Talking about the citizenship issue here is the 14th Amendment, section 2:

Quote:But when the right to vote at any election for [Federal and state offices] is denied to any ... inhabitants of [a] State, being [of age to vote], and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for .... rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such [] citizens shall bear to the whole number of [] citizens .... of age in such State.

To be honest, this seemingly not just makes the citizen question legal under the law, but makes it a requirement to comply with the 14th Amendment.

That is, at least, to those of us who actually believe that the words of the law actually matter. I know that is a quaint notion in some political belief systems......

I will ask 93 (for a fifth time, mind you) doesnt the question of citizenship seem to be a basic piece of information to gather? I find it rather interesting on his refusal to address this direct question.

(07-09-2019 08:59 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Talking about the citizenship issue here is the 14th Amendment, section 2:

Quote:But when the right to vote at any election for [Federal and state offices] is denied to any ... inhabitants of [a] State, being [of age to vote], and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for .... rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such [] citizens shall bear to the whole number of [] citizens .... of age in such State.

To be honest, this seemingly not just makes the citizen question legal under the law, but makes it a requirement to comply with the 14th Amendment.

That is, at least, to those of us who actually believe that the words of the law actually matter. I know that is a quaint notion in some political belief systems......

I will ask 93 (for a fifth time, mind you) doesnt the question of citizenship seem to be a basic piece of information to gather? I find it rather interesting on his refusal to address this direct question.

You don't dig to deep into this - how does that make it clear that the citizenship question is a requirement? Would be interesting to hear your interpretation, as it doesn't seem so clear to me.

The section starts with:

Quote: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.

So it says explicitly that representatives are apportioned based on the whole number of persons, not citizens, in each State, excluding only those who are not taxed. At the moment, every person, citizen or non-citizen is taxed in some form, by, at a minimum, sales tax.

But then the last section seems to say that if the right to vote is abridged or denied, then there shall be a reduction in representation. If that's the correct analysis, then are you suggesting that not asking about citizenship is akin to abridging or denying someone's right to vote? Not sure I follow that logic.

(07-08-2019 09:52 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(07-08-2019 07:52 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-08-2019 07:11 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(07-08-2019 05:25 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Read and discuss:

What Should A Black Law Professor Do When A White Student Wears A MAGA Hat In Class?

To me the entire cornerstone to his article (and progressivism in general) was this:

Quote:MAGA is an undeniable symbol of white supremacy

He has a few other doozies as well:
- "I was unsure whether the student was directing a hateful message toward me or if he merely lacked decorum and was oblivious to how his hat might be interpreted by his black law professor. I presumed it was the former."

- "...authority defiantly undermined by an insensitive student." Authority was undermined how?

- "In an effort to assuage the perceived tension..." Perceived by whom?

In most law school classes, a person who is that prone to and reliant upon logical leaps is chewed up and spit out pretty quickly. It's hard to imagine such a person becoming a professor.

If wearing a MAGA hat is "undeniable [act] of white supremacy" in a simple symbolic sense, one doesnt have to think long about what that person 'undeniably' would think of *anyone* who dared vote for the person that the symbol acts as a campaign for.

Yep, the sharp, cutting edge of free thinking, openness of thought, and ideals of inclusion in full battle display here.

One may also wonder:
- How would this professor grade a student whose exam essay relied on terms like "undeniable"?
- In his own student days, what would he have thought of a faculty member who demanded greater respect for faculty "authority"?

These are good points. I found the professor's essay problematic in many ways.

(07-09-2019 09:55 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  So it says explicitly that representatives are apportioned based on the whole number of persons, not citizens, in each State, excluding only those who are not taxed. At the moment, every person, citizen or non-citizen is taxed in some form, by, at a minimum, sales tax.

Sales tax is not a Federal tax.

(07-09-2019 10:16 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-09-2019 09:55 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  So it says explicitly that representatives are apportioned based on the whole number of persons, not citizens, in each State, excluding only those who are not taxed. At the moment, every person, citizen or non-citizen is taxed in some form, by, at a minimum, sales tax.

Sales tax is not a Federal tax.

Yes - but that clause doesn't explicitly state that it is talking about federal taxes. It also only calls out Indians not being taxed, not persons not being taxed. The implication of only calling out Indians isn't clear as to how that would be applied to others not being taxed.

Children are included in the counting for vote apportionment, and they do not generally pay federal taxes.

(07-09-2019 09:55 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-09-2019 08:59 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Talking about the citizenship issue here is the 14th Amendment, section 2:

Quote:But when the right to vote at any election for [Federal and state offices] is denied to any ... inhabitants of [a] State, being [of age to vote], and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for .... rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such [] citizens shall bear to the whole number of [] citizens .... of age in such State.

To be honest, this seemingly not just makes the citizen question legal under the law, but makes it a requirement to comply with the 14th Amendment.

That is, at least, to those of us who actually believe that the words of the law actually matter. I know that is a quaint notion in some political belief systems......

I will ask 93 (for a fifth time, mind you) doesnt the question of citizenship seem to be a basic piece of information to gather? I find it rather interesting on his refusal to address this direct question.

You don't dig to deep into this - how does that make it clear that the citizenship question is a requirement? Would be interesting to hear your interpretation, as it doesn't seem so clear to me.

One needs to know the number of citizens to meet the ability to enforce the action defined by the last portion. The section states that if a state abridges the rights of the 14th, then their representation will be reduced. By how much? How much is dependent upon knowing the number of citizens.

Seems fairly straightforward that the numbers of citizens is a requirement in order to comply with the enforcement provision of the 14th, Section 2.

Quote:You don't dig to deep into this

And actually, yes I have dug into this as opposed to your otherwise snotty characterization. A friend of mine whom is law professor is currently in the processing of publishing a paper on it. I will be glad to send that your way if you wish.

Here is a quickie blurb on it so *you* can dig a tad deeper into this, as opposed to *your* surficial knee-jerk response and name calling:
https://reason.com/2019/04/25/is-the-gov...ach-state/

Quote:The section starts with:

Quote: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.

So it says explicitly that representatives are apportioned based on the whole number of persons, not citizens, in each State, excluding only those who are not taxed. At the moment, every person, citizen or non-citizen is taxed in some form, by, at a minimum, sales tax.

But then the last section seems to say that if the right to vote is abridged or denied, then there shall be a reduction in representation. If that's the correct analysis, then are you suggesting that not asking about citizenship is akin to abridging or denying someone's right to vote? Not sure I follow that logic.

No, that is not the point. The 14th, Sec 2 requires a counting of citizens because it defines a procedure that requires knowing the number of citizens in the event of the right under the 14th is abridged.

(07-09-2019 08:59 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Talking about the citizenship issue here is the 14th Amendment, section 2:

Quote:But when the right to vote at any election for [Federal and state offices] is denied to any ... inhabitants of [a] State, being [of age to vote], and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for .... rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such [] citizens shall bear to the whole number of [] citizens .... of age in such State.

To be honest, this seemingly not just makes the citizen question legal under the law, but makes it a requirement to comply with the 14th Amendment.

That is, at least, to those of us who actually believe that the words of the law actually matter. I know that is a quaint notion in some political belief systems......

I will ask 93 (for a fifth time, mind you) doesnt the question of citizenship seem to be a basic piece of information to gather? I find it rather interesting on his refusal to address this direct question.

There are all sorts of "basic" things that can be asked. The (obvious) problem with the citizenship question is that it will likely lead to an inaccurate census. See the previous post regarding the potential under-reporting. Therefore the pros of asking the citizenship question are outweighed by the cons, IMO.

At the very least it seems pretty obvious that you need to know both the number of people here, AND the number of citizens here.

14:2 talks about Inhabitants who are also citizens. You need both.

(07-09-2019 10:22 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-09-2019 10:16 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-09-2019 09:55 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  So it says explicitly that representatives are apportioned based on the whole number of persons, not citizens, in each State, excluding only those who are not taxed. At the moment, every person, citizen or non-citizen is taxed in some form, by, at a minimum, sales tax.

Sales tax is not a Federal tax.

Yes - but that clause doesn't explicitly state that it is talking about federal taxes. It also only calls out Indians not being taxed, not persons not being taxed. The implication of only calling out Indians isn't clear as to how that would be applied to others not being taxed.

Children are included in the counting for vote apportionment, and they do not generally pay federal taxes.

Yes, the census counts everybody but Indians, but not on the basis of whether or not they pay state imposed taxes. heck, back then there was no such thing as an illegal. If you were here, you were here legally. The laws changed, and they did not change under Trump.

I still think it is is of no importance whether the question is on there. It was on there many times before, without our nation falling in ruin. Neither party is honest about why they want/don't want the question. Both care only about winning enough seats to gerrymander. Dems are pro gerrymandering where they can. Same for Republicans. I doubt the gain/loss would affect any seats, unless they (both sides) think California would gain/lose seats. I think this is all about California. But even if they did, those seats may well come from/go to other states that are just as blue. But the excuse is the apportionment of goods and services. Which services do you think would be adversely and materially affected by a smaller/greater than usual under count. Food stamps? Flood control?

In any case, the proposal to have the question does not mean that anything will change in the apportionment of goods and services. That is just a smoke screen.

My experiences with illegals suggests they want nothing to do with representatives of the government knocking on the door. Not home!!! Go away!!! What good can come from that? And the mailed form is just junk mail to them, about as important as the flyers from State Farm about homeowners insurance. Either way, there is no readily apparent quid pro quo for taking the time and effort.

So why do the Dems have their panties in a wad? Well, it gins up the base. Election year coming up. Need to paint the Trump Administration as racist xxxx-ophobes as much as possible. The SJWs will rally to an injustice being done to POCs. Notice there is no problem with an undercount in Appalachia.

(07-09-2019 10:32 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-09-2019 09:55 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-09-2019 08:59 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Talking about the citizenship issue here is the 14th Amendment, section 2:

Quote:But when the right to vote at any election for [Federal and state offices] is denied to any ... inhabitants of [a] State, being [of age to vote], and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for .... rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such [] citizens shall bear to the whole number of [] citizens .... of age in such State.

To be honest, this seemingly not just makes the citizen question legal under the law, but makes it a requirement to comply with the 14th Amendment.

That is, at least, to those of us who actually believe that the words of the law actually matter. I know that is a quaint notion in some political belief systems......

I will ask 93 (for a fifth time, mind you) doesnt the question of citizenship seem to be a basic piece of information to gather? I find it rather interesting on his refusal to address this direct question.

You don't dig to deep into this - how does that make it clear that the citizenship question is a requirement? Would be interesting to hear your interpretation, as it doesn't seem so clear to me.

One needs to know the number of citizens to meet the ability to enforce the action defined by the last portion. The section states that if a state abridges the rights of the 14th, then their representation will be reduced. By how much? How much is dependent upon knowing the number of citizens.

Seems fairly straightforward that the numbers of citizens is a requirement in order to comply with the enforcement provision of the 14th, Section 2.

Quote:You don't dig to deep into this

And actually, yes I have dug into this as opposed to your otherwise snotty characterization. A friend of mine whom is law professor is currently in the processing of publishing a paper on it. I will be glad to send that your way if you wish.

Here is a quickie blurb on it so *you* can dig a tad deeper into this, as opposed to *your* surficial knee-jerk response and name calling:
https://reason.com/2019/04/25/is-the-gov...ach-state/

Quote:The section starts with:

Quote: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.

So it says explicitly that representatives are apportioned based on the whole number of persons, not citizens, in each State, excluding only those who are not taxed. At the moment, every person, citizen or non-citizen is taxed in some form, by, at a minimum, sales tax.

But then the last section seems to say that if the right to vote is abridged or denied, then there shall be a reduction in representation. If that's the correct analysis, then are you suggesting that not asking about citizenship is akin to abridging or denying someone's right to vote? Not sure I follow that logic.

No, that is not the point. The 14th, Sec 2 requires a counting of citizens because it defines a procedure that requires knowing the number of citizens in the event of the right under the 14th is abridged.

I didn't say you haven't dug deep into this, I was saying that your response did not dig deep. You just sort of threw it out there without any analysis - I thought the rest of my response made it clear that this is what I was referencing. So touchy, Tanq (I also definitely didn't call you a name).

I see the logic now that you've provided some analysis.

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.

(07-09-2019 10:22 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-09-2019 10:16 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-09-2019 09:55 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  So it says explicitly that representatives are apportioned based on the whole number of persons, not citizens, in each State, excluding only those who are not taxed. At the moment, every person, citizen or non-citizen is taxed in some form, by, at a minimum, sales tax.

Sales tax is not a Federal tax.

Yes - but that clause doesn't explicitly state that it is talking about federal taxes. It also only calls out Indians not being taxed, not persons not being taxed. The implication of only calling out Indians isn't clear as to how that would be applied to others not being taxed.

Children are included in the counting for vote apportionment, and they do not generally pay federal taxes.

Children are taxed by the federal government, even if they generally pay nothing and generally are not required to file. Should a child happen to have taxable income, he would indeed owe federal income tax. [/pedantry]

(07-09-2019 11:14 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(07-09-2019 10:22 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-09-2019 10:16 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-09-2019 09:55 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  So it says explicitly that representatives are apportioned based on the whole number of persons, not citizens, in each State, excluding only those who are not taxed. At the moment, every person, citizen or non-citizen is taxed in some form, by, at a minimum, sales tax.

Sales tax is not a Federal tax.

Yes - but that clause doesn't explicitly state that it is talking about federal taxes. It also only calls out Indians not being taxed, not persons not being taxed. The implication of only calling out Indians isn't clear as to how that would be applied to others not being taxed.

Children are included in the counting for vote apportionment, and they do not generally pay federal taxes.

Children are taxed by the federal government, even if they generally pay nothing and generally are not required to file. Should a child happen to have taxable income, he would indeed owe federal income tax. [/pedantry]

Children CAN be taxed by the federal government. Same as illegal immigrants should they have taxable income and use a fraudulent SSN.

(07-09-2019 11:28 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-09-2019 11:14 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(07-09-2019 10:22 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-09-2019 10:16 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-09-2019 09:55 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  So it says explicitly that representatives are apportioned based on the whole number of persons, not citizens, in each State, excluding only those who are not taxed. At the moment, every person, citizen or non-citizen is taxed in some form, by, at a minimum, sales tax.

Sales tax is not a Federal tax.

Yes - but that clause doesn't explicitly state that it is talking about federal taxes. It also only calls out Indians not being taxed, not persons not being taxed. The implication of only calling out Indians isn't clear as to how that would be applied to others not being taxed.

Children are included in the counting for vote apportionment, and they do not generally pay federal taxes.

Children are taxed by the federal government, even if they generally pay nothing and generally are not required to file. Should a child happen to have taxable income, he would indeed owe federal income tax. [/pedantry]

Children CAN be taxed by the federal government. Same as illegal immigrants should they have taxable income and use a fraudulent SSN.

No, children ARE taxed, even if they generally pay nothing. If the child has income, he owes taxes - period, not at the discretion of the IRS. The distinction between "can" and "are" in your post is one of those legal points by which IRS auditors make a living.

By the way, "Indians not taxed" in context refers to Indians who maintained tribal allegiance and tribal citizenship. At the time of the 14th amendment, Indians who did not live in settled lands but instead lived on open range or on reservations were considered by the U.S. government to be members of tribes, and tribes have tribal sovereignty. The Federal government made no attempt to enumerate them or tax them, and they were not considered citizens. Indians who lived in settled lands and that were at least to some degree assimilated were considered citizens, and not in the category of "Indians not taxed."

(07-09-2019 11:28 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Same as illegal immigrants should they have taxable income and use a fraudulent SSN.

The standard procedure for illegals is to use a fraudulent SSN, and a fraudulent address, and to claim 10+ dependents so that zero is withheld, then NOT file a 1040. Ever. This frees up cash to be sent out the country.

This is a very successful strategy at avoiding even a penny of income tax. Working for cash avoids the FICA/Medicare taxes that support the free health care they get.

Five states have no sales tax

So, I guess many illegals in those states are not taxpayers, by your own definition.

Many are racist toward blacks, which makes them bad people.

Still, they are to be counted. But few will be, because they will not come out of the shadows. They feel no patriotic duty to do that. Putting a question on a form they will ignore will not change that.

Just a campaign ploy.

(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.

(07-09-2019 10:22 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-09-2019 10:16 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-09-2019 09:55 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  So it says explicitly that representatives are apportioned based on the whole number of persons, not citizens, in each State, excluding only those who are not taxed. At the moment, every person, citizen or non-citizen is taxed in some form, by, at a minimum, sales tax.

Sales tax is not a Federal tax.

Yes - but that clause doesn't explicitly state that it is talking about federal taxes. It also only calls out Indians not being taxed, not persons not being taxed. The implication of only calling out Indians isn't clear as to how that would be applied to others not being taxed.

Children are included in the counting for vote apportionment, and they do not generally pay federal taxes.

lad, to be blunt stop pulling stuff out of thin air. I suggest you look up where else the phrase 'excluding Indians not taxed' is used, then look up some actual case law that regards that language.

You might be surprised that your interpretation really might not hold water when you do those preliminary steps.

(07-09-2019 10:44 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  At the very least it seems pretty obvious that you need to know both the number of people here, AND the number of citizens here.

14:2 talks about Inhabitants who are also citizens. You need both.

Yep. That is the plain language of it. Glad you got that with the paucity of digging I did for it.

Plain and simple fact: Every question may make somebody loathe to fill out the form. Following Democratic logic, then, requires that there be no questions on the form.

I have a question about the census case. WTF was the Supreme Court thinking. The reasoning doesn’t really make sense.

Which provokes another question. WTF does the left have photos of Roberts doing? Because on two huge cases he has gone totally off the rails.

One more question. If the citizenship question makes illegals not fill out and return the form, what’s wrong with that?