Trump on track for Supreme Court Victory on Census Citizenship Question

#680
#680
GAVol said:
Doesn't this present a real problem though when it comes to apportioning Congressional seats?
Click to expand...
I can see rationale for apportioning seats based on the number of people living in the district/state.
 
#685
#685
C-south said:
There’s nothing rational about having elected officials represent people here illegally. Or maybe that’s the point for you guys.
Click to expand...
Of course their numbers should factor into representation. They are greatly impacting the areas in which they live.
 
#686
#686
Velo Vol said:
I guess we need to thank the Obama judges for redirecting us to this better method.

Click to expand...

That is Trump at his egotistical best... as has already been pointed out, Trump's executive order from yesterday will not achieve anything which isn't already being done. The Commerce Department issued the same edict last year. It was in effect before this fight for the citizenship question went to federal court. Trump is being dishonest on top of his typically stubborn refusal to acknowledge defeat or admit to an error.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Velo Vol
#687
#687
hog88 said:
I love what the constitution says, quit bastardizing it.

If it constitutional to ask race, sex, age and all the other BS on the long form it’s reasonable to assume it’s constitutional to ask about citizenship.
Click to expand...


Obviously the Constitution neither prohibits it nor mandates it. The question would be on the census if the administration had just added it and hadn't started spiking footballs over what a great victory it will be for GOP representation.
 
#689
#689
Hunerwadel said:
Obviously the Constitution neither prohibits it nor mandates it. The question would be on the census if the administration had just added it and hadn't started spiking footballs over what a great victory it will be for GOP representation.
Click to expand...
It was going to be challenged by the ACLU. No way around that. They should not have built their case around a lie (as told by Ross, that the DOJ had requested the citizenship question be added to help enforce the Voting Rights Act).
 
#691
#691
luthervol said:
They only counted slaves below par value, not all non-citizens. There is indeed clear intent in that counting.
Click to expand...
Still deflecting from the base point. Only citizens of which it was easy to attain then were weighted at full value.

Also since only white men voted and slaves were counted you Democrats were loading the ballot boxes anyway since the slave owners votes were thus weighted more. Looks like you’re back to your old tricks with this “count everybody” agenda!
 
#692
#692
luthervol said:
I can see rationale for apportioning seats based on the number of people living in the district/state.
Click to expand...
Of course you can. Just the modern day implementation of the land/slave owner over weighted vote count.

Ok I support that mentality too. If you are a net zero or negative on Fed income tax liability you don’t get to vote. You can have yours if we can have that.
 
Last edited:
#693
#693
luthervol said:
Do you not think that non-citizens impact a state's infrastructure, schools, taxes, health care, housing, etc...?
Are these not issues important to the citizens of that state?
Click to expand...

I’m saying they shouldn’t. So are many citizens of every state.
 
#694
#694
GAVol said:
Call it what it is..... Dirty all the way around.

One side is trying to suppress the count to change the Congressional seat and federal money allocation. The other side is trying exploit the count to maintain and manipulate Congressional seats and money allocation.
Click to expand...
Disagree. You want the correct count, for the correct representing seats, for the correct Electoral votes.
 
#696
#696
Hunerwadel said:
Obviously the Constitution neither prohibits it nor mandates it. The question would be on the census if the administration had just added it and hadn't started spiking footballs over what a great victory it will be for GOP representation.
Click to expand...

I agree, they handled it poorly but that doesn’t excuse the complete bull of a ruling by SCOTUS. That ruling is a perfect example of justices overstepping their bounds.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40
#697
#697
luthervol said:
There are millions of non-citizens here legally.
Click to expand...
They don’t get representation. They are not constituents. We need to know they are here but they do not participate in our government.

You’re against foreign interference in our government and elections right?
 
#699
#699
lawgator1 said:
Yes, because under the enumeration clause representation is based on # of people, not citizens.
Click to expand...
It does say that... Right before the 3/5 Clause and the part about not counting Indians. You really think "according to their numbers" meant something other than citizens of the state?

It's not that I'm 100% against your interpretation. I just find the timing convenient.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40
#700
#700
GAVol said:
It does say that... Right before the 3/5 Clause and the part about not counting Indians. You really think "according to their numbers" meant something other than citizens of the state?

It's not that I'm 100% against your interpretation. I just find the timing convenient.
Click to expand...


I have not researched it but would be curious as to whether there was discussion of the issue.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top