re: California could lose 4-5, maybe more, US congressional seats in 2030

quote:

---

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.

---

quote:

---

not taxed; illegal aliens are SUPPOSED to pay taxes; but don't always do so

---

INDIANS not taxed. Illegals aren't "Indians" so this clause doesn't apply to them

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.

---

quote:

---

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

---

The clause you quoted was about reducing it after citizens who can't vote are taken off the rolls. It only applies there, and non-citizens cannot vote, so this has no commentary on non-citizens accordingly. Also, just to further clarify, it specifically specifies the reduction is calculated in terms of citizens.

quote:

---

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...

---

Except the part you quoted is only discussing citizens.

quote:

---

last time I checked; entering the country illegally is an actual crime; if we are going to define a crime as "breaking the law"

---

Again, tihs only applies to citizens.

quote:

---

but according to the actual text -

---

You don't understand the actual text.

quote:

---

Except the part you quoted is only discussing citizens.

---

exactly - which means that only citizens should be counted insofar as determining representation

quote:

---

You don't understand the actual text.

---

I do understand the text; it's clear that you do not, or at a minimum, want to obfuscate and make something up that fits your agenda; much like "muh abortion is a Constitutional right!"

quote:

---

Unfortunately I think these California transplants are going to vote exactly the same and we'll see the state erode.

---

California used to be a red state that was prosperous. The Reaganites from Cal will be the majority of those that flee first.

Some of those that flee CA will be idiots who try to recreate what they just fled, but many will be the most staunch resistance against it.

quote:

---

Here’s a truthful post that won’t get many, if any, downvotes.

“You’re a fricking idiot.”

---

Truthful? Naw fam

quote:

---

You sure about that?

I don't think they've ever ruled on those arguments/merits

---

Yeah. SCOTUS ruled that a citizenship question could be added to the Censys, but did not touch the question of whether apportionment could be based on citizenship alone.

quote:

---

You're not making a logical argument.

---

the text clearly gives preference and weight to citizens; and clearly allows the exclusion of criminals

you are the one not making a logical argument

quote:

---

the text clearly gives preference and weight to citizens; and clearly allows the exclusion of criminals

---

No. There is no "preference"

That clause says that if citizens cannot vote, their numbers are taken out proportionally.

This portion was to disincentivize the South from removing the right to vote from freed slaves and black citizens, punishing them in their representation if they did so. That's why rebellion or crimes are excluded, because that is not an improper denial of the right to vote.

Here is an article about it

quote:

---

In short, under Section Two of the Fourteenth Amendment, if a state denies men the right to vote, then that state can lose representation in Congress.

---

quote:

---

When the Civil War was over, the pressing question was when and how to readmit the Southern states. Article I of the Constitution directed representation in Congress to be apportioned among the states according to their population, “including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.” And slaves, of course, were the “other Persons.” So after slavery was abolished, Northerners were concerned about the effects of newly freed slaves being considered “persons” for Article I purposes.

This posed a huge political problem for the North. The freed slaves would be counted in full for purposes of representation even if readmitted Southern states denied them the right to vote. This would give the slave states more power than ever in Congress, while black voters would have no say over who their representatives were. The Northerners worried that with this power, Southern representatives could restore slavery, at least in effect.

The North intended the Fourteenth Amendment to be its solution. Section One granted citizenship to the newly free slaves (though never explicitly referencing race), and Section Two provided a penalty for states that disenfranchised their male citizens. Section Two was intended to discourage Southern states, some of which had a population that was half black, from denying their black citizens the right to vote.

---

quote:

---

Why do you keep saying this in every thread. This is an ignorant legal argument. There is 100% a pathway to do this without an amendment.

One a semi-resonable argument can be made, it’s a political issue decided by SCOTUS. He needs 5 Black Robes not an amendment.

---

You're right. I forgot MAGA was all about the "Living Constitution" these days.

Well, in the late 18th century the founders and framers counted all inhabitants in census mnbers…

quote:

---

That clause says that if citizens cannot vote, their numbers are taken out proportionally.

---

well; illegal aliens can't vote (in most states and areas) & should also be excluded proportionately (logically speaking that is)

insofar as your article; that can also be interpreted to support my argument and the argument that Trump is making; the 14th was for freed slaves and was never intended to be used as a tool to allow the US to be overrun with illegal aliens

I want an EO or a codified law to force SCOTUS to take this matter up