[hanamizu]

It is also wrong to use the population of people, instead of the population of resident citizens in a state, to determine the number of representatives for that state.

---

That makes sense, but the Constitution called for the count of people in the census, not citizens. After all, slaves, definitely not citizens were specifically included in the count for representation. (Yes, I know, 60%, but counted nonetheless.)

[piasa]

But it wasn’t the slaves who benefited from it. The benefit of representation only went to the slave owners. There was no incentive for a legislator to serve a population that cannot vote, and the added representation was for the slave owners not for the slave. It was actually more harmful to the slave than if he hadn’t been “represented” at all. It was also an attack on the legal representation of those opposed to slavery because it used stolen representation to dilute the voting power of legal antislavery citizens.

[Sgt_Schultze]

...slaves, definitely not citizens were specifically included in the count for representation.

I agree with that reading, but at the time, but for their skin color, slaves would have been citizens. It's understandable their inclusion was intended as a result of the 14A. But counting bodies without consideration of their legal status can't be in the spirit of what intended in the 14A. There is no rationale for giving illegals representation in the government of this country. I hope Trump's administration finds a way to get this to the SC for a definitive determination.

[rfp1234]

This requires a new Amendment.