You could nevertheless reasonably interpret “persons” as “Citizens”
After all, this Court somehow found “homosexual marriage” and abortion on demand in the language.
Very few people were eligible to vote in the early days of the U.S., so there was clearly a disconnect between the number of eligible voters and the number of people. Proportional representation was based on population, not voting eligibility.
I'm surprised this case even made it up to the U.S. Supreme Court. The unanimous verdict indicates that this probably wasn't even a matter of serious dispute.
They probably could never imagine the scum we have had in charge the last few decades, who allowed this invasion.
They got it right. Modern culture has been corrupted to view the principle of universal suffrage as a "good" ideal to strive for.
Honestly this is the first time you can actually blame slavery, because that’s likely why it was written like that.
Right. There is a remedy for that -- constitutional amendment.
It also says they are to be counted (like slaves) as 3/5 of a person. Are they doing that?
“Constitution says persons, not citizens.
Our Founding Fathers appear to have actually gotten something wrong there. “
However, at the time of our Constitution being developed, this allowed those who were unable to vote like women, children to be counted. Not sure if they were called citizens if no vote was allowed, though. Same with slaves.
There was one big reason for the disconnect between voting eligibility and counting population for representation purposes back when the Constitution was drafted. The standards for counting population were written into the Constitution, while voting eligibility was not. At that time, voting eligibility was established by state legislatures, not the Federal government.