When will the RW finally admit it?

Sep 2018
991
201
KC, MO
#51
You know what is unconstitutional? Trying to purposefully miscount the number of PEOPLE (the constituent does not say count the citizens it says count the PEOPLE) to try and get the results you want in Congress.
We Could Count Illegals As 3/5th Of A Person
Not That They Have Rights To Representation At All
Or Any Citizen Tax Money Benefits

Since They're Not Supposed To Be Here At All
 
Last edited:
Sep 2018
991
201
KC, MO
#53
Read the Constitution
For The Establishment Clause
That Isn't There
For The Abortion Clause
That Isn't There
For The Same-Sex Marriage Clause That Isn't There ??
"Read The Constitution" Back At Cha'

I Hope Trump/McConnell Can Finish The Job
Of Returning Constitutionalism To The Benches Of America
The 60yr Trend Of Seeing What Isn't There
And Ignoring What Is There
Can Be Reversed
Looks Like The Corner May Be Turned On The Ninth Circuit

*Ginsberg*.....Tick.....Tock.....
 
Last edited:
Nov 2012
10,921
9,116
nirvana
#54
Demonstrably false. He's literally doing what the 14th Amendment Section 2 commands that he do while you happily watch ANTIFA attack journalists and the elderly and social media ban and censor half the country. Not to mention the executive orderer and chief that you fawned over for 8 years on your knees while he literally blocked the CIA from going after Hezbollah drug rings and put children in cages that you now call Nazi Germany.

Secondly, the Supreme Court literally said his act is Constitutional, but that they were interested in a more detailed reason. So he's performing what the SC just described as a Constitutional act and the Constitution itself commands under its own authority, which trumps all. What are you going to get him on? Performing an act commanded by the Constitution, of which Obama is the only President to not enforce? Or perhaps you'll try to nail him for performing an act the SC literally just said is Constitutional. Good luck with that.

But let's cut the crap. He can get all the info he'll ever need from pre Obama censuses, and then begin shrinking the number of representatives in heavily illegal immigrant filled liberal districts.

You know what's vile, evil and tyrannical? Owning the House simply because of people who aren't even US citizens per census ommission of a question which is obviously 100% valid in your own country, then whining about foreign influences in elections that your party completely made up per Saul Alinsky tactics.
Couple things here. Article 1 are Congressional powers. The Constitution nay reason the court said the question was Constitutional is Congress appropriated that power to the best executive to enforce. Which will now be a power Congress takes away from the executive at its earliest possible convenience. Among many others.

Also, the President does not have the authority to draw Congressional districts within the states. That power resides only with the states.

In my opinion it is a bad decision by the court. But given the fact that more states are turning blue, guess who’s going to come up short in the long run?
 
Jul 2014
14,925
9,153
massachusetts
#55
Not really. Roberts probably voted the way he did for one of two reasons, neither of which are valid when past performance of the SCOTUS is taken into consideration. He might have voted the way he did because he simply does not like Trump, a valid reason in the liberal psyche. He also may have voted that way because he agreed with the liberal minority that motive, as obscure as it is in this case, is sufficient to deny a positive judgement. Motive is rarely taken into consideration in SCOTUS proceedings. Some are even calling it unprecedented.
So just because one side lies to the judges, it shouldn't have an effect on the outcome?

"This would have been a valid reason to add the question, even though it actually never came up until we needed a cover story for our completely invalid reason to add the question".
 
Jul 2008
18,877
12,687
Virginia Beach, VA
#56
Not really. Roberts probably voted the way he did for one of two reasons, neither of which are valid when past performance of the SCOTUS is taken into consideration. He might have voted the way he did because he simply does not like Trump, a valid reason in the liberal psyche. He also may have voted that way because he agreed with the liberal minority that motive, as obscure as it is in this case, is sufficient to deny a positive judgement. Motive is rarely taken into consideration in SCOTUS proceedings. Some are even calling it unprecedented.
There is a LAW (Administrative Procedures Act) which Trump & Company violated in trying to get the question on the census. The opinion bends over backwards to give the administration the benefit of the doubt and STILL ruled against them.
 
Jul 2008
18,877
12,687
Virginia Beach, VA
#59
The fact that the citizenship question wasn't asked on other census forms shows that the forms didn't comply with the requirements in Section 2 of the 14th Amendment.


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.

You can have 50 million people in a State but only 1 million citizens. If 300,000 citizens are denied the right to vote then the number of representatives must be reduced. So, to be in compliance, it is necessary to know how many citizens are in each State.

edited for typo
The census does not need to ask the question to get a count of the people denied the right to vote despite being citizens.
 

Similar Discussions