Trump on track for Supreme Court Victory on Census Citizenship Question

#726
#726
I believe this has been settled in other cases. The word "persons" in the Constitution means just that, not citizens.

The argument by Trump is so frivolous that Trump ought to be made to personally have to pay attorneys fees and costs to the plaintiffs in the lawsuits sure to follow.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BowlBrother85
#727
#727
BigOrangeTrain said:
Deserve has everything to do with it imo. No illegal deserves the protection afforded by our Constitution. If they want that protection then become legal. Until then tough luck.
Click to expand...
Do you want American tourists, college students, athletes, servicemen, diplomats and dignitaries to be afforded due process, if and when, they run into trouble with the law overseas? Or is it just "tough luck"? Your sentiment demonstrates one dimensional thinking.
 
#728
#728
lawgator1 said:
I believe this has been settled in other cases. The word "persons" in the Constitution means just that, not citizens.

The argument by Trump is so frivolous that Trump ought to be made to personally have to pay attorneys fees and costs to the plaintiffs in the lawsuits sure to follow.
Click to expand...
Correct. This has been tested in the federal courts in the past. Trump's executive order is unconstitutional and it will be voided by a federal court. At best, this executive order makes Trump look stubborn. At worst, it makes him look ignorant. Trump is clearly desperate to change the subject away from his administration's response to the Coronavirus, by manufacturing a separate controversy. Trump is also trying to return to his xenophobic roots, that worked so well 4 years ago. I think this is too transparent to be effective. I also think the mood of the country has changed since 2016. The press should just ignore this executive order as a story, and let it run its course through the judiciary.
 
#729
#729
lawgator1 said:
I believe this has been settled in other cases. The word "persons" in the Constitution means just that, not citizens.

The argument by Trump is so frivolous that Trump ought to be made to personally have to pay attorneys fees and costs to the plaintiffs in the lawsuits sure to follow.
Click to expand...
There is no intent for “persons” to have Congressional representatives only “citizens” are afforded that right. All are equally protected under our laws though.

And no we shouldn’t be including illegals in funds distribution counts any further than determining where we need to add more money to ICE and CBP that’s it.
 
#730
#730
NorthDallas40 said:
There is no intent for “persons” to have Congressional representatives only “citizens” are afforded that right. All are equally protected under our laws though.

And no we shouldn’t be including illegals in funds distribution counts any further than determining where we need to add more money to ICE and CBP that’s it.
Click to expand...
You are wrong. There is nothing wrong with having a citizenship question on the census, BUT:

Section 2 of the 14th Amendment says this: Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states, according to their respective numbers. 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, by counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed.
 
#731
#731
BowlBrother85 said:
You are wrong. There is nothing wrong with having a citizenship question on the census, BUT:

Section 2 of the 14th Amendment says this: Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states, according to their respective numbers. 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, by counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. Respective numbers of the several states will be determined by counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed.
Click to expand...
No I’m not wrong! Go read up and educate your ass based on immigration laws in place when the 14th was written we’ve gone over it before here.

there was never an intent to provide congressional representation for non citizens.
 
#732
#732
NorthDallas40 said:
No I’m not wrong! Go read up and educate your ass based on immigration laws in place when the 14th was written we’ve gone over it before here.

there was never an intent to provide congressional representation for non citizens.
Click to expand...
You are dead wrong. This has been settled by the federal courts. You are profoundly ignorant.
 
#733
#733
It was just a few years ago that Republican members of Congress and Donald Trump, were critical of President Barack Obama for governing by way of executive orders. As President, Trump has revealed himself to be a hypocrite on this matter, and the silence coming from Republicans for Trump's abuse of power is deafening.
 
#736
#736
BowlBrother85 said:
That's one opinion, but it means nothing because the federal courts have decided this.
Click to expand...
Go read up. Yeah it has been decided. The federal courts have issued no opinion on whether illegals should be included in representation plus the article I listed shows that the law is clearly on the admins side with regard to the question.
 
#737
#737
BowlBrother85 said:
It was just a few years ago that Republican members of Congress and Donald Trump, were critical of President Barack Obama for governing by way of executive orders. As President, Trump has revealed himself to be a hypocrite on this matter, and the silence coming from Republicans for Trump's abuse of power is deafening.
Click to expand...
Go read the damn article. As recently as 1950 citizenship was on the census. That isn’t opinion. I can’t understand why the hell it was ever dropped frankly. Good on getting it back on. We need to know where to spend more money on ICE and CBP budgets.
 
#738
#738
NorthDallas40 said:
Go read up. Yeah it has been decided. The federal courts have issued no opinion on whether illegals should be included in representation plus the article I listed shows that the law is clearly on the admins side with regard to the question.
Click to expand...
I already said that there was nothing wrong with having the question on the census. However, this has been decided by the courts... so, you are wrong.
 
#739
#739
BowlBrother85 said:
I already said that there was nothing wrong with having the question on the census. However, this has been decided by the courts... so, you are wrong.
Click to expand...
The courts didn’t say the question was illegal. They bounced the reasoning. In fact the law is heavily on the admin’s side. There is no such ruling disallowing the question. Thus YOU are wrong. And good for the EO! Nice counter to DACA
 
#740
#740
NorthDallas40 said:
The courts didn’t say the question was illegal. They bounced the reasoning. In fact the law is heavily on the admin’s side. There is no such ruling disallowing the question. Thus YOU are wrong. And good for the EO! Nice counter to DACA
Click to expand...
Can you read? In two separate posts, I said that there was nothing wrong with the damn question, but illegal immigrants living in the United States are counted.
 
#744
#744
I’d be in favor granting citizenship to illegals if we revoke citizenship and deport the same number of America-hating libs. Everyone wins
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top