- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Should illegal immigrants be counted on the census?
Posted on 6/13/19 at 5:16 am to Sidicous
Posted on 6/13/19 at 5:16 am to Sidicous
quote:I am sure you perceive some parallel between your comment and the simple question of who the Constitution tells us to count, but I do not see it.quote:Perhaps “right to privacy, Ms. Roe?”
mean no personal offense, but that is REALLY weak.
What exactly IS weaker than “grasping at straws.”
Weaker than grasping at straws? You mean like a report, and not even by an eyewitness but some unnamed 3rd party hearsay, of hookers peeing on a bed being some Russian Collusion evidence? That kinda weak?
1
Posted on 6/13/19 at 5:19 am to Barstools
quote:It is OK that not everything in the Constitution is written exactly the way you wish it had been written. Really, it is.
Well illegals aren't free persons. So that's that.
“Not free persons.” (Shakes head)
Posted on 6/13/19 at 6:54 am to TBoy
quote:
The Constitution requires the counting of all "free persons."
If you are in the United States illegally, are you really a "free person"???
eta, someone beat me to it. It is an interesting debatable point.
This post was edited on 6/13/19 at 6:56 am
Posted on 6/13/19 at 7:11 am to AggieHank86
quote:
militiaman, regardless of whether the owner is actually a member of a militia
Bizarre take. Not shocked.
Posted on 6/13/19 at 7:13 am to HailToTheChiz
quote:
: Count them but dont credit them to the overall representatives
Exactly. Who wouldn't want the data?
Posted on 6/13/19 at 7:25 am to AggieHank86
quote:
What were the immigration laws in 1789?
It really doesn’t matter. We don’t write laws assuming others will be ignored or changed in the future.
I’m not sure where you are going with that train of thought. You’ve stated that you don’t support resource appropriation based on non citizen census counts, so we agree there. Yet, in true Hank fashion, you seem to be arguing the opposite.
This post was edited on 6/13/19 at 7:46 am
Posted on 6/13/19 at 7:30 am to Animal
Do you want accurate info or are you interested in scoring political points?
Posted on 6/13/19 at 7:46 am to Vacherie Saint
quote:Not at all.quote:Bizarre take. Not shocked.
militiaman, regardless of whether the owner is actually a member of a militia
First, it is a broader interpretation than that of 90% of the populace.
Further, it is the only reasonable, objective interpretation ... unless one is a gun nut or gun phobic, both of whom conduct result-oriented “analysis” in an effort to find some interpretation consistent with their pre-existing bias.
I would be happy to discuss further in another thread. Lets not derail this one.
This post was edited on 6/13/19 at 7:55 am
Posted on 6/13/19 at 7:49 am to Vacherie Saint
quote:No, I said that ideologically I do not think the non-citizen population should be used for Congressional apportionment and that my opinion is irrelevant because the clear and unambiguous language of the Constitution says otherwise.
You’ve stated that you don’t support resource appropriation based on non citizen census counts,
Posted on 6/13/19 at 7:55 am to AggieHank86
quote:
the clear and unambiguous language of the Constitution says otherwise.
If non citizen status wasn’t defined or legislated until 1790, how can you even make this statement? Use some common sense here. Would the framers have counted occupying red coats in their census? Visiting French diplomats? Of course not. Should we not count native Americans today? Unambiguous right?
This post was edited on 6/13/19 at 7:58 am
Posted on 6/13/19 at 7:55 am to AggieHank86
quote:
the simple question of who the Constitution tells us to count,
From your page 2 post.
quote:
Actual Enumeration. ...
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.
So..not everyone present in the country was to be counted simply because they were here.
Thanks.
Posted on 6/13/19 at 7:56 am to Dale51
quote:Everyone but Indians and 2/5 of every slave, yes.
not everyone present in the country was to be counted simply because they were here. Thanks.
You are welcome.
This post was edited on 6/13/19 at 7:58 am
Posted on 6/13/19 at 7:58 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Everyone but Indians and 2/5 of every slave, yes.
And illegal invaders, apparently. Unambiguous
Posted on 6/13/19 at 8:34 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Everyone but Indians and 2/5 of every slave, yes.
You are welcome.
Thats nice.
The point is that there were exceptions.
*I suspect that if there was a particular mention of foreigners, you might point out..."Yeah...but they didn't specifically mention Mexicans!"*
Posted on 6/13/19 at 8:36 am to member12
quote:
Should illegal immigrants be counted on the census?
According to the Constitution, yes.
Posted on 6/13/19 at 8:38 am to inelishaitrust
quote:
Should illegal immigrants be counted on the census?
--------------------------
According to the Constitution, yes.
Where in the Constitution does it specifically say this about criminal aliens??
Posted on 6/13/19 at 8:40 am to Vacherie Saint
Some originalist AggieHank is here, what a joke haha then again he defends to the death stare decisis like it’s this Ark of the Covenant that’ll kill you if you touch it, the Napoleonic Code recognizes no such strict concept that SCOTUS apparently forgot when it overturned the Plessy precedent, how about Garcia v. San Antonio? Brandenburg? West Virginia v. Barnette? Muh stare decisis!
This post was edited on 6/13/19 at 9:04 am
Posted on 6/13/19 at 8:59 am to ThePTExperience1969
quote:what are you trying to say here?
Some originalist AggieHank is here, what a joke haha
I consider myself a Strict Constructionist, not an Originalist, because Originalism is inherently subjective. I have said this many times.
Every point I have raised in this thread is Strict Construction, NOT Originalism.
Your comment is not dissimilar from the posters who routinely call me a “fake conservative” when I repeatedly say that I do no REMOTELY consider myself a conservative, as that term is used here. I am a pragmatic libertarian advocate of VERY limited government.
This post was edited on 6/13/19 at 9:03 am
Posted on 6/13/19 at 9:00 am to Dale51
quote:
Where in the Constitution does it specifically say this about criminal aliens??
Article I, Section II
quote:
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
Posted on 6/13/19 at 9:02 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Every point I have raised in this thread is Strict Construction,
"Thats just, like, your opinion, man." gif
Page 6 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News