Lots of interesting news today

Southern_Transplant said:
Win or lose in November, President Trump will leave his mark on the courts and Congressional districts. I see a reduction in representatives for California and NY City coming soon.

CNN: READ: Trump executive order on undocumented immigrants and US census.
READ: Trump executive order on undocumented immigrants and US census - CNNPolitics
Click to expand...
There's no way that won't get challenged and tossed out as unconsitutional.
Like it or not, the 14th amendment is very clear that representation does not depend on citizenship.

Taken literally, you're more likely to be excluded on congressional representation if you are an amputee than if you are an undocumented person.
 
Last edited:
RatLabGuy said:
There's no way that won't get challenged and tossed out as unconsitutional.
Like it or not, the 14th amendment is very clear that representation does not depend on citizenship.

Taken literally, you're more likely to be excluded on congressional representation if you are an amputee than if you are an undocumented person.
Click to expand...
We'll have see what the courts decide on this one. I'm not sure I see in the 14th amendment where it secures illegal immigrants as a represented population. It specifically excluded tax exempt Native Americans. Section 2 doesn't explicitly say "only count citizens" but it seems to use the concept of personhood and citizenship interchangeably. I'd honestly bank on the orange man if this hits the supreme court.

Section 2, 14th Amendment
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.
 
Southern_Transplant said:
We'll have see what the courts decide on this one. I'm not sure I see in the 14th amendment where it secures illegal immigrants as a represented population. It specifically excluded tax exempt Native Americans. Section 2 doesn't explicitly say "only count citizens" but it seems to use the concept of personhood and citizenship interchangeably. I'd honestly bank on the orange man if this hits the supreme court.

Section 2, 14th Amendment
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.
Click to expand...
The fact that it excludes tax exempt Indians but nobody else is the key. They specifically included only 1 case of exclusion. The opportunity was there to also list other resident aliens, but did not. You'd have to take a less literal, fairly liberal interperetation of the writing and intent in order to see it otherwise. And the balance of the court is now more in favor of the more conservative, originalist interperetation. This is a case where a conservative interperetation of the constitution may contradict current "conservative" values.
The truth is it dosn't matter anyway. It will be locked up in the courts well past any opportunity to actually use this during the census. And even then, it is virtually impossible to actually gather the apprpriate data to act on the order anyway, especially given the prior ruling. It's a hollow threat either way.
 
drkelly said:
What the hell is the matter with those idiots out in Portland?

Federal officers in Portland may have been permanently blinded by lasers, officials say | Fox News
Click to expand...

98El.gif


uio8Cxf.gif
 
Last edited:
jeepinmatt said:
So some quick back-of-the-napkin math says that's $3/person. But when it's distributed only to about 1000 people who are commercial benefactors, thats a million dollars a person. Not bad eh?
Click to expand...
yeah... if every man, woman, and child got some.
But then think of how the cost is distributed - around a quarter of those actually pay taxes. So a lot of us will pay $12 so that those guys can get their Million.
 
jeepinmatt said:
Agreed, though technically they settled so it could be many decimal places to the left. But probably still within a factor of 10 which is unbelievable.
Click to expand...

No doubt...but looks like he’s settling with a few different media outlets. Considering Id let them spit in my face for a fresh Benjamin...even if he walks away with 6 figures when it’s all said and done...that’s a helluva nice bank account for an 18 year old.
 
Back
Top