- 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 Aliens count towards congressional representation?
Posted on 7/12/19 at 1:21 am to Armchair_QB
Posted on 7/12/19 at 1:21 am to Armchair_QB
quote:So following the written text of the Constitution is treason? I'm guessing you're all about a "living, breathing Constitution."
Not only no, but any elected official who supports counting them should be executed for treason.
0
Posted on 7/12/19 at 1:31 am to Jax-Tiger
Let’s look at what the 14th amendment has to say-
BUT... then there’s this little tidbit-
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:Well, that seems pretty straight forward. Count everyone. Period.
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... then there’s this little tidbit-
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.
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.
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 on 7/12/19 at 1:36 am to Jax-Tiger
What does the Constitution say?
This post was edited on 7/12/19 at 1:40 am
Posted on 7/12/19 at 1:37 am to TBoy
quote:
What does the Constitution say?
It says to count them, then reduce a State’s representation by the proportion of illegals within said State.
Posted on 7/12/19 at 1:42 am to SlapahoeTribe
quote: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.
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.
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 on 7/12/19 at 1:44 am to SlapahoeTribe
quote:Nope. It says count everybody, and if a state denies an eligible person the right to vote (criminals and rebels aside), then their proportion of their population will be diminished accordingly.
It says to count them, then reduce a State’s representation by the proportion of illegals within said State.
Posted on 7/12/19 at 1:51 am to buckeye_vol
quote:
but it's intent was to prevent state's from denying disenfranchised voters (e.g., African-Americans) the right to vote.
That’s not what the text says, and let me refer you to one of your previous comments in this very thread; you seem pretty adamant that we follow the text as written-
quote:
Regardless, since the Constitution, as written, specifies ALL FREE PERSONS, even though the USA was a place that attracted immigrants, even before it was an independent nation, and would undoubtedly continue to do so.
So based on the Constitution, which a presume you value, no FREE PERSON can cancel out any other FREE PERSON'S congressional representation.
Posted on 7/12/19 at 1:53 am to SlapahoeTribe
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 on 7/12/19 at 1:56 am to SlapahoeTribe
quote:But it addresses that same intent. It has everything to do with preventing states from denying eligible voters the right to vote. The impact on appropriations is the punishment, but it has nothing to do with anything regarding this topic.
That’s not what the text says,
quote:And that text, as written, is just as true today since there aren't any slaves here.
you seem pretty adamant that we follow the text as written-
This post was edited on 7/12/19 at 1:58 am
Posted on 7/12/19 at 1:59 am to buckeye_vol
quote:
And that text, as written, is just as true today since there aren't any slaves here.
The text says nothing about slaves. You’re the one talking about slaves and disenfranchisement.
Posted on 7/12/19 at 2:03 am to SlapahoeTribe
quote:What? The constitution specifically references slaves, and their 3/5ths representation regarding the Census. Then you cited the 14th Amendment, which was a result of the Civil War and the ending of Slavery.
The text says nothing about slaves
Posted on 7/12/19 at 2:06 am to buckeye_vol
quote:BUT DOES IT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT SLAVES???
Then you cited the 14th Amendment, which was a result of the Civil War and the ending of Slavery.
It does not, and, as I stated earlier, you’re the one who previously commented in the thread adamantly implying that we should only look at the actual text.
ETA- So, I’m agreeing with you on that; let’s only look at the actual text.
This post was edited on 7/12/19 at 2:08 am
Posted on 7/12/19 at 2:11 am to SlapahoeTribe
quote:
the actual text.
The actual text keys reduction of representation to an act of denial by a state of the right to vote. It does not mention immigration or citizenship status.
This is hogwash.
Posted on 7/12/19 at 2:15 am to TBoy
quote:
The actual text keys reduction of representation to an act of denial by a state of the right to vote.
Show me where the text states that the denial is from an act taken by the State.
Posted on 7/12/19 at 2:16 am to SlapahoeTribe
quote:You referenced my statement that was referring to the original text about the Census and congressional representation, which refers to both slaves and free-persons and delineates between the 2.
BUT DOES IT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT SLAVES?
Furthermore, since the 14th Amendment resulted from the end of slavery and addressed issues of it, then slavery is relevant to it.
quote:Well the text in the Constitution regarding the census and its impact on approbations does refer to slavery but the 14th Amendment made it useless.
ETA- So, I’m agreeing with you on that; let’s only look at the actual text.
The fact is nothing in the original Constitution has changed: all free persons (i.e., now everybody) is to be counted and appropriations are based on the data. If, and only if, states denied eligible voters the right to vote, then the Constitution allows for their proportion of the population can be reduced accordingly, although it has never been successfully enforced.
Article 1, Section 2 of the United States Constitution:
Posted on 7/12/19 at 2:18 am to SlapahoeTribe
quote:From your quote:
Show me where the text states that the denial is from an act taken by the State.
quote:Denying the the right to vote is the act.
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
Posted on 7/12/19 at 2:23 am to SlapahoeTribe
Denial and abridgment are acts. Acts of denial. Acts of abridgment. Those acts are what trigger reduction.
Posted on 7/12/19 at 2:29 am to Jax-Tiger
What about gerbils who identify as Democrats... count them too?
Posted on 7/12/19 at 2:36 am to buckeye_vol
quote:
appropriations are based on the data. If, and only if, states denied eligible voters the right to vote, then the Constitution allows for their proportion of the population can be reduced accordingly
Where does it state this?
It only says “denied.” Not “improperly denied.” Not “denied by the State.”
Are illegals allowed to vote? No. They are denied (deprived of) that right.
In fact (perhaps more importantly), look just past the qualifications of the denial (being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States,) to what follows them: “or in any way abridged.” Care to guess what the old meaning of abridged was? Deprived.
So, we have, as the text is written, that it isn’t an action taken by a state, and it applies to anyone that in “any way” isn’t allowed to vote. Then it directs the representation to be reduced to an amount that would be proportional to having only counted the number of eligible voters.
*Edit for predictive text errors.
This post was edited on 7/12/19 at 2:40 am
Posted on 7/12/19 at 2:47 am to TBoy
quote:
Denial and abridgment are acts. Acts of denial. Acts of abridgment. Those acts are what trigger reduction.
But it does not say that those acts are committed by the individual state. It only says “is denied ... abridged (deprived).” The constitution already denied/deprived (abridged) illegals of the right to vote; therefore, the resulting reduction in representation applies to the illegals.
Page 4 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News