(07-09-2019 04:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-09-2019 01:56 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-09-2019 11:09 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  How do we handle the potential conflict that requesting citizenship might adversely affect the collection of information on total persons in each state? Because Section 2 covers two issues - apportioning delegates and, if voting rights are abridged, accounting for that in apportioning.

There isnt an issue. One is Constitutional in nature, states 'shall' do such an enforcement -- and that enforcement requires counting.

Being the 'the law is in the words' type moron that I am, whether there is some moral issue in counting is immaterial.

I think your posit of 'potential tension that might adversely affect' underscores the very real differences between the 'lets make up what it ought to mean and do on the fly' school on one hand and the textualism school of Constitutional
interpretation, or for that matter, statutory legal interpretation, does it not?

First sentence requires a count of people. Last portion requires a count of citizens. Full stop.

Posit all you want about the 'potential tension' and things that '*might* adversely affect', neither changes either requirement in the slightest. Wouldnt be the first time a 'living Constitutionalist' argues that the actual words mean *not* their actual words, nor will I surmise it will be the last. Thank you for the wonderful example.

I'm not arguing that these words don't mean what they mean...

My question was what do you if there is a conflict in trying to accommodate both sentences? As you are arguing, the Constitution states we must ask people whether they are citizens. What if that question directly creates a situation where we're unable to accommodate the first sentence? Why is accomplishing the second sentence more important than accomplishing the first?

I'm guessing you say we ignore the conflict because the Constitution doesn't direct us on how to address the conflict?

Interestingly (to me at least), it seems like the Constitution does direct us: Section 5 of the very same amendment states "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

- At a minimum, one might think that Section 5 is a clear grant of authority to Congress to resolve any such dilemmas arising from Section 2 or any other part of the Amendment.

- More generally, one might think that such an explicit grant of authority also implicitly grants (as with the famous "necessary and proper" clause of Article I) a good deal of discretion -- i.e., as long as Congress doesn't essentially obliterate one of the provisions, it has pretty broad discretion to strike whatever balance among them that it thinks appropriate.

Anyway, that's what one might think from the text. On the other hand:
(1) Congress does not always do its job;
(2) Supreme Court jurisprudence on what constitutes a legitimate exercise of Section 5 enforcement power is a bit of a mess; and
(3) Both (1) and (2) are understatements.

Ok, that's my unhelpful digression. Back to your regularly scheduled argument!