Posted on 01/25/2024 10:40:44 AM PST by 11th_VA
You are right. The actual text in ‘Numbers’. Don’t know if tourists are counted or not. But it doesn’t negate my point. Illegal as well as legal immigrants are free and are to be counted since they are not non-taxed Indians and they certainly are not ‘Others’ to be counted as 3/5ths. Presenting a bill to Congress to only count citizens is pointless; it would require an amendment.
It seems to me that the 14th Amendment already says that, but it should be made explicit since some people can’t read concepts.
As the 14th Amendment is written, they must be counted, but not considered for apportionment. People keep citing the 14th, and stop their reading and quotations before they get to the end of the section.
Keep reading.
The 3/5 wording is not part of the 14th. Giving that that wording was an anti-slavery compromise, and the 13th outlawed slavery, it wouldn’t even make sense.
14th Amendment, Section 2:
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. 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.
Why do people quote the first sentence and drop the second?
I was basing my argument solely on Article 1, not the 14th Amendment, which basically mirrors the language of Article 1 but dropping the language of the 3/5ths compromise. And as you say, unlike some racial demagogues, the 3/5ths compromise was an anti-slavery measure.
I don’t see why it would require an amendment. One could merely define what “person” means with legislation. I think it’s pretty obvious that the census does not get mailed to hotel rooms despite those people staying in the rooms being free people and in the country legally. One could argue that it is not their legal primary residence. If so, those in the country illegally by definition cannot call wherever they are living their legal primary residence. Regardless, A1S2C3 says this:
“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.”
Or if you take out the time period distraction:
“The actual Enumeration shall be made… in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.”
No amendment required if the law directs actual enumeration to count number of persons living in the country legally.
I agree I don't think legislation can do this. I know its hard but who cares its about time we had a new one.
The problem won't be the dems it will be the GOP.
Something quick and easy would be to stop all federal funding going to state and locals if they give it to illegals.
Turn illegals into a great liability and not an asset and you will see the dems chartering busses to send them to the southern border.
Maybe the Democrats will agree to a three fifths compromise, as their antecedents did.
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.