Started By
Message

re: Should Illegal Aliens count towards congressional representation?

Posted on 7/12/19 at 1:31 am to
Posted by SlapahoeTribe
Tiger Nation
Member since Jul 2012
12139 posts
Posted on 7/12/19 at 1:31 am to
Let’s look at what the 14th amendment has to say-
quote:

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.
Well, that seems pretty straight forward. Count everyone. Period.













BUT... then there’s this little tidbit-
quote:

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.
This is clearly stating that if there are persons in the count that aren’t eligible to vote (for reasons other than age, insurrection, or being a criminal) then that State’s representation should be reduced by a proportional amount.

So yes, count everyone in the census, but then reduce the state’s congressional representation by the proportion of illegals.


Furthermore, the 19th and 26th Amendments clearly apply only to citizens-
quote:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
quote:

The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.


Posted by buckeye_vol
Member since Jul 2014
35308 posts
Posted on 7/12/19 at 1:42 am to
quote:

This is clearly stating that if there are persons in the count that aren’t eligible to vote (for reasons other than age, insurrection, or being a criminal) then that State’s representation should be reduced by a proportional amount.
No. It's the complete opposite. It's stating that if a state deny's a person a write to vote, except for "participation in rebellion, or other crime," then the state's appropriation will be minimized.

It's never been successfully enforced, but it's intent was to prevent state's from denying disenfranchised voters (e.g., African-Americans) the right to vote. Here is an article about it:

Right to Vote and Judicial Enforcement of Section Two of the Fourteenth Amendment
quote:

Particularly noteworthy of this first attempt at solving the representational problem posed by the newly emancipated Negro, was the provision for reduction of a state's representation solely when that state denied or abridged the right to vote for reasons of race.
Posted by TBoy
Kalamazoo
Member since Dec 2007
24535 posts
Posted on 7/12/19 at 1:53 am to
quote:

So yes, count everyone in the census, but then reduce the state’s congressional representation by the proportion of illegals.


That would be an entirely new take on Section 2 of the 14th Amendment which is completely unsupported by the historical record or the text.
Posted by AggieHank86
Texas
Member since Sep 2013
42941 posts
Posted on 7/12/19 at 5:12 am to
quote:

when the right to vote ... is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, ... , the basis of representation therein shall be reduced ....
You quote the 14th, yet completely ignore the phrase that completely guts your argument. It amazes me that Buckeye has not addressed that oversight on your part.

The total number of “persons” shall be counted, and that number shall be reduced by the number of “citizens” (NOT “persons”) who fit this description.

AGAIN, sometimes we must just ACCEPT that it does not say what we want it to say. Torturing the language to attain our desired results is Judicial Activism at its very worst.
This post was edited on 7/12/19 at 5:47 am
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram