(07-09-2019 04:51 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(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?

So asking people if they are citizens absolutely precludes the question of whether you are a person within the USA...... got it.

Funny, you are trying to bootstrap what, at best, is a maybe conflict into an absolute conflict where one absolutely precludes the other.

The problem is that you are bootstrapping the potential conflict into an absolute conflict --- like a good progressive would and a true 'living law' follower would.

Im not saying 'one ignores conflict' -- I am saying one performs the functions (both of them) that are mandated.

And yes, you are saying that those words dont mean what they expressly are stated as.

You are conflating 'count the people, count the citizens' to 'count the people, count the citizens, but only count the citizens in a manner that precludes a supposed and potential conflict, that conflict that doesnt seem to exist between two ministerial acts until I inject a whole crapload of sociological background into it'.

The first one can be summarized in 6 words. That is, textualism.

Your want/need is a litany that is about 6-7 times the bounds of the first, and wishes to add a hole smorgasborg of concepts and subactions that dont just run against the text itself, but against a good amount of historical record from 1865 surrounding the 14th. That is, living a 'law du jour' (i.e. the progressive panacea to any situation).

Perhaps one day you might realize the difference between the two.

But the conflict does exist - the whole reason the SC pushed the decision back down is because evidence came to light that the Trump admin specifically made the decision to add the citizenship question in order to affect the first sentence - counting the number of people in the country.

You’re being intentionally ignorant in an astounding way by suggesting there is no conflict present.

And if you’re arguing for absolute textualism, how do you square the regulation of any arms? Or any free speech? Or do you disagree with rulings the court has made upholding both types of laws?