Posted on 03/07/2019 9:04:59 AM PST by RideForever
Political scientists predicted in court testimony that California would lose billions in federal funds plus at least one and possibly as many as three seats in the House — and the same number of electoral votes — if the citizenship question were to be used next year.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Ask the question! And stop asking about black/white/asian etc.
Included in the total pop counts to allocate House Districts among the Sates?
Used for drawing State Congressional District Boundaries?
Article I, Section 2 says "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." Now obviously the 3/5ths clause was done away with by the 13th and 14th Amendments but it doesn't say anything about not counting non-citizens, legal or otherwise.
No doubt this will be appealed.
The constitution has become toilet paper for the socialist RAT!! Let’s face it folks the demonic anti American left along with the RINOS have won!! Before I get scorched/flame, show me ANY EVIDENCE or signs that our base is fighting like hell to stop this madness....We are giving the country away without even a fight!
These F’in black-robed tyrants are pushing their luck. How long will it take for one person with nothing to lose to start... doing something?
“This needs to go to the Supremes.”
Why? What possible business do the courts have in this issue?
The judge needs to be ignored or better yet rounded up in the dead of the night and sent to gitmo
The Constitution applies only to citizens of The United States of America. Illegal aliens owe their allegiance to foreign nations. The census being part of the Constitution only applies to citizens that are under it’s power.
“excluding Indians not taxed”
Inasmuch as illegal immigrants from Latin America are mostly of Indian genetic inheritance and mostly net tax-consumers rather than taxpayers I think a case can be made for excluding them in determining House apportionment.
Mexicans are predominantly of native american extract of an aztec strain. Since they are illegally here, they are not taxed. Constitution intent: don't count non-citizens that aren't part of mainstream American society.
From what I hear the dems have many cases on this in front of judges all over the country. Several lawless courts have already ruled that the Question cannot be asked. One case is going to be heard by the USSC next month.
“Excluding Indians not taxed” could be used to make a good case for including the question. Indians not taxed were excluded as they were not citizens - that is, they were beholden to another government, not the US government first. That was one of the reasons the question was included until the Democrats started to complain that it was hindering their take over plans.
2020 will be the biggest battle this country ever fought. The left is harvesting millions of voters from illegals to felons and even trying to drive the voting age down. We have a short time to prepare but it may be too late.
Constitutionally low-information California elected leaders need to wise up on the constitutional reality that California taxpayers are probably paying billions in unconstitutional federal taxes, taxes that the post-17th Amendment ratification Congress cannot justify under its constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers, such “federal” taxes arguably stolen state revenues.
"Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States."—Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
Also, the citizenship question on census is constitutionally very important for the following reason imo.
From related threads …
Section 2 of the 14th Amendment describes a penalty for activist states that attempt to weaken the voting power of citizens in order to try to swing the outcome of an election.
”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 [emphasis added] twenty-one years of age in such State."
Regarding Section 2 of 14A, the congressional record shows that post-Civil War federal constitutional lawmakers had pointed out not only that ONLY citizens have the right to vote, but when a renegade state lets undocumented Democrats vote (my wording) the state is effectively nullifying the Constitution’s “uniform Rule of Naturalization” clause (1.8.4).
"Article I, Section 8, Clause 4: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;"
" If the States can admit to the elective franchise those who are not citizens, thereby neutralizing the votes of citizens, not only the Federal power of naturalization becomes a nullity, but” * * * * "a minority of citizens by the aid of aliens may control the government of the States, and through the States the government of the Union [emphasis added]." —Appendix to the Congressional Globe, 1868. (See near middle of 1st column.)
" Whatever difference there may be as to what other right appertain to a citizen, all must agree that he has the right to petition and also to claim the Protection of the Government. These belong to him as a member the body politic, and the possession of them is what separates citizens of the lowest condition from aliens and slaves. To suppose that a State can make an alien a citizen or confer on him the right of voting would involve the absurdity of giving him the direct and immediate control of the action of the General Government [emphasis added], from which he can claim no protection and to which he has no right to present a petition." —Appendix to the Congressional Globe, 1868. (See bottom half of 1st column.)
It's not surprising that PDJT is keeping his eyes open for Democratic voter fraud in 2020 elections. And I question of the judge’s decision concerning the citizenship question on census is a prelude to such fraud.
“Excluding Indians not taxed” is a HUGELY important phrase. They weren’t counted.
For 200 years, non citizens didn’t vote. Apportionment in the house of rep was to set the voting power of the citizens in each state. The 3/5 clause was put in to dilute the power of the vote in heavily populated slave states. The slaves were seen as non voting citizens.
It is hard to see any rational reason for counting illegals in the census. But, democrats are irrational.
It takes numbers to fight back, sadly we lack them. At best at least 15% of Republicans would fit right in with RATS if they lived in any ‘Blue’ state.
Still aren't.
For 200 years, non citizens didn’t vote.
Still don't. Not legally.
The 3/5 clause was put in to dilute the power of the vote in heavily populated slave states.
Actually it was put in to increase the power of the slave states. Since a slave was property then they had no need for congressional representation. By rights they should not have been counted at all. The 3/5ths was a compromise.
The slaves were seen as non voting citizens.
Slaves were not seen as citizens at all.
It is hard to see any rational reason for counting illegals in the census.
Because the Constitution says to.
This will get fast-tracked to the USSC.
Lots of lawsuits over the years about ‘taxation without representation’.
This seems to be “Representation without taxation”.....
OK. Provide the context that says illegals shouldn't be included in the census count.
Of course they're taxed. They have the same obligation to pay taxes as any native born citizen.
There may be more tax avoidance because they often work under the table but they're subject to the same penalties as anyone else if they get caught.
” If the States can admit to the elective franchise those who are not citizens, thereby neutralizing the votes of citizens, not only the Federal power of naturalization becomes a nullity, but” * * * * “a minority of citizens by the aid of aliens may control the government of the States, and through the States the government of the Union [emphasis added].” —Appendix to the Congressional Globe, 1868. (See near middle of 1st column.)
Good post. I see our resident trolls have ignored your post.
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.