Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Melian
Here is the problem with Kirk's view. It comes from Article I, Section 2 of the US Constitution.
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.

Illegals are among the whole number of free persons, like it or not. However, an argument can be made that illegals fit under the Three Fifths Rule.

For Kirk to get what he wants, the Constitution must be amended to permit it.

1,695 posted on 02/23/2024 9:30:13 AM PST by Publius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1684 | View Replies ]


To: Publius

And, in today’s environment of fluid definitions and Humpty-Dumpty lawyers, who is meant by “freeperson”?

To have not surrendered life, liberty and property to any man or a tyrannical government could fit.
[Yes, I am a fan of Locke over Jefferson]

By that definition, illegal asylum seekers are certainly not free but dependent on the US Government (CBP) for their life, liberty and property.
By that definition, I am a freeperson while my wife is not.


1,708 posted on 02/23/2024 11:45:33 AM PST by Cletus.D.Yokel (When I say "We" I speak of, -not for-, "We the People")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1695 | View Replies ]

To: Publius

“Illegals are among the whole number of free persons, like it or not.”

Wrong.
They are Indians not taxed.


1,759 posted on 02/23/2024 6:23:02 PM PST by Farcesensitive (K is coming)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1695 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson