Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.
So, I have two questions: 1) How is an immigrant to be counted (3/5?)? 2) what has Congress to say about the matter by Law?
There is also this, from the Fourteenth Amendment:
Section 2. 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 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.
Presumably the "male" part is unenforceable, but how could it be enforced at all if the number of citizens is not determined?
Presumably the "male" part is unenforceable, but how could it be enforced at all if the number of citizens is not determined?
If I understand correctly, representation at the federal level is per inhabitants with the correction specified. The New York constitution specifies that apportionment is to exclude aliens. It's quite explicit that only citizens count for apportioning the state legislature. So, yes, you need the data to accommodate states with similar provisions. Otherwise, such states would have to conduct their own census (which some used to do). (I assume the courts and the legislature in New York are ignoring that state constitutional provision, btw). The appellate judiciary are frauds.
Given the clarity that the 14th provides on the subject, why do we need the Supreme Court to weigh in? I think the Executive can comply with the dictum to count only citizens for the purposes of apportionment with or without the concurrence of the Supreme Court.
However, the Constitution does stipulate that the manner of the count shall be as Congress directs by Law. I wonder what current Law has to say on the subject? Of course, that does open the door to let the Supreme Court in.
I gather from posts on the internet that some in the administration are pushing for an executive order on the census question. The Supreme Court opinion that its legality depends upon what the Court perceived as administration motives isn't a legal opinion, it's a political opinion. In my opinion. :-)
7 comments:
Duh! What was her first clue? Nice to see leftists admit their agenda.
From Article I of the Constitution -
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.
So, I have two questions: 1) How is an immigrant to be counted (3/5?)? 2) what has Congress to say about the matter by Law?
I am not a lawyer, so feel free to wade in.
There is also this, from the Fourteenth Amendment:
Section 2. 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 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.
Presumably the "male" part is unenforceable, but how could it be enforced at all if the number of citizens is not determined?
Pretty clear that apportionment shall be based on the number of citizens.
Presumably the "male" part is unenforceable, but how could it be enforced at all if the number of citizens is not determined?
If I understand correctly, representation at the federal level is per inhabitants with the correction specified. The New York constitution specifies that apportionment is to exclude aliens. It's quite explicit that only citizens count for apportioning the state legislature. So, yes, you need the data to accommodate states with similar provisions. Otherwise, such states would have to conduct their own census (which some used to do). (I assume the courts and the legislature in New York are ignoring that state constitutional provision, btw). The appellate judiciary are frauds.
Given the clarity that the 14th provides on the subject, why do we need the Supreme Court to weigh in? I think the Executive can comply with the dictum to count only citizens for the purposes of apportionment with or without the concurrence of the Supreme Court.
However, the Constitution does stipulate that the manner of the count shall be as Congress directs by Law. I wonder what current Law has to say on the subject? Of course, that does open the door to let the Supreme Court in.
I gather from posts on the internet that some in the administration are pushing for an executive order on the census question. The Supreme Court opinion that its legality depends upon what the Court perceived as administration motives isn't a legal opinion, it's a political opinion. In my opinion. :-)
Post a Comment