Posted on 12/01/2020 2:19:28 AM PST by Be Careful
The Supreme Court heard oral argument on Monday in Trump v. New York, the challenge to the Trump administration’s plan to exclude people who are in the United States illegally from the state-by-state breakdown used to allocate seats in the House of Representatives. The stakes are high in the case: If the justices allow the administration to implement the plan before it leaves office in January, states with large immigrant populations could lose political power, while states with fewer immigrants could gain it. After over 90 minutes of debate, several justices seemed skeptical of the legality of President Donald Trump’s plan. But they spent relatively little time on that topic, focusing instead on whether the Supreme Court could or should weigh in now, and by the end it seemed very possible that they may not resolve the merits of the case immediately – if at all.
(Excerpt) Read more at scotusblog.com ...
Who writes this slop?
It's against the law for illegal immigrants to vote. They are not supposed to have political power. Period. Legal immigrants are already counted in the census so what is the problem here?
Well stated. My first thought as well.
SCOTUS blog strikes me as a cabal of liberals.
Re: “What is the problem?”
From memory - the exact language in the Constitution is that the Census must count “all persons present” in each state.
From memory - Trump originally attempted to get a separate count for illegals, and one or more federal courts forbade that question.
As far as counting illegal aliens for the purpose of representation, I do not think that exact issue has ever been litigated.
Chance of you being wrong is less than 10%. Law school has as many liberals as school of journalism. From professors down to students.
Illegal aliens are only visiting here.
It’s not about voting. It’s about proportioning congressional representation based on number of persons, versus number of illegal persons. In Calif for instance, not counting illegals would result in Calif losing 3 congressional seats. The same likely for NY.
"Assume" makes an ass out of YOU, Amy Howe...
America KNOWS Roberts is corrupt, bought, perverted,
and obstructs justice since NWO owns him lock, stock
and balls.
How many more hidden [F]-paid, Epstein-Island drunk,
are there under those very TREASONOUS and
SEDITIOUS BLACKROBES.
“Illegal aliens are only visiting here”.
Bring back the Draft!
I honestly don’t, and never have understood why this is even an argument.
If someone wants to argue that the status of illegals should be changed, that is their fantasy, have at it if they have nothing better to do, though it fans the contempt of any true American for them.
Illegal. Illegal. Illegal. What is it that they don’t understand?
Of course people here illegally should not have any say, none, no matter how small, in the affairs of this country.
It is astonishing and disheartening to me that this is even a court case.
Listened to much of the oral arguments on C-Span last night. It is difficult to imagine any typical American citizen being able to follow the arguments. But it is not difficult to imagine what spin the main stream media would put on things.
The problem is the term “persons” in the Constitutional requirement for apportionment.
Any originalist ruling in this question would be 9-0 against Trump’s position, and since Biden’s inauguration will make the case moot, I’m sure the Court would rather stay out of it.
As always, the founders although good, were lazy and sloppy with their writings. It doesn’t say a thing about voting in the census. It says count heads basically....the founders were never specific on hardly anything. If they really cared, they should have wrote count all citizens. I wish they would have had some foresight on many things like birthright citizenship and some stronger immigration language. Also, English as the official language would have been nice.
states with large immigrant populations could lose political power,
———-
So, states like New York, California and others, who actively flaunt the law and encourage illegal aliens to be present (e.g. bogus “sanctuary” places) are rewarded with more representatives in Congress??!!
Something doesn’t quite add up there...
Probably because in earlier times, no one could have imagined tens of millions of illegal squatters here. I am sure when they wrote the Constitution, they never imagined such a sorry state.
LOL! The problem is, the larger the “legit” population, the more electoral votes they get.
Who writes this slop?
It’s against the law for illegal immigrants to vote. They are not supposed to have political power. Period. Legal immigrants are already counted in the census so what is the problem here?
Yep. It would be like claiming that in 1940 German soldiers should be counted in the French census.
I highly doubt that early censuses counted people visiting the US who were visiting or illegally here. We don’t count vacationers in the US in the census, even today.
“Persons present,” in “Originalist speak,” would be legally present citizens and US residents.
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.