Posted on 04/23/2019 5:19:19 AM PDT by reaganaut1
Does each state get to count the ‘persons’ that are just passing thru, or is it limited to state residents?
People residing in the state.
Personally I think everyone in this country should tell the Census folks..to F off.
Yep!!!
How about a comprise, say each illegal counts as 3/5th of a person for apportionment purposes.
***************************************
How about we count them only for transportation apportionment to the border purposes?
"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 ignore this part:
"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." (Modified by the 19th Amendment to address women as voters)
It's right there with the other text.
Like abortion. Not in the Constitution so it falls under the 10th Amendment.
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
As a consequence of foolish Americans not making sure that their children are taught the Constitution and its history, the question of non-citizens having representation in Congress shows that history is repeating itself, a consequence of the ongoing cold war aspect of the Civil War imo.
Noncitizens are constitutionally represented in Congress as persons not having voting rights.
More specifically, when the Northern states drafted Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, they gave Congress the specific power to make sure that the states respected basic rights of all people in the USA.
From the 14th Amendment:
"Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws [emphasis added].”
"Section 5: The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
On the other hand, the congressional record and Section 2 of the 14th Amendment indicate that non-citizens do not have the right to vote. This is because uncommon common sense tells us that the votes of non-citizens could weaken the voting power of citizens, allowing non-citizens to subvert the will of the citizen majority for both federal and state elected offices.
From related threads …
Seemingly always scheming for a way to turn back the clock to win the Civil War and stay in power no matter what the cost (War is Hell!), misguided, power-hungry Democratic political descendants of the South long ago managed to become their own worst enemy imo.
More specifically, Democrats have not only predictably exhausted their ploy to stay in power by supporting judicial tyranny to win politically correct “pro-choice” votes at the cost of politically supporting the murder of generations of unborn Democratic voters, but consider this. They have now seemingly forgotten post-Civil War history and are consequently repeating it. This is evidenced by Democrats now frantically chasing the unconstitutional illegal immigrant vote.
Regarding the unconstitutional illegal immigrant vote, note that Section 2 of 14A describes a penalty for activist states that attempt to swing the outcome of federal elections by weakening the voting power of citizens. Section 2 was drafted by post-Civil War Republican constitutional lawmakers to discourage Southern states from doing so.
”14th Amendment, Section 2: 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 [emphases added] twenty-one years of age in such State."
"Because slavery (except as punishment for crime) had been abolished by the Thirteenth Amendment, the freed slaves would henceforth be given full weight for purposes of apportionment. This situation was a concern to the Republican leadership of Congress, who worried that it would increase the political power of the former slave states, even as they continued to deny freed slaves the right to vote [emphasis added]." —Apportionment of representation in House of Representatives
Note that subsequent voting rights amendments to the Constitution have effectively changed how the enumerated voting rights criteria of Section 2 of 14A are interpreted.
Regarding Section 2 of 14A, the congressional record shows that constitutional lawmakers had pointed out not only that ONLY citizens have the right to vote, but when a renegade state lets undocumented Democrats vote (my wording) the state is effectively nullifying the Constitution’s “Uniform Rule of Naturalization Clause" (1.8.4).
"Article I, Section 8, Clause 4: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;"
" If the States can admit to the elective franchise those who are not citizens, thereby neutralizing the votes of citizens, not only the Federal power of naturalization becomes a nullity, but” * * * * "a minority of citizens by the aid of aliens may control the government of the States, and through the States the government of the Union [emphasis added]." —Appendix to the Congressional Globe, 1868. (See near middle of 1st column.)
" Whatever difference there may be as to what other right appertain to a citizen, all must agree that he has the right to petition and also to claim the Protection of the Government. These belong to him as a member the body politic, and the possession of them is what separates citizens of the lowest condition from aliens and slaves. To suppose that a State can make an alien a citizen or confer on him the right of voting would involve the absurdity of giving him the direct and immediate control of the action of the General Government [emphasis added], from which he can claim no protection and to which he has no right to present a petition." —Appendix to the Congressional Globe, 1868. (See bottom half of 1st column.)
Regarding PDJT's common sense argument that we don't want illegal alien criminals entering the US and harming US citizens, Justice Joseph Story had clarified that this was one of the reasons the Founding States drafted the Constitution's "Uniform Rule of Naturalization Clause" (1.8.4).
"…As the free inhabitants of each state were entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in all the other states, it followed, that a single state possessed the power of forcing into every other state, with the enjoyment of every immunity and privilege, any alien, whom it might choose to incorporate into its own society, however repugnant such admission might be to their polity, conveniencies, and even prejudices. …… There is great wisdom, therefore, in confiding to the national government the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization throughout the United States. It is of the deepest interest to the whole Union to know, who are entitled to enjoy the rights of citizens in each state, since they thereby, in effect, become entitled to the rights of citizens in all the states. If aliens might be admitted indiscriminately to enjoy all the rights of citizens at the will of a single state, the Union might itself be endangered by an influx of foreigners, hostile to its institutions, ignorant of its powers, and incapable of a due estimate of its privileges [emphases added]. …" —Justice Joseph Story, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4 (Citizenship), Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 3:§§ 1098--99, 1833.
It's not surprising that PDJT is keeping his eyes open for Democratic ballot box fraud in 2020 elections.
Patriots need to support PDJT in working with the states to allow only citizens who present valid citizenship / photo ID cards to be allowed to vote, such cards scannable and / or containing security chip to facilitate “vision-impaired” Democratic voting officials.
MAGA!
>
What is the point of citizenship anymore? People who have no right being here seem to have more rights and privileges than American citizens do.
>
Natural progression of the downfall of the State, no?
Lincoln trashes States Rights, FDR\LBJ kill the last of the State Rights & trashes individual Rights, globalist Presidents attempt to elimiante the last threads of the remaining few: 2nd, quartering...I can’t think of any others. What exactly is left but to elevate CRIMINALS above those govt routinely uses as a floor mat?
How the once Republic ‘survived’ THIS long...
How the once Republic ‘survived’ THIS long...
***********
We have been in a prolonged state of decline for many decades but few recognize just how much we have lost or that the rate of decline is accelerating. Its like the proverbial frog boiling in the pot.
Our government has strayed so far our founding principles it is something that will never be recovered given the profound demographic and cultural changes we have experienced.
To your point, the Republic has survived but it is not the Republic it once was. We have been transformed into something that would have been unthinkable several decades ago.
Thanks for putting that together.
The real question is why is this considered a serious question that needs asking?
Perfect example of why we need to deport all of the illegals in this country ASAP.
We also need to do away with citizenship for babies born here when neither parent is a citizen.
Those two things combined with a wall so people can’t just pour in would make all the difference in the world.
anything that is beneficial for illegals is an automatic no
You say the Constitution is silent on abortion? I disagree, and point to the provision that no person shall be deprived of their life without due process. I’ve looked at the definition of person in a lot of dictionaries. All but one say a person is an individual human being. When did you become an individual human being? When I was a schoolboy in the 1960s, we were taught that each individual goes through biological stages of development before becoming human. “Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny” was how that scientific theory (widely accepted as scientific fact) was often labeled. Dr. Benjamin Spock included a discussion of this theory (and presented it as scientific fact) in at least one of his best-selling books. But if you ask pretty much any scientist today when you are unambiguously identifiable as a human being, they’ll likely point to your DNA that’s present from the very earliest stage of your biological development as an individual - even when you were but a single cell.
Abortion is NOT a Tenth Amendment matter. Allowing abortion under color of law is an abrogation of the oath to support and defend the Constitution. If the President of the U.S. understands that a person’s a person no matter how small, then he or she should take their oath seriously enough to use every power they have to implement that provision that No person shall be deprived of their life without due process. It doesn’t matter that Supreme Court opinions disagree. It doesn’t matter that laws written by Congress and signed by a President say otherwise. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. In the last two presidential elections, I was happy to support a Freeper, Tom Hoefling, for President. During the campaigns, Tom spelled out what he would do on his first day of office to support and defend the Constitution in this regard. The chief executives of smaller jurisdictions have similar authority in their jurisdictions. If you look at the candidates for President or Governor and don’t see one that meets your minimum standard for support, I hope you’ll raise up one who does. I’ll not be supporting candidates who fail to recognize the personhood of every individual human being and who shy away from doing everything they can to ensure that no person is deprived of their life without due process. I’m not a single issue voter, but this matter is so fundamental that I will not compromise on it. I don’t know if Tom’s going to be a candidate again, but I suspect that America’s Party will again nominate someone who meets my minimum standard. Come join our Tuesday and Thursday night town-hall-style conference calls. They start at 9 pm eastern 712-432-3566,,,340794#
Nope.
The question is perfectly framed.
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.