- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Another Court Strikes Down Trump’s Census Citizenship Question
Posted on 3/6/19 at 12:59 pm to Loserman
Posted on 3/6/19 at 12:59 pm to Loserman
quote:
Democrats used to claim the Slaves as 3/5ths a man for representation in Congress.
Now they get 5/5ths for illegals
This was actually funny Looserman because it’s true
2
Posted on 3/6/19 at 1:00 pm to udtiger
But then that judge loses an opportunity to virtue signal.
Posted on 3/6/19 at 1:00 pm to Mid Iowa Tiger
quote:
Great! Let's also have the Supreme Court define "population" as intended. My bet is population in this use does not include everyone, only citizens. Trump could be killing two birds with one stone thanks to this judge...
Or we could all lose bigly.
Posted on 3/6/19 at 1:01 pm to Cajun1974
quote:
This is BS, illegal aliens are being counted in the Congressional apportionment. That means that they are also being counted in the Electoral college apportionment.
Yes they are. I agree it should just be citizens. But ironically, when it was written, they wanted to keep tabs on where all the slaves were as well as citizens. Ironically now this will be used to "hide" where illegals were. Seems kind of arse backwards doesnt it. Do the survey the way it was intended, count everyone and designate who is a citizen and who is not.
Posted on 3/6/19 at 1:01 pm to TOKEN
How in the frick is this even up for debate?
Posted on 3/6/19 at 1:03 pm to Turbeauxdog
quote:
federal judge in California ruled
Did it not used to be a question on the census but was dropped?
Posted on 3/6/19 at 1:06 pm to PsychTiger
The implications are huge for California. There is a substantial amount of federal dollars that could be withheld from the state if everyone is counted and question of being a legal citizen remains on questionnaire.
Actual population vs Population of American Citizens
It’s a great debate
Actual population vs Population of American Citizens
It’s a great debate
Posted on 3/6/19 at 1:08 pm to bamarep
quote:
How in the frick is this even up for debate?
If we went by “originalist text” then the outcome would favor California and those who support counting illegals but not asking if they are illegal. We have to imagine that’s at least 10 million added to their population.
This post was edited on 3/6/19 at 1:10 pm
Posted on 3/6/19 at 1:11 pm to TOKEN
quote:
Democrats used to claim the Slaves as 3/5ths a man for representation in Congress. Now they get 5/5ths for illegals
quote:
This was actually funny Looserman because it’s true
And just like the "good old days" when they had slaves, they now have a new underclass to pick their crops, clean their houses/businesses, and cut their grass etc.
Only now they get the non-slave owners to subsidize their new slaves through tax money.
Posted on 3/6/19 at 1:12 pm to TOKEN
quote:How does it prevent the enumeration of the population?
Seeborg also said that the question violated the Constitution’s Enumeration Clause, which requires the “actual Enumeration” of the population every decade to be used for congressional apportionment.
Posted on 3/6/19 at 1:12 pm to TOKEN
quote:
If we went by “originalist text” then the outcome would favor California and those who support counting illegals but not asking if they are illegal. We have to imagine that’s at least 10 million added to their population.
Well at 3/5ths anyway!
Technically an Originalist would view it as only citizens after the passing 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.
Since illegals cant vote in Federal Elections they shouldn't be counted.
This post was edited on 3/6/19 at 1:26 pm
Posted on 3/6/19 at 1:13 pm to TOKEN
Just another judge that is about to have their arse handed to them by the USSC
Posted on 3/6/19 at 1:14 pm to TOKEN
quote:
The implications are huge for California. There is a substantial amount of federal dollars that could be withheld from the state if everyone is counted and question of being a legal citizen remains on questionnaire. Actual population vs Population of American Citizens It’s a great debate
A debate the Democrats don't want to have because it would likely decrease their power
Posted on 3/6/19 at 1:16 pm to TOKEN
quote:
Administrative Procedure Act
There it is again.
This is a law that is often abused and needs to be amended.
Posted on 3/6/19 at 1:19 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
Just another judge that is about to have their arse handed to them by the USSC
With this guy on the court, that is never, ever a sure thing. His obsession with being apolitical has made the court more political.
We need RBG to leave the court so we can make him irrelevant.
This post was edited on 3/6/19 at 1:22 pm
Posted on 3/6/19 at 1:22 pm to TOKEN
quote:whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat?
A federal judge in California
Posted on 3/6/19 at 1:51 pm to Sentrius
quote:
With this guy on the court, that is never, ever a sure thing. His obsession with being apolitical has made the court more political.
We need RBG to leave the court so we can make him irrelevant
Roberts is the new swing vote. Do people honestly believe a liberal judge would ever become a swing vote on the court? Kennedy, O’Conner and now Roberts.
I knew this would happen the second Kennedy left the bench. Roberts wants to be remembered as someone who was above the partisan divide of the court and preserved the institution itself. In effect, the SCOTUS becomes a political entity rendering sone decisions based on public opinion. Still, the seat that must be protected is the Thomas seat more than any other. He needs to retire after the year is done.
Posted on 3/6/19 at 1:53 pm to TOKEN
quote:
Seeborg also said that the question violated the Constitution’s Enumeration Clause, which requires the “actual Enumeration” of the population every decade to be used for congressional apportionment
No it doesn't. It could be argued that ANY particular question would reduce (or increase) census participation. The Constitution has no opinion on this.
Posted on 3/6/19 at 1:54 pm to TOKEN
[img]that the question violated the Constitution’s Enumeration Clause, which requires the “actual Enumeration” of the population every decade to be used for congressional apportionment.[/img]
Okay.
Well, there are quite a few other questions on the census form that have nothing to do with “actual enumeration”.
I guess all questions about race are out according to this judge.
Okay.
Well, there are quite a few other questions on the census form that have nothing to do with “actual enumeration”.
I guess all questions about race are out according to this judge.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News