Posted on 02/05/2010 12:45:42 PM PST by Maelstorm
Republican U.S. Senate candidate Marco Rubio told the Sarasota Herald-Tribune that illegal immigrants should not count in the census, a position that would cost the state federal money and one that puts him at odds with Gov. Charlie Crist — his primary opponent — as well as the Republican-controlled legislature.
Rubio’s spokesman told the paper that his position was based on “rightful representation in Congress and ensuring that every voter has an equal voice.”
Today, Crist, trailing Rubio in recent polls, called the former state House speaker’s position “absurd.”
“Florida deserves to have her fair share. And I think making sure that we count every single Floridian is vitally important. That’s why I went to the school yesterday in North Miami,” Crist said.
“It is important. It’s important to our state, it’s important to our people. And the notion that you would not want to accept federal funding to make a political statement is absurd.”
(Excerpt) Read more at postonpolitics.com ...
WE THE PEOPLE (persons) in the preamble.
Then consider: ......or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution. Article II, sec. 1
I think it is pretty clear the founders considered the people "persons" to be synonymous with citizens.
Help me here, I’m a little befuddled!
If the purpose of the census is to assure that each state gets the correct number of Representatives, does that mean that people who entered our country illegally get represented the same as a citizen? Common sense tells me that the census count is for legal citizens. Counting anyone other than legal citizens is unconstitutional.
Yeah, I don't remember all of the details but it seemed to me he gave up to easily.
That was a dirty race with her changing her last name and all, you would think the GOP would wake up some day to who and what they're dealing with but, nah.
Maybe we should elect a few illegals to send to congress, just to be fair. < /s >
I gotta run, will check back later.....
Orange Suntan MELT DOWN.
When you stated this without context I felt it necessary to supply the context that it was a person of WHATEVER color or race that was in a condition of involuntary servitude that counted as 3/5ths; while Blacks free from a condition of involuntary servitude were most certainly counted as one full person for purposes of apportionment.
The philosophy behind it is therefore explained much by the criteria. Only if the criteria is misrepresented as being racial, and the “for purposes of apportionment” left off, can one play the race card by saying that ‘the Constitution only considers blacks to be 3/5ths of a person’; which is absolutely groundless.
The Constitution itself is unconstitutional?
The 14th Amendment says: "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 text is crystal-clear: only "citizens of the United States" can vote for members of Congress, but apportionment is based on the "whole number of persons," not the number of citizens.
The amount of people within our borders, as eluded to in our Constitution, was and still is considered to be those of legal stature to actually be within our borders.
At no time was consideration ever given to our current situation of OPEN BORDERS and sponsorship of welfare for border crashers.
The fact that we do not have secure borders leaves any consensus wholly refutable. But not Unconstitutional.
No, I do not agree with the current nor past administration who decided to put KSM, the Shoe Bomber and the Panties Bomber on trial in a civilian court and they are enemy combatants.
And I do not believe that every illegal alien should be placed on trial in a military court.
Crist is going down in flames..He must be a Soros cadet now..he has jumped ship. What an idiot.
I have to admit I am a lazy typist so sometime I just type my points without context, I probably should work on that...
The past administration elected to prosecute KSM as an enemy combatant, this current one wants to give them constitutional rights like you suggested "every person here" should have.
Illegal aliens need to be tossed out on their ass and not counted in our census, that's all.
Because they’re getting our money, and I think that should be accounted for somewhere.
I think their presence should be recorded in as many places and ways possible because, hopefully, someday the illegal aliens mess may be taken care of, and I think this would help.
But... the purpose of the census to apportion representation, its not a financial accounting mechanism.
The 14th Amendment uses the phrase "citizens of the United States" in some clauses (including the one describing who has the right to vote for members of Congress) and the phrase "whole number of persons" in another clause (the one providing for the apportionment of representatives). So presumably the framers of that amendment knew the difference and chose to base apportionment on persons, not citizens. As I pointed out above, there were already lots of immigrants in the United States when the 14th Amendment was ratified, so it's not like nobody could have imagined that the phrase "whole number of persons" would include aliens.
Again, common sense should prevail and that is that Representatives should be apportioned without any shenanigans.
Sorry, but I think the plain language of the Constitution should prevail over one person's idea of what would be "common sense."
And I didn't find your reply snarky at all, and I hoped I didn't come off as a ‘more patriotic than thou’ scold for telling you why that particular misstatement DRIVES ME UP THE WALL!
No harm no foul FRiend :)
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.