"We want in to vote Democrat! Count us as we destroy you!"
Posted on 07/08/2019 5:52:33 PM PDT by SMGFan
Pelosi announces plans for full House vote in dear colleague letter, also outlining legislative steps to protect migrants
The House will “soon” vote to hold Attorney General William Barr and Commerce Secretary William Ross in contempt of Congress for defying subpoenas for documents explaining the administration’s rationale for wanting to add a citizenship question to the census, Speaker Nancy Pelosi wrote in a “Dear Colleague” letter on Monday.
The Oversight and Reform Committee last month approved a contempt resolution against Barr and Ross that included language to refer the matter to the U.S. attorney in Washington for possible criminal charges, as well as authorize the pursuit of a lawsuit.
The Justice and Commerce departments have provided the Oversight Committee with some documents on the citizenship question while withholding others over claims of executive privilege.
The House, in a floor vote the day before the Oversight contempt markup, already gave all committees the authority to file lawsuits to enforce their subpoenas.
That means a floor vote is not needed for Democrats to try to get a court order forcing Barr and Ross to hand over the outstanding documents they requested.
(Excerpt) Read more at rollcall.com ...
As Barr has said in response to these threats in the past: “Did you bring handcuffs?”
What number of contempt charges are they up to now with Attorney General Barr?
You can't just stop reading at the first comma. That's what the liberals do.
If you keep reading, the fuller context of the section becomes clear that it's for the purpose of ensuring that the right to vote is not infringed. The section lays out the penalty to the states for infringing on their citizens' right to vote by proportionally reducing their representation by the percentage of infringed voters to the total eligible voters. You can't assess that without counting voters, that is, citizens.
Furthermore, let's say that the argument becomes that blacks vote in such high numbers today that any disenfranchised black voters would be such a small number relative to the whole to be essentially meaningless, making the counting of citizens for this purpose essentially meaningless.
The rebuttal to this would be several:
-PJ
"We want in to vote Democrat! Count us as we destroy you!"
rhetorical....18 electoral votes lost to dems
Did Obana follow the law ? Maybe the removal was illegally done.
The Criminal Contempt Democrat House will vote to hold anyone who blocks their Pedophile Privilege in criminal contempt.
The problem is not so much that illegals might vote, but that without the population based grants and programs, the rest of us in undercounted states will be paying for emergency room visits, traffic accidents, public schools, etc. used by non-citizens even ones that are not illegal.
>
I don’t know what the f**k is wrong with half this country that they vote for these Commucrats.
>
A: ‘Cuz ~50% (isn’t it over that by now?) have NO ‘skin in the game’. They’re going to vote against their ‘freebies’??
>These people don’t give a rat’s rear end about the country!
Leftists don’t. SEE: Venezuela, or Cuba, or....Jewels of the Caribbean/Central America until their Socialists+ promised FREE (and voted in time and time again).
Now they're just trying to see how high they can push President Trump's reelection victory.
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.
The point is reinforced, that representation should only be apportioned (i.e. allocated) based on the citizen population of the states.
The 14th Amendment was all about citizenship and primarily added to the Constitution to make sure black males born in the country were recognized, and counted (i.e. "WHOLE") as a citizen. Why does the 14th Amendment use the word "whole" more than once? Because the original Constitution counted blacks as 3/5's a person [1], which was done primarily to prevent the south from having even more power (i.e. Representatives in the House). Imagine how difficult it would have been to eventually eliminate slavery if the south had more political power during those years!
Since the 14th Amendment, the 19th Amendment was passed to allow women to vote in state and federal elections (they could already vote in some local elections much earlier) [2]
This is indeed proof that if a census is to be used to apportion, or determine the number of, House of Reps by state, that citizenship is the qualifier and therefore must be included on any census in order to justify the number of Reps based on number of citizens.
As you pointed out in the lower portion of your post, I removed the words "male" due to the 19th amendment obviating them. I didn't want them to obscure the point being made, which is that section 2 was about counting citizens for representation purposes, not just "persons."
-PJ
that should be our theme song everywhere the Deplorables gather.
Fights are never glorious except in ballads and movies. This time it will likely be bloody.
Thanks for posting this! And keep praying.
Could Trump enact an executive order on the census siting the 14th?
Somehow pointing out the rats have abandoned the blacks for the hispanics, very, very delicately?
Orrrr just using the 14th and citizenship?
Executive Orders are limited to instructing the Executive branch on how to carry out legislation passed by Congress. It has to cite the relevant federal code that authorizes the order.
However, the Constitution is supreme Law of the Land, and an Executive Order written to conform with a Constitutional requirement would be entirely appropriate, to me, as it is superior to any law enacted by Congress.
-PJ
-—Wait till Congress gets dissolved and charged with treason. Looking forward to rounding these scum up.——
LOL...what awesome drugs are you taking ?
Not drugs a$$hole. Some of us know what’s going on. Keep your eye on Epstein and learn.
+100000000
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.