Posted on 09/10/2020 6:53:38 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
“Three-fifths compromise, compromise agreement between delegates from the Northern and the Southern states at the United States Constitutional Convention (1787) that three-fifths of the slave population would be counted for determining direct taxation and representation in the House of Representatives.”
Once again, the courts twist the “Whole
Number of Persons” clause.
>>They should not affect a states population where the number of rpresentatives are concerned
Since this is equivalent of adding the population count of Mexico to California, and the population of Somalia to Minnesota, then perhaps we should add the population count of China to Texas, the population count of Russia to Montana, and so on until the blue states are reduced to a single rep each.
Sauce for the goose and all that..
Simple, it is in the Constiution - Article 1 Section 2
The are exclusions to being counted listed in the section.
However “non-citizens” or “illegal aliens” are NOT part of those exclusions. I have no problem with what the President wants to do, but it would require a Constitutional amendment to make it a lawful action.
The constitution implies that ‘everyone’ should be counted, but it also excludes groups from being used for the apportionment. Keep reading.
This part is quoted:
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.
And this part is ignored:
But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
The sex references being altered by the 19th, and the age parts by the 26th Amendment.
That's why it's called the Rule of Exclusion
• § 207. XIII. Another rule of interpretation deserves consideration in regard to the constitution. There are certain maxims, which have found their way, not only into judicial discussions, but into the business of common life, as founded in common sense, and common convenience.
Thus, it is often said, that in an instrument a specification of particulars is an exclusion of generals; or the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another. Lord Bacon's remark, "that, as exception strengthens the force of a law in cases not excepted, so enumeration weakens it in cases not enumerated," has been perpetually referred to, as a fine illustration.
Justice Joseph Story on Rules of Constitutional Interpretation, 1833
-------
Since neither “non-citizens” nor “illegal aliens” are included, they are automatically excluded by default.
You are correct, however, “illegal aliens” or non-citizens is NOT one of those exclusions.
Keep reading
Incorrect.
The language is:
... according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons ...
The whole number of free persons includes citizens and non-citizens.
They are inhabitants, not allowed to vote.
Districts which have an overabundance of illegal residents should not benefit by increased representation.
Article 1 Section 2 does not provide exclusions for “inhabitants” and/or those not allowed to vote.
Article 1 Section 2 (in part)
...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. ....
Article 1 Section 2 does not provide exclusions for “inhabitants” and/or those not allowed to vote.
I’ll simplify:
“But when the right to vote at any election for [various officers, federal and state] is denied to any of the [...] inhabitants of such State, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such [...] shall bear to the whole number of [...] citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.”
The clause that you cite is structured as (qualifyer clause)
“But when the right to vote at any election for [various officers, federal and state] is denied to any of the [...] inhabitants of such State”
That means that the condition stated must be present in order for the remainder of the clause to take effect.
I am unaware, and do not believe, that any State currently qualifies for the rest of the clause to take effect as there is no (to my knowledge) state that meets the condition of that clause.
Continuing -
Reducing the representation requires a total count to be reduced.
In summary,
1) there is a constitutional REQURIEMENT for a total count
2) the representation may be reduced if certain conditions are met.
Those conditions are not currently being met. However, the DOJ can certainly go to court and argue that they are being met and make the case. However, the requirement is to count everyone not just citizens.
Now understand, I am of the opinion that ONLY citizens should be counted. However, the current Constitution wording is against my viewpoint. I would certainly support changing the Constitution via an ammendment to change the required to counting citzens.
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.