Illegals to be counted in redistributing political districts


#1

The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously decided Monday that illegal immigrants can be counted when states draw legislative districts.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in the Evenwel vs. Abbott opinion claimed that only those eligible may vote, but elected officials represent all people in a district, so the illegals must be included in the count, as reported by The Washington Times.
“As the Framers of the Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment comprehended, representatives serve all residents, not just those eligible or registered to vote,” she wrote. “Nonvoters have an important stake in many policy debates — children, their parents, even their grandparents, for example, have a stake in a strong public-education system — and in receiving constituent services, such as help navigating public-benefits bureaucracies.”

Read more at Supreme Court says illegals to be counted when drawing districts TRUNEWS with Rick Wiles

We are seeing the fruition of obama’s policy of allowing illegals and others to flood the country.


#2

I appreciate you posting that but its importance will fly over the heads of the vast majority who think they are politically astute.

This crap about counting illegal aliens, which in turn guarantees greater representation in Congress was address by Madison and he explains why the rule of apportioning both representatives and taxation by each state’s populations size is critical.

In Federalist No. 54 we are reminded that our Constitution’s rule requiring an apportionment of both Representatives and direct taxes “…will have a very salutary effect.” Madison observes in this paper . . . “Were” the various States’ “share of representation alone to be governed by this rule, they would have an interest in exaggerating their inhabitants. Were the rule to decide their share of taxation alone, a contrary temptation would prevail. By extending the rule to both objects, the States will have opposite interests, which will control and balance each other, and produce the requisite impartiality.”

Unfortunately, a state may claim a huge increase in their population size to obtain a greater representation in Congress so they can vote to increase welfare programs, without having to pay an apportioned share of taxes to fund those welfare programs.

Sad to say there are so many shallow minded people, including those who claim to be “conservatives” who are incapable of understanding the necessity of apportioning both representatives and each states share of federal taxes paid. The wisdom behind this rule is never discussed, and especially not with regard to Obama’s intentional invasion of our borders.

Just for the record and regarding the importance of the rule of apportionment, let’s get down to some upsetting facts regarding California‘s 55 electoral college votes. According to recent numbers, the total share of federal taxes paid by the people of 18 states [New York, Texas, Illinois, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Minnesota, Massachusetts, Washington, Connecticut, Maryland, Colorado, Arkansas , Nebraska, Delaware, Rhode Island, New Mexico, and Wyoming] works out to be a higher per capita amount then paid by the people of California. And yet, the State of California has an overwhelming 55 Electoral College votes compared to any of these states!

For example, and according to 2007 figures, the people of Wyoming contributed $4,724,678,000 in federal taxes which works out to be a $9,036.74 tax per capita. And Wyoming, under the rule of apportionment is allotted 3 Electoral College votes. By contrast, the people of California contributed $313,998,874,000 in federal taxes this same year, and this figure works out to be a mere $8,590.18 tax per capita, which is a far less per capita than that paid by the people of Wyoming. But California gets 55 Electoral College votes, about 17 times more electoral votes than Wyoming. And why should this upset the people of Wyoming and 17 other States? It violates that part of the Great Compromise adopted when our Constitution was ratified which guarantees that representation and direct taxation is to be apportioned by each State’s population size. The two formulas considering subsequent amendments to our Constitution may be expressed as follows:

States Pop. ___________ X House (435) = States votes in House
Pop. of U.S.

States pop. _________ X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATES SHARE
U.S. Pop

In regard to the first formula, both California and Wyoming are getting their full representation which is 55 and 3 Electoral College votes respectively. But, with regard to taxes paid, the people of Wyoming in 2007 contributed a higher per capita share of federal taxes than California in spite of the fair share formula for direct taxation mandated by our Constitution which requires an equal per capita tax.

In 2007, if the rule of apportionment were applied to taxation and representation as intended by our Founders, and the people of California each had to pay one dollar to meet its apportioned share of a total sum being raised by Congress, the people of Wyoming would likewise only have to pay one dollar each if the tax were shared evenly among the people living in Wyoming. Although California’s total share of the tax under the rule of apportionment would be far greater than that of Wyoming because of California’s larger population, California was compensated with its larger Electoral College vote in the last election which is also part of the rule of apportionment and gives them a greater say when spending federal revenue, but did not contribute a apportioned share of the tax burden!

As things are California got to exercise 55 Electoral College votes in our last presidential election, but did not contributed a share into the federal treasury proportionately equal to its massive Electoral College vote as our Constitution requires. And this is a direct assault upon the very purposes for which the rule of apportionment was adopted.

Once again, thank you for posting that, and especially note Ginsburg’s comment confirming the increases of illegal aliens into a state guarantees them a greater chunk of federal welfare money!

I wonder why Ted Cruz does not talk about the wisdom of the rule of apportionment.

JWK


#3

Try to focus, JWK. The Constitution’s original tax plan was AMENDED by the 16th Amendment…or, at worst, SUPPLEMENTED by the 16th. We can argue for days as to whether that was a wise decision, but the decision WAS made over 100 years ago.


#4

What does you post have to do with discussing the importance of the rule of apportionment? The topic of the thread shows the consequences of ignoring the wisdom and brilliance of our Founder’s thinking when framing our Constitution.

JWK


#5

Until I get some compelling confirmation, I’m not prepared to believe this story. I’m not familiar with the site in the OP, and I haven’t heard of this anywhere else.


#6

See: ** Supreme Court Rejects Challenge on ‘One Person One Vote’**

”Justice Ginsburg sided with the first theory. “Nonvoters have an important stake in many policy debates — children, their parents, even their grandparents, for example, have a stake in a strong public-education system — and in receiving constituent services, such as help navigating public-benefits bureaucracies,” she wrote in her majority opinion. “By ensuring that each representative is subject to requests and suggestions from the same number of constituents, total population apportionment promotes equitable and effective representation.”

Ginsburg, as well as big government folk and socialists, support one man one vote when it comes to dolling out federal revenue as shown above, but they ignore that part of the Constitution commanding one vote one dollar which is also part of the rule of apportionment.

The very purpose of the rule of apportionment was to insure representation with a proportional financial obligation, or, one man one vote and one vote on dollar.

JWK


To support John Kasich, Hillary Clinton or Paul Ryan, is to support our*** Global Governance Crowd ***and their WTO, NAFTA, GATT, and CAFTA, all used to circumvent America First trade policies, while fattening the fortunes of international corporate giants who have no allegiance to America or any nation.



#7

The Constitution does say that representatives and taxes “shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.”

So are illegal immigrants “free persons”?


#8

Do we have representatives for the Citizens of Europe? Uganda? Do the cannibals on the Congo get a representative?


#9

The Constitution also says: “Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States …”

JWK


#10

Citizens of other countries do not get representation in our government. If they have an issue they can take it up with their government.


#11

They don’t live here, obviously. The Supreme Court has been clear for a long time that constitutional rights extend past citizens. Not only does the Constitution specify “people”, not “citizens,” but the 14th amendment refers to people “within [a state’s] jurisdiction,” again, not only citizens.

There’s not a way to interpret these clauses as being limited to citizens. The fact that this decision was unanimous just bolsters that view.


#12

Just for the record, I agree with the opinion of the Court, and do so because it is in harmony with the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted. My point was how Socialist Ginsburg in her written opinion emphasized how apportionment and voting is tied to each state’s free government cheese, while ignoring the Founder’s rule of apportionment also commanded the people of each state would be obligated to pay an apportioned share of the tab for “free” government cheese, if Congress ever decided to enter the States and tax the people directly!

The wisdom of our founder’s rule of apportioning both representatives and taxation by a state’s population size is, that although a particular state with a large population has an overwhelming representation [voting strength] in Congress when spending federal revenue such as California, New York, Pennsylvania, etc., they would be held in check by the rule of apportionment which also commands they pay a larger share of the tab whenever a direct tax is laid among the states to pay for free government cheese. And this provides protection against mob rule “democracy” in which 51 percent of those voting in Congress may use their vote to tax away the property of the constituents of the remaining Representatives in Congress since by voting to increase their taxes to pay for free government cheese, they likewise increase their own State’s apportioned share of the tab.

And just what did our Founding Fathers think of “democracy”? Madison, in Federalist No. 10 says in reference to “democracy” they

***…have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions. ***

Democracy, or majority rule vote, as the Founding Fathers well knew, whether that majority rule is practiced by the people or by elected representatives, if not restrained by specific limitations and particular guarantees, such as the rule of apportionment, they have proven throughout history to eventually result in nothing less than an unbridled mob rule system susceptible to the wants and passions of a political majority imposing its will upon those who may be outvoted, and would result in the subjugation of unalienable rights, and especially rights associated with property ownership.

And so, our Founding Fathers gave us a constitutionally limited Republican Form of Government, guaranteed by Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution of the United States and also provided whenever Congress entered the States to tax the people directly, each States total share of the amount being raised would be proportionately equal to its representation in Congress, or, to put it another way ___ representation with a proportional financial obligation, or one man one vote and one vote one dollar.

Finally, and with regard to Justice Thomas, who happens to be my favorite member of the Court, the above article continues:

***Only Justice Thomas said he would have allowed states to draw districts based on eligible voters if they wished to.

“The Constitution does not prescribe any one basis for apportionment within states,” Justice Thomas wrote. “It instead leaves states significant leeway in apportioning their own districts to equalize total population, to equalize eligible voters or to promote any other principle consistent with a republican form of government.”

“The Constitution leaves the choice to the people alone — not to this court,” Justice Thomas added.***

JWK


To support John Kasich, Hillary Clinton or Paul Ryan, is to support our*** Global Governance Crowd ***and their WTO, NAFTA, GATT, and CAFTA, all used to circumvent America First trade policies, while fattening the fortunes of international corporate giants who have no allegiance to America or any nation.



#13

False. The 14th defines what is a citizen:

As to the Supreme Court, they’ve ruled wrongly any number of times.

And I say again: I want to see some compelling confirmation before I believe this happened.


#14

It is true, FC. Slaves were not citizens, but counted as 3/5 of a person for census/congressional representative purposes. That was the core of what the 3/5 compromise was about.


#15

Your quote of the 14th amendment defines citizens and then directly after says,

> nor shall any State deprive any** person** of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

If they had meant that only citizens get equal protection, they would have said so, especially since they define citizen literally in the previous sentence. Heck it uses the word citizen in the same sentence.


#16

The 14th Amendment makes the distinction between citizens and persons, and what each is entitled to!

”All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

As we can see from the language of the 14th Amendment it:

  1. Makes ”All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” … citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

The amendment then goes on to declare:

  1. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. This wording forbids every State from abridging the ”privileges or immunities” which it has adopted under law to “citizens of the United States”. Note that it does not forbid a State to deny “privileges or immunities” to “persons” who may not be “citizens of the United States”!

The amendment then continues with:

  1. … nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…

This wording applies to “any person” as opposed to “citizens of the United States”. It expressly forbids every State to deprive any “person [within its jurisdiction] of life, liberty, or property without due process of” a State’s laws.

This section of the Amendment then concludes with:

  1. ”…nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

This wording simply commands that whatever a State’s laws are, a person within that State’s jurisdiction may not be denied the equal protection of those laws. For example, the wording does not require one State to recognize and enforce another State’s laws, and especially not its licensing laws, within its jurisdiction. Nor are residents within a particular state denied due process of law if that State refuses to recognize the licensing laws of another State.

The fact is, the wording of the 14th Amendment is crystal clear as referenced above and it is in harmony with the expressed intentions and beliefs which the 39th Congress was attempting to accomplish with the first Civil Rights Act and the 14th Amendment which was to incorporate the legislative intent of the first Civil Rights into our Constitution. For example, one of the supporters of the 14th Amendment expressed the legislative intent of the 39th Congress as follows:

“Its whole effect is not to confer or regulate rights, but to require that whatever of these enumerated rights and obligations are imposed by State laws shall be for and upon all citizens alike without distinctions based on race or former condition of slavery…It permits the States to say that the wife may not testify, sue or contract. It makes no law as to this. Its whole effect is to require that whatever rights as to each of the enumerated civil (not political) matters the States may confer upon one race or color of the citizens shall be held by all races in equality…It does not prohibit you from discriminating between citizens of the same race, or of different races, as to what their rights to testify, to inherit &c. shall be. But if you do discriminate, it must not be on account of race, color or former conditions of slavery. That is all. If you permit a white man who is an infidel to testify, so you must a colored infidel. Self-evidently this is the whole effect of this first section. It secures-not to all citizens, but to all races as races who are citizens- equality of protection in those enumerated civil rights which the States may deem proper to confer upon any race.” ___ SEE: Rep. Shellabarger, Cong. Globe, 1866, page 1293

Now, what does all this crap about the 14th Amendment have to do with the rule that Representatives and direct taxes are required to be apportioned among the states?

JWK

If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection could be frittered away, one of the great landmarks defining the boundary between the nation and the states of which it is composed, would have disappeared, and with it one of the bulwarks of private rights and private property. POLLOCK v. FARMERS’ LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 (1895)


#17

It was mostly to demonstrate an example of the importance of the wording of “citizen” and “person” and demonstrate that non-citizens have a long history of having certain privileges in the U.S. Article I, section 2 is the relevant bit, and it uses the term “person”. Therefore representatives should be apportioned by the number of people, not citizens.


#18

The 3/4ths Compromise was just a way for the South t increase the number of reps they had in Congress. All this would do is again, increase the number of Reps states have. Just what we need, more bureaucrats and politicians.


#19

[quote="“Trekky0623, post:17, topic:48568"”]

It was mostly to demonstrate an example of the importance of the wording of “citizen” and “person” and demonstrate that non-citizens have a long history of having certain privileges in the U.S. Article I, section 2 is the relevant bit, and it uses the term “person”. Therefore representatives should be apportioned by the number of people, not citizens.[/QUOTE]

Which is totally irrelevant to the very purpose for requiring direct taxes to be apportioned, and the fact that Representatives and direct taxes are still required to be apportioned as repeatedly stated by our Court.

JWK

If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection could be frittered away, one of the great landmarks defining the boundary between the nation and the states of which it is composed, would have disappeared, and with it one of the bulwarks of private rights and private property. POLLOCK v. FARMERS’ LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 (1895)


#20

Actually, the 3/4ths Compromise was a penalty which denied slave holding states their full representation in Congress. But what does this have to do with the requirement that direct taxes are still, to this day, required to be apportioned?

JWK