Posted on 11/05/2009 10:13:42 PM PST by DaveTesla
WASHINGTON – Senate Democrats have blocked a GOP attempt to require next year's census forms to ask people whether they are a U.S. citizen.
The proposal by Louisiana Republican Sen. David Vitter was aimed at excluding immigrants from the population totals that are used to figure the number of congressional representatives for each state. Critics said Vitter's plan would discourage immigrants from responding to the census and would be hugely expensive. They also said that it's long been settled law that the apportionment of congressional seats is determined by the number of people living in each state
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
The dems are building a house of cards.
Let them keep building... the higher it goes, the more destruction they will do to themselves on the way down.
If you want to change this, you would have to repeal or amend the 14th Amendment.
And that is not going to happen.
I don’t plan to participate in this fraud.
We will give ONLY number of people in residence...and CITIZENSHIP! We need MORE citizens to do this....to counter the info they are going to gather from the illegals.
>>> I don’t plan to participate in this fraud.
Wouldn’t matter if we did or didn’t anyway.
At the rate we are going, a census re-do will be needed anyway after some major adjustments to population control are allowed into the country by you-know-who.
Would it also under your interpretation also give them the right to vote as well?
No, since the Constitution in the 15th, 19th and 26th amendments specifies that only citizens have the right to vote.
The 14th Amendment specifies that the census count all people, not just citizens.
I wouldn’t answer their damned questions anyway.
The Hell with them.
The question is if you are here illegally how do you
obtain a job and pay income tax?
As a Strict Constructionist, I interpret the Constitution exactly as it is written and the 14th Amendment says that we should could all persons during the Census.
Perhaps those of who who are not Strict Constructionists and believe that the Constitution is a Living and Breathing Document may differ.
Mr. Dogz, I agree with you about the meaning of the 14th regarding the census, but I am VERY sure that the author of the Amendment, as well as those who voted for its adoption has NO idea that years later a political court would interpret its citizenship provisions in a perverted way that in effect gave the Amendment precisely the opposite effect from that intended, which was to PREVENT any merely jus solis citizenship for the children of foreigners.
One of the unintended consequences of this has been the explosion of “anchor babies” and their relatives that this census is obliged to count. Even Wong Kim Ark never contemplated citizenship for children of people in the US in violation of US law. Kim’s parents were long term legal residents of the US. I think the Court wrongly decided this case, but even they never imagined the situation upon us today, and they never authorized it.
Strict Constructionists would deem the illegal’s as lawbreakers and send them home or require the Federal Government to do its job and protect our country. You sir are making a nonsensical argument.
Of course, everyone knows that illegals would truthfully answer the question “yes.”
They don’t lie and cheat so we can have full trust in their answer cant we?
Sure, but as Strict Constructionists, we cannot assume what the Framers meant and can only read the words that they wrote. If you are to begin to assume what the Framers intended, you open up the door to the Anti-Second Amendment folks who claim, "The Framers only intended for us to have muskets and never intended for the people to own the high powered weapons that are available today."
And that is not a road we need to travel.
No that is simply a Failure of the Executive Branch over the last 50 years to enforce current immigration laws.
And a Strict Constructionist should have the intelligence to understand the the words "Persons" and "Citizens" are two different things and have different definitions.
Thus, is the Framers had only wanted us to count citizens, they would have stated that in the Constitution.
I don’t have to “assume” what was meant by the 14th, as I feel quite confident that I can rely on the explanation provided by the chief drafter, and I also feel quite confident that I can apply the well known rules of construction to the language of the 14th itself. It’s just too bad that the Supreme Court did not feel any obligation to stick to what the authors meant, and waht they wrote, but instead made up their own preferred meaning and interpretation out of thin air.
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.