Posted on Apr 4, 2016
Supreme Court rules illegal immigrants, other non-citizens can be counted for apportionment
2.01K
11
10
2
2
0
When the Constitution was crafted, Southern States wanted their slaves added to the population count to give themselves greater representation/control in the People's House (of Representatives). The Founders only allowed three-fifths of non-citizens to be counted to prevent these states from profiting from their salacious culture. It seems that states having large populations of non-citizens, especially illegal aliens, want to do the same thing. It would seem to me that the Supreme Court should have followed this same line of reasoning in deciding this case. How about you?
Supreme Court rules illegal immigrants, other non-citizens can be counted for apportionment
Posted from washingtontimes.comPosted in these groups: 
Law
Constitution
Law Constitution
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 9
5
5
0
if your not supposed to be here and are here illegally, how can you be legally counted for anything?
(5)
(0)
2
2
0
Aside from jury duty, is there any benefit to being a citizen versus a non-citizen in this country anymore? Follow-up, at this rate, how long will we even be a country?
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
There's a couple issues at stake however.
Voter Population is different that Citizen Population which is different than Resident Population. The Lawsuit hinged on the ability to define "Voter" population at the State (as opposed to Federal) level. The Constitution is very clear that all PERSONS (14a) must be counted when dealing with Federal elections. However, if you manipulate "Persons" into "Citizens" or "Residents" or "Voters" (which each have very distinct meanings you can change the way the lines are drawn within a State.
Using Texas as an example (since that was the primary lawsuit); more Non-Residents live in the southern part. Non-Residents are still PERSONS, but they are not CITIZENS nor RESIDENTS but they do "inflate" the count for TX which has the potential of getting an extra HoR/EC seat/Vote (in the long run).
Now INSIDE the state, the Southern portion "may" sway Blue because of the immigration issue because of those people. Using "simple math," let's say the North has 50 people, and the south has 50 people but 20 of those are non-residents. That means the 30 residents in the south have "more" vote than the north because of the way everything was apportioned. The Framers accounted for this with the 3/5th rule, which using "Modern Sensibilities" would seem "Wrong" however how do you apply reason when you have people who we MUST protect based out our Constitution, but are NOT allowed to be here based on our Constitution. It's a conflict within our own social contract.
We're allowed to tax, punish, etc, therefore there should be "some" voice... however how much voice? I don't have an answer for that. It's like kids. They get "some" voice even if they do not exercise it themselves.
Voter Population is different that Citizen Population which is different than Resident Population. The Lawsuit hinged on the ability to define "Voter" population at the State (as opposed to Federal) level. The Constitution is very clear that all PERSONS (14a) must be counted when dealing with Federal elections. However, if you manipulate "Persons" into "Citizens" or "Residents" or "Voters" (which each have very distinct meanings you can change the way the lines are drawn within a State.
Using Texas as an example (since that was the primary lawsuit); more Non-Residents live in the southern part. Non-Residents are still PERSONS, but they are not CITIZENS nor RESIDENTS but they do "inflate" the count for TX which has the potential of getting an extra HoR/EC seat/Vote (in the long run).
Now INSIDE the state, the Southern portion "may" sway Blue because of the immigration issue because of those people. Using "simple math," let's say the North has 50 people, and the south has 50 people but 20 of those are non-residents. That means the 30 residents in the south have "more" vote than the north because of the way everything was apportioned. The Framers accounted for this with the 3/5th rule, which using "Modern Sensibilities" would seem "Wrong" however how do you apply reason when you have people who we MUST protect based out our Constitution, but are NOT allowed to be here based on our Constitution. It's a conflict within our own social contract.
We're allowed to tax, punish, etc, therefore there should be "some" voice... however how much voice? I don't have an answer for that. It's like kids. They get "some" voice even if they do not exercise it themselves.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google