; they were blackmailed by the Southern Plantation owner representatives who were only scheming for more political power. Instead of 3/5ths for slaves it shoulda been ZERO. Ain’t no way people who had no say in the society should have been counted.
And it’s the same for illegals, who are even worse: they weren’t dragged here, they broke in. Does that make them part of the family?
Do you count illegals for the apportionment of Representatives. Quite simply I say it’s unconstitutional...
Counting them is ok, just not including them in what is called the ‘Apportionment Population’ is the key, and this is why the citizenship question has been on the census in one form or another for 220 years except for 2010 when Obama had Rahm Emanuel take it out completely (long form).
Obama did that so that the illegal population would be included in the Apportionment Population which in turn would impact the apportionment of representatives to Congress.
Only citizens are entitled to representation in Congress but democrats are hell-bent towards getting the 10 million to 15 million illegals counted for apportionment.
Even worse any child they drop out 10 minutes after breaking in is eligible to be President according to some around here.
You have provided the answer. All persons were accounted for. Free persons included Indentured Servants. Indians not taxed belonged to their native nation and were not taxed and were represented by their Chiefs who interacted with the United States via treaties.
Those counted as three fifths of their totals were Slaves. Slaves were certainly not citizens, but they were counted none the less. The reason was that the slave states insisted upon this provision so that thereby, they could increase their political power. This is the same reason that Democrat urban enclaves insist that all persons, including illegal immigrants, be counted. Those areas with none or few illegal immigrants don’t like this. Imagine that.
Women, were always considered citizens, slaves, or Indians as appropriate and were counted. But, women citizens were not allowed to vote and therefore could not participate in the selection of their representative. Just like slaves and Indians.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union... do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Article I Section 2
The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States...
The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made...
Illegal aliens cannot vote, therefore they should not be counted for the apportionment of Representatives, because it dilutes the franchise of republican representation entitled to voting citizens of the United States.
-PJ
The Constitution says that all free persons shall be counted for representation. It says nothing about being citizens. If they could have foreseen our current situation, they may well have worded it differently, but they didn’t. Everyone gets counted.
Yep! But then, at least 50% of everything the various levels of government in the U.S. do is unconstitutional...
When the country transitioned form a Constitutional Republic to a democracy it was guaranteed that the original "Constitutional" government would become a "tyrannical" government...
“form” —> from
I don't think that you can defend that assertion. Slaves were not citizens, but they were counted as people (3/5 of the total). Indentured servants were probably citizens, but there may be an argument over that. Indians were not citizens, but if were taxed (not living on Indian land, and not claiming to be a member of an Indian tribe)they were counted.
The mandate was to count everyone.
It’s common sense but common sense seems to have been purposely flushed down the toilet for politics.
“The Constitution says that all free persons shall be counted for representation. It says nothing about being citizens. If they could have foreseen our current situation, they may well have worded it differently, but they didn’t. Everyone gets counted.”
This leads back to my original statement that the intent of the Constitution and Founding Fathers is that illegals will not be counted for apportionment. They wouldn’t count illegals for the same reason given for not counting untaxed Indians. You haven’t proven that wrong. You’ve simply restated the dem talking points which ignore constitutional truths.
Half the Supreme Court justices have succumbed to the disease of decadence--the decadence of Western Civilization--the destroyer of civilizations.
They cannot understand their own madness.
I don’t think they counted blacks until they were freed.
We don’t have a country worth much at all anymore. It is more like a zoo or a freak show.
The Federalist Papers are nice but they aren’t legal documents. Certainly interesting but they have no weight in determining what is constitutional.
Crystal
“The Federalist Papers are nice but they aren’t legal documents. Certainly interesting but they have no weight in determining what is constitutional.”
That’s wholly inaccurate. The Federalist Papers were a series of advertisements/news articles written mainly by Jay and Adams to influence the ratification process of the newly written Constitution. They were meant to clarify questions that people had regarding the Constitution.
Who art thou who knows so little of American history but speaks with the confidence of Obama?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.