- 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
0
Posted on 7/4/25 at 8:45 am to stout
quote:
Because the 14th Amendment mandates counting the “whole number of persons.”
And had language specifically excluding Indians ("excluding Indians not taxed"), which implies they're the only exception to the counting rules.
Again, an argument against lumping illegals in with Indians.
The concept of "illegal immigrant" really didn't exist at that time. That was a function of Congress decades later, and Congress can't usurp the Constitution. Otherwise, they could just create all sorts of classes of person via statute and exclude those statutorily-constructed persons from enjoying other rights in the Constitution.
Posted on 7/4/25 at 8:46 am to Reubaltaich
You put citizenship question as how we count and the left will be cooked
Posted on 7/4/25 at 8:51 am to Reubaltaich
quote:
If DJT can deport millions of obama/pedoJoe illegal invaders, it
This doesn’t happen without self deportation.
If they continue to strip support, benefits, and employment, it will.
100% on the census.
Do we need that codified in to law by Congress, or do we need a judicial ruling?
This post was edited on 7/4/25 at 8:53 am
Posted on 7/4/25 at 8:52 am to stout
I should have posted that I didn’t care and I could have saved you the time of posting your Lifetime movie script. I was literally just fricking with him because I thought it was funny when I read that a few days ago. I don’t care if he’s a lawyer or not. It wouldn’t change my opinion of him one way or the other.
Posted on 7/4/25 at 8:52 am to stout
quote:
I may not always agree with everything he says here but that doesn't mean he's an idiot, not a lawyer, etc. and that he is not a nice, genuine person IRL.
Maybe if he didn't post like an intellectually dishonest, gaslighting POS people wouldn't give him such a hard time.
Posted on 7/4/25 at 8:53 am to Solo Cam
quote:
Texas isn't as Red as some would like to think. Over 30% of their congressional representatives are democrats and they produced Jasmine Crockett and Al Green.
But in terms of Presidential elections, where the winner of state gets all the EC votes, distribution of the 435 house seats across the US is a very big deal.
Posted on 7/4/25 at 8:56 am to theCrusher
quote:
And why the Dems want open boarders and illegals to vote.
Because they are for democracy. The mean republicans are trying to destroy democracy.
In fact, Dems think illegals voting is a compromise. Several opinion pieces in the NYT and Wapo in the last 5 years have proposed letting foreigners living in foreign countries vote because US policy affects their lives.
Posted on 7/4/25 at 8:57 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
And had language specifically excluding Indians ("excluding Indians not taxed"), which implies they're the only exception to the counting rules
Yep. The 14th explicitly excluded “Indians not taxed” by name. It does not mention immigration status, and uses the term “persons”, which courts have interpreted broadly. As I said earlier, we need to more clearly define "persons" or we have to write a new amendment.
Indians were not under US Jurisdiction, unlike illegals today who can be arrested and tried under US laws
This post was edited on 7/4/25 at 9:03 am
Posted on 7/4/25 at 9:00 am to Bourre
quote:
I don’t care if he’s a lawyer or not
Yea man. You totally don't care
Posted on 7/4/25 at 9:02 am to OU81TOO
quote:
Maybe if he didn't post like an intellectually dishonest, gaslighting POS people wouldn't give him such a hard time.
I get why people don't like his posts and I disagree with him often but its so bad that even when he is correct, people attack him.
I doubt he would get attacked as badly if he posted something he is correct about under an alter.
Posted on 7/4/25 at 9:04 am to stout
quote:
quote:
since natives, or indians, weren’t even counted in the 1st census, and not for 100 years after that; why would a Constitutional amendment be needed to exclude illegal aliens?
Because the 14th Amendment mandates counting the “whole number of persons.”
ok; that's a great answer and a starting point; thanks
let's review the actual text:
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.
not taxed; illegal aliens are SUPPOSED to pay taxes; but don't always do so
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,
looks like we do not have clear direction that non citizens should be counted insofar as determining the number of electors assigned to each state
in fact; this looks like clear direction that non citizens should absolutely not be counted to determine how many electoral votes a state is awarded...
quote:
or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime,
last time I checked; entering the country illegally is an actual crime; if we are going to define a crime as "breaking the law"
quote:
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.
basis of representation SHALL BE REDUCED to reflect citizens
again; thanks for presenting a fair point; but according to the actual text - there is nothing that would require a new Constitutional amendment
to segregate illegal aliens from actual citizens in the counts that determine representation
if fact; it looks pretty clear that non citizens AND lawbreakers SHOULD be excluded from that count! - illegal aliens should be excluded on both of these points
hell; a Constitutional amendment would be needed to actually count illegal aliens for representation purposes!
Posted on 7/4/25 at 9:05 am to stout
Sorry I messed up your bromamce because I don’t care how another poster makes a living. You can keep white knighting for him though, he might frick you
Posted on 7/4/25 at 9:06 am to Bourre
quote:
You are top 5 one of the dumbest posters on this board. 95% of the time you are on the losing side of legal cases.
Mate, this is as ridiculous as saying that Trump is one of the more humble and soft-spoken Presidents.
Posted on 7/4/25 at 9:08 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Indians were always tricky to deal with because they technically resided within states but where they resided was considered foreign territory.
Confused. So the below isn't true?
quote:
And before people melt, just remember we have been counting non-citizens for these purposes since day 1. The original Constitution was specifically written by our Founders to specifically do just this.
quote:
Uses "person" not "citizen" for this portion of the 14A
Sound like if it wasnt truly ALL "persons" from the start, it can be worked with to fit our current needs.
Posted on 7/4/25 at 9:14 am to dcbl
quote:
not taxed; illegal aliens are SUPPOSED to pay taxes; but don't always do so
I will save you and I some time for everything else you posted, and sum up the differences
The Constitution explicitly excluded tribal Native Americans, and there's no sovereign status or separate legal system for illegals. They are subject to US laws, unlike the tribes were.
“Whole number of persons in each State” has been interpreted by courts to include illegals.
Not saying the rulings are the correct interpretation, but as of now, the Supreme Court has never ruled on it.
This post was edited on 7/4/25 at 9:16 am
Posted on 7/4/25 at 9:14 am to GeauxTigers123
quote:
hey almost voted for that gay guy that used drugs and male hookers not all that long ago
Nobody I knew voted for that POS. He is also the former mayor of Tallahassee.
Posted on 7/4/25 at 9:14 am to Bourre
quote:
he might frick you
Man, you are really triggered
Posted on 7/4/25 at 9:18 am to stout
quote:based on the wording of the text; this seems like bad rulings
“Whole number of persons in each State” has been interpreted by courts to include illegals.
quote:let's have an Executive Order and force SCOTUS to do so
Not saying the rulings are the correct interpretation, but as of now, the Supreme Court has never ruled on it.
Posted on 7/4/25 at 9:21 am to The Torch
Pelosi will likely be dead in 2-3 years. Newscum fricked his chances beyond recognition.
The Pencil neck? ...to be determined.
The Pencil neck? ...to be determined.
Page 3 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News