Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Victorgra]

• ???????? ?????????? ???? by Victorgra
  [Yesterday at 11:29:30 PM]
• ? ??????? 2 by Juliyge
  [Yesterday at 10:16:52 PM]
• ??????????? ????? ???????... by Juliget
  [Yesterday at 08:28:55 AM]
• 2012 Concert Thread by Carmelasew
  [April 25, 2024, 11:19:23 PM]
• ????????? ??????????? seo... by Victorumj
  [April 25, 2024, 09:59:00 PM]
• ???????? ?????????? tk by Victorcqt
  [April 25, 2024, 06:35:49 PM]

Members

• Total Members: 4939
• Latest: BrianCus

Stats

• Total Posts: 129551
• Total Topics: 7148
• Online Today: 176
• Online Ever: 1013
• (January 12, 2023, 01:18:11 AM)

[12AX7]

   Interesting.

   http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204908604574332950796281832.html

[Joe Sixpack]

I basically agree with the premise of the article, but I don't know of, nor was I able to find, anywhere in the Constitution that directs that only citizens be counted or anything of that nature. One would think that this would be good information to have, but it's not a question of Constitutionality as far as I can tell.

[12AX7]

  Well, it does say every citizen is supposed to have an equal vote. If you count that many non-citizens; the representatives per citizen aren't correct; thus the vote isn't equal due to more representatives in places with more people total - citizens or not.
   Personally, I'm undecided on the issue yet. True; if there are more representatives given to California (due to illegals) than, say, Georgia, then Georgians are under-represented. However, the number of reps is still being appointed by the number of actual bodies present. Calling them everything BUT citizens isn't going to make them or their effect just disappear and not have to be managed/dealt with/etc. Maybe California "needs" the other reps due to the real population; and Georgia doesn't. Then again; is it something to 'go along with' out of practicality; or something to "fix" to be Constitutional again? 
  This 12 does not know. . .

[reimero]

Section 2 of the 14th Amendment appears to fly in the face of 12's article.

[xolik]

I read Obama was going to reinstate the 3/5th compromise but for white people.

[12AX7]

Section 2 of the 14th Amendment appears to fly in the face of 12's article.

 How so?


 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.

[12AX7]

From the article :

Because the census (since at least 1980) has not distinguished citizens and permanent, legal residents from individuals here illegally, the basis for apportionment of House seats has been skewed.


<snip>
According to the latest American Community Survey, California has 5,622,422 noncitizens in its population of 36,264,467. Based on our round-number projection of a decade-end population in that state of 37,000,000 (including 5,750,000 noncitizens), California would have 57 members in the newly reapportioned U.S. House of Representatives.

However, with noncitizens not included for purposes of reapportionment, California would have 48 House seats (based on an estimated 308 million total population in 2010 with 283 million citizens, or 650,000 citizens per House seat). Using a similar projection, Texas would have 38 House members with noncitizens included. With only citizens counted, it would be entitled to 34 members.

Of course, other states lose out when noncitizens are counted for reapportionment.

[Clear_Runway]

this census = even more electoral votes for California.

but hey, Texas gets some too.

[12AX7]

   The problem is that there are only so many seats. When Cali and Tejas get more seats; some other state(s) lose seats. Thus, the citizens in those states have lost representation due to the volume of illegals (non-voting) counted in Cali and Texas.

  I'm still wondering how the 2nd / 14th "flies in its face". What am I missing?


 

[Clear_Runway]

all the more reason for Ahnuld to look the other way.