- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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: Trump Poised To Try To Remove Noncitizens From Census
Posted on 6/27/25 at 12:45 pm to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 6/27/25 at 12:45 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
excluding Indians not taxed.
SFP... why did they exclude Indians who were not taxed?
2
Posted on 6/27/25 at 12:59 pm to ChineseBandit58
quote:
SO - in my far-out hypothetical, you are perfectly at ease with Democrats a century from now teleporting a million people from state to state just ahead of the census taker arrival and therefore give the Democrats 50 million excess population to enhance their congressional power.
Do you want to let the DEMs have the power to overrule the 2A with an EO when they win the Presidency next time?
Posted on 6/27/25 at 1:00 pm to SallysHuman
quote:
quote:
excluding Indians not taxed.
SFP... why did they exclude Indians who were not taxed?
look up Indian sovereignty laws
Posted on 6/27/25 at 1:01 pm to SallysHuman
quote:
SFP... why did they exclude Indians who were not taxed?
IIRC, it was a delineation of citizenship/status. That means they were living on a reservation within a state.
Posted on 6/27/25 at 1:03 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
IIRC, it was a delineation of citizenship/status. That means they were living on a reservation within a state.
Yep... which is why non citizens need to be removed from appropriations.
Posted on 6/27/25 at 1:04 pm to Night Vision
The Dems will fight this.
Posted on 6/27/25 at 1:06 pm to SallysHuman
quote:
which is why non citizens need to be removed from appropriations.
If this is true, why did they only address one group of non-citizens?
Posted on 6/27/25 at 1:31 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
If this is true, why did they only address one group of non-citizens?
I'd reckon because that was the pressing matter in the moment. Now... we have the same matter but different flavor.
Posted on 6/27/25 at 1:37 pm to SallysHuman
quote:
I'd reckon because that was the pressing matter in the moment.
Why would you deduce universal applicability when the language was decisively specific to one group?
quote:
Now... we have the same matter but different flavor.
That's why there is an amendment process.
Posted on 6/27/25 at 1:40 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Why would you deduce universal applicability when the language was decisively specific to one group?
Because I believe it IS applicable and I'm not alone in this.
Posted on 6/27/25 at 1:41 pm to SallysHuman
quote:
Because I believe it IS applicable
Based on what language of the Constitution?
Posted on 6/27/25 at 1:44 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Based on what language of the Constitution?
You said this...
quote:
IIRC, it was a delineation of citizenship/status. That means they were living on a reservation within a state.
I'm just agreeing with you!
Posted on 6/27/25 at 1:45 pm to Night Vision
Good.
Election security should be one of the most important issues before 2026, including states not getting bloated representation.
Election security should be one of the most important issues before 2026, including states not getting bloated representation.
This post was edited on 6/27/25 at 1:47 pm
Posted on 6/27/25 at 1:47 pm to SallysHuman
quote:
I'm just agreeing with you!
You're agreeing with me only for Indians on the res, though.
My question was this
quote:
Why would you deduce universal applicability when the language was decisively specific to one group?
Key word: universal
What language denotes universal application of your belief?
The Indian language does the opposite.
Posted on 6/27/25 at 1:51 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
You're agreeing with me only for Indians on the res, though.
Wrong.
Reservation Feathers may have been the language outcome, but even you acknowledged the driving purpose.
The driving purpose is the same now.
Posted on 6/27/25 at 2:08 pm to SallysHuman
quote:
Reservation Feathers may have been the language outcome, but even you acknowledged the driving purpose.
Purpose only for Indians.
And the "language outcome" is imperative with a written Constitution.
quote:
The driving purpose is the same now.
Possibly, but you need textual support in the document itself.
You only have textual support for Indians on the res.
Posted on 6/27/25 at 2:08 pm to SlowFlowPro
We're indians counted not on a rez?
Posted on 6/27/25 at 2:10 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
You only have textual support for Indians on the res.
You forgot untaxed.
Posted on 6/27/25 at 2:12 pm to Jbird
quote:
We're indians counted not on a rez?
They were not, because they were the one group specifically excluded.
That implies there are no other exclusions.
Posted on 6/27/25 at 2:12 pm to SallysHuman
quote:
You forgot untaxed.
Sure. The larger point remains.
Page 5 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News