- 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 2:13 pm to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 6/27/25 at 2:13 pm to SlowFlowPro
Implies.
Interesting word.
Interesting word.
0
Posted on 6/27/25 at 2:16 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Do you want to let the DEMs have the power to overrule the 2A with an EO when they win the Presidency next time?
Of course not - the right to keep and bear arms is quite rigidly defined in the 2A. = shall not be infringed.
Common sense is such a wonderful trait - it makes me wonder how democrats can get so far out of synch with reality.
Of course they will try - they really hate our constitution.
Posted on 6/27/25 at 2:16 pm to Night Vision
Bad news for California.
Posted on 6/27/25 at 2:18 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
an amendment process to deal with changes in society that weren't contemplated at the time of writing.
Then why don't the democrats try this avenue??
Posted on 6/27/25 at 2:19 pm to ChineseBandit58
quote:
Of course they will try - they really hate our constitution.
Says someone criticizing the language of our constitution
Posted on 6/27/25 at 2:19 pm to ChineseBandit58
quote:
Then why don't the democrats try this avenue??
For what, specifically?
Posted on 6/27/25 at 2:26 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Says someone criticizing the language of our constitution
good grief - how can you manage a thought like that?
I have no problem with the language of the constitution - that is because I believe it was written for people of good will who had a decent moral code and an abundance of common sense - something that the democrat party of the past half century have totally abandoned - and apparently you seem to support that confusing situation.
Is it because the less common sense is being used, the more action there is for the lawyer class??
seems that way to me.
Posted on 6/27/25 at 2:31 pm to CountryVolFan
This. The 14A drafters were not considering or legislating how to account for the results of a massive, population changing influx of foreigners into the country, almost overnight relatively speaking. Literally a whole new population who, after one generation of reproduction, can transform our country through census taking and voting. If the drafters could have imagined the unprecedented influx of the last four years, they would have talked about it in the 14A.
There is a legal term for this -- lacuna. There is a gap in the law on this unprecedented situation. The Supreme Court will have to fill in the gap, in the absence of clarifying legislation. My prediction is that the current court takes it up, and ends the type of birthright citizenship people like SFP and the Democrats are advocating.
There is a legal term for this -- lacuna. There is a gap in the law on this unprecedented situation. The Supreme Court will have to fill in the gap, in the absence of clarifying legislation. My prediction is that the current court takes it up, and ends the type of birthright citizenship people like SFP and the Democrats are advocating.
Posted on 6/27/25 at 2:35 pm to Tunasntigers92
quote:
Non-citizens were a part of the census?
Why do think Democrats are fighting tooth and nail to keep them here. Overload the Census in Blue and Marginal States, change Elective Representation and the Electoral College
Posted on 6/27/25 at 2:38 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
For what, specifically?
refer to your statement - 'that would require an amendment'
Why did you not recommend that the democrats write an amendment that clearly defines what they want in terms of citizenship requirements instead of re-interpreting ages old understanding of what is there now?
Why is your response that whatever the hell democrats propose, you always fall on the side of trying to 'defend' it - surely your advice of "write an amendment" would equally apply to their position on the matter.
Posted on 6/27/25 at 2:40 pm to LemmyLives
quote:
The 3/5 compromise was to limit the power of the slave holding states.
The southern states DEMANDED non-citizens get counted for representation, without it, the North would have dominated the House. 3/5 was a compromise the North made in order to ratify the Constitution.
By 1860, 3/5 wasn't enough for the South to keep up with seats in the House. That's why they seceded. The North finally had the electoral votes to elect a president over a unified southern vote.
Posted on 6/27/25 at 2:41 pm to Tall Tiger
quote:
ends the type of birthright citizenship people like SFP and the Democrats are advocating.
Hopefully yes - that is the advice SFP gives when logic and common sense fail him in defending other democrat wishes.
Write an amendment so you can clearly define the particular outcome you want - they'll never do that because what they are REALLY trying to achieve is absolute power for themselves.
Posted on 6/27/25 at 2:44 pm to TrueTiger
quote:
Back in the day some only counted for 3/5ths.
The irony is that it was white Southerners arguing that slaves were people who should be counted in whole and it was the enlightened Northerners who were arguing that slaves were sub-human and should only be counted as half a person.
Even back then their "beliefs" were simply arranged according to their own desires for power and control.
Posted on 6/27/25 at 2:45 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Sure. The larger point remains.
Are you inferring that the word "untaxed" is merely an adjective and has no other meaning or implication?
Posted on 6/27/25 at 2:50 pm to AUFANATL
quote:
Northerners who were arguing that slaves were sub-human and should only be counted as half a person.
Wrong, Northerners were saying that slaves weren't citizens, and so shouldn't count at all. That meant that the northern states would have all of the congressional power - and thus the electoral college majority. Southerners wouldn't sign off on a document that would relegate them to subservience to the northern states. That's when the North compromised to count part of the population of slaves towards apportionment. But it didn't last, the North would eventually outgrow the South even counting part of the slaves couldn't make up the difference.
Posted on 6/27/25 at 2:50 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
If this is true, why did they only address one group of non-citizens?
You tell us
Posted on 6/27/25 at 3:05 pm to Night Vision
I thought SCOTUS, Roberts in particular, ruled against Trump order to exclude illegals from the last Census. This was all settled prior to Biden taking office.
Am I wrong?
... But I agree that Trump should take another run at it.
Am I wrong?
... But I agree that Trump should take another run at it.
Posted on 6/27/25 at 3:12 pm to ChineseBandit58
quote:
I have no problem with the language of the constitution - that is because I believe it was written for people of good will who had a decent moral code and an abundance of common sense - something that the democrat party of the past half century have totally abandoned - and apparently you seem to support that confusing situation.
I don't think the founders came up with the confusion in the Constitution. To an extent the 2A language is confusing and thank goodness it has been ruled on correctly in the courts. But in no way did the originators of birthright citizenship a hundred years later intend its' use as a way to anchor scads of illegal aliens into this country. With a combination of birthright as it is now and a masses of illegals coming into our country, this country could change in a generation.
Posted on 6/27/25 at 3:17 pm to aTmTexas Dillo
quote:
the originators of birthright citizenship a hundred years later
The 14th Amendment was ratified 157 years ago in 1868. At that time there was no such thing as an illegal immigrant in the US.
Posted on 6/27/25 at 3:19 pm to Tall Tiger
quote:
There is a legal term for this -- lacuna. There is a gap in the law on this unprecedented situation.
There is no gap. Society has changed and the Constitution has a method to adapt: the amendment process.
quote:
The Supreme Court will have to fill in the gap, in the absence of clarifying legislation.
This is the "living document" interpretive theory and is Leftist bullshite.
quote:
and ends the type of birthright citizenship people like SFP and the Democrats are advocating.
This isn't an issue of "advocating". This is the law, per the Constitution and Supreme Court. The advocating is for the USSC to reverse its prior rulings and reject pecedent for a new standard.
Page 6 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News