Jump to content

Supreme Court conservatives appear ready to OK Trump’s census citizenship question

JustBecause

By JustBecause
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

hobbes2702

hobbes2702 13351

Posted
Posted
30 minutes ago, NowThis said:

other counting mechanisms can accomplish the task for government fund distributions.  I dont' get the mentality of "we are all going to die if the Census doesn't count non-citizens!!!". It's overly alarmist and immature. Relax people. 

That would be quite alarmist. It’s a good thing you’re the only person who said that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 714
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Mojo Hand
Mojo Hand

Hopefully people are starting to realize that the president "can" do whatever people let him do.   Our institutions are only as good as the people who run them.  The Senate has abdicated virtually all

Huckleberry
Huckleberry

No, it's not. "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

hayden_horn
hayden_horn

yeah, so i have some unique insight on this, given that i worked for the 2010 census. immigrant populations, hell, even native spanish speaking citizens, are wary of the census, just as crazy fun

hobbes2702

hobbes2702 13351

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, NowThis said:

it's up to interpretation dude. Constitutional law has been debated for a couple centuries at least, no? Surly liberals have the true answer i guess, so we really need to have all 9 SCOTUS read this board daily, no? 

What does “persons” mean you fucking dunce?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Huckleberry

Huckleberry 34407

Posted
Posted (edited)
31 minutes ago, NowThis said:

idiot, it's up to interpretation as is everything in the constitution you idiot. 

No, it's not.

"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."

Please elaborate on your interpretation of the bold portion of that text that leads you to believe non-citizens shouldn't be counted. The text even supplies quite directly the only exception to the count.

You're a complete and total moron.

Edited by Huckleberry
  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Huckleberry

Huckleberry 34407

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

can someone quote it? i'm over my ten articles this month or whatever

Lady had her life turned upside down because ICE said she wasn't a citizen. She thinks nobody should ever be treated like that. It was terrible and nearly ruined her.

She will vote for Trump again in 2020.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hayden_horn

hayden_horn 11401

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Lady had her life turned upside down because ICE said she wasn't a citizen. She thinks nobody should ever be treated like that. It was terrible and nearly ruined her.

She will vote for Trump again in 2020.

i don't....

i can't....

i just...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mojo Hand

Mojo Hand 4580

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Huckleberry said:

No, it's not.

"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."

Please elaborate on your interpretation of the bold portion of that text that leads you to believe non-citizens shouldn't be counted. The text even supplies quite directly the only exception to the count.

You're a complete and total moron.

Plus that exception wouldn't be necessary if "whole persons" already excluded non-citizens, as "Indians not taxed" were non-citizens. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 106618

Posted
Posted
idiot, it's up to interpretation as is everything in the constitution you idiot. 

Yes, everything is up for interpretation, as the term “interpretation” literally means.

Fortunately, the one undisputed rule of both constitutional and statutory interpretation is “plain meaning.” For example, if a law says that X must happen by September 1 of each year, the court “interprets” that to mean that the deadline is the first day of September. If a law says that no person may shit in public in Texas, that law applies to...every human being in Texas, at any given time.

So, when the Constitution says that the census most count all persons....that means...”all persons.”

I know that such complex reasoning is a challenging exercise for Trumpkins, but go ahead and stretch yourself, and give it a try!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
tcutter03

tcutter03 0

Posted
Posted
The chaos of compiling numbers from lots of sources will be fertile ground for shenanigans by this crooked WH.
No kidding. How many false flags are they gonna fly based on the "authentic data"? Everyday he's gonna tweet some new tidbit he learned from these multiple incompetent sources.

Mind you, the data collectors aren't incompetent, they're just bean counters. The people in charge, the analysts closest to Trump, they're the problem.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 86939

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, NowThis said:

idiot, it's up to interpretation as is everything in the constitution you idiot. 

FUCK YES! Time to reinterpret the 2nd amendment. Newsflash: you won't like the outcome. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 19441

Posted
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Can we discuss the definition of “Arms” in the 2nd Amendment yet?

I’m curious if I can own a nuclear weapon? 

No. Fissile material is highly regulated, as are hazardous materials.

Because duh.

Edited by David Dennison
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RDCanecutter

RDCanecutter 26853

Posted
Posted

Every one who wants a weapon must be part of the militia.

Monthly militia drills will commence with a 5am PT test.

Those who cannot pass the test will be thanked for their service and sent home.

Those who pass the PT test will be drummed out as mentally unfit if known to be part of Crossfit.

The remaining two members will be given free coffee and a shoulder patch.

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bateshorn

Bateshorn 9989

Posted
Posted (edited)
45 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:


Yes, everything is up for interpretation, as the term “interpretation” literally means.

Fortunately, the one undisputed rule of both constitutional and statutory interpretation is “plain meaning.” For example, if a law says that X must happen by September 1 of each year, the court “interprets” that to mean that the deadline is the first day of September. If a law says that no person may shit in public in Texas, that law applies to...every human being in Texas, at any given time.

So, when the Constitution says that the census most count all persons....that means...”all persons.”

I know that such complex reasoning is a challenging exercise for Trumpkins, but go ahead and stretch yourself, and give it a try!

 

2 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

No, it's not.

"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."

Please elaborate on your interpretation of the bold portion of that text that leads you to believe non-citizens shouldn't be counted. The text even supplies quite directly the only exception to the count.

You're a complete and total moron.

Not only that, the 3/5 clause, which is often shown struck, was not actually removed from the constitution. Rather, it was invalidated by the 14th amendment. It's still part of the verbiage

Here's the original:

Quote

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which 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. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.

The drafters were very, very specific about who is counted, who is not counted, and who ultimately is responsible for setting the standards of the census.  This is not one of those loosey-goosey clauses where everyone shrugs and says "who the hell knows what those crazy powder wigged bastards were thinking?"  

 

Edited by Bateshorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SuingToGetAMessageBoard?

SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861

Posted
Posted
Quote

President Trump continued to defend his decision to back away from the census citizenship question telling reporters Friday, “I think we will have it in the end where it is actually more accurate than the census.”  

Trump was then asked if he was “backing down” Trump responded, “No, no. Not only didn’t I back down, I backed up.”

thats a pretty fucking good comeback

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31987

Posted
Posted
27 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

 

Not only that, the 3/5 clause, which is often shown struck, was not actually removed from the constitution. Rather, it was invalidated by the 14th amendment. It's still part of the verbiage

Here's the original:

The drafters were very, very specific about who is counted, who is not counted, and who ultimately is responsible for setting the standards of the census.  This is not one of those loosey-goosey clauses where everyone shrugs and says "who the hell knows what those crazy powder wigged bastards were thinking?"  

 

Yep, with one sort of exception.  They didn't have a conception of citizenship as we know it today.  Other countries were mostly monarchies and your "citizenship" or subjugation to that monarch and government was mostly established by residence, force, or fiat, or possibly to whom you bent the knee.

It's kind of reflected in the treatment of Indians in the Constitution, as they were treated as a separate sovereign, as a group (Commerce Clause), and individually as subject to a different sovereign, regardless of residence, unless they had severed from their tribe and agreed to be taxed as "Americans" ("Indians not taxed" here).

You can flop around and analogize aliens. illegal or otherwise, to Indians, but  . . . .  I dunno man.  Just an historical point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NowThis

NowThis 931

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Bateshorn said:

 

Not only that, the 3/5 clause, which is often shown struck, was not actually removed from the constitution. Rather, it was invalidated by the 14th amendment. It's still part of the verbiage

Here's the original:

The drafters were very, very specific about who is counted, who is not counted, and who ultimately is responsible for setting the standards of the census.  This is not one of those loosey-goosey clauses where everyone shrugs and says "who the hell knows what those crazy powder wigged bastards were thinking?"  

 

exactly, but illegal aliens were not to be counted, correct? 

Look, i know everyone is tying this to Trump hatred, but the issue is much bigger, he's just a temporary blip.   Illegals should not be counted in any measure involving political representation. They can however be counted for government assistance programs (a liberal idea), no problem with that.  

  • Fuck You 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites
NowThis

NowThis 931

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:


Yes, everything is up for interpretation, as the term “interpretation” literally means.

Fortunately, the one undisputed rule of both constitutional and statutory interpretation is “plain meaning.” For example, if a law says that X must happen by September 1 of each year, the court “interprets” that to mean that the deadline is the first day of September. If a law says that no person may shit in public in Texas, that law applies to...every human being in Texas, at any given time.

So, when the Constitution says that the census most count all persons....that means...”all persons.”

I know that such complex reasoning is a challenging exercise for Trumpkins, but go ahead and stretch yourself, and give it a try!

what about foreign students who are here for 4-6 years? Or even tourists here for 3 summer months? Or 25 million people who walked across the border last week? Does it end? Or are there limits to all persons? 

  • Fuck You 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CO Horn

CO Horn 172

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, NowThis said:

what about foreign students who are here for 4-6 years? Or even tourists here for 3 summer months? Or 25 million people who walked across the border last week? Does it end? Or are there limits to all persons? 

Do you know who is required to complete the Census?  If you do, you can answer that question yourself.  If not, do some research.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 19441

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, NowThis said:

exactly, but illegal aliens were not to be counted, correct? 

Look, i know everyone is tying this to Trump hatred, but the issue is much bigger, he's just a temporary blip.   Illegals should not be counted in any measure involving political representation. They can however be counted for government assistance programs (a liberal idea), no problem with that.  

Undocumented workers should be counted for the census. They should also count for political representation. They should not get to vote.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
NowThis

NowThis 931

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, CO Horn said:

Do you know who is required to complete the Census?  If you do, you can answer that question yourself.  If not, do some research.

doesn't answer my question though. 

 

11 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Undocumented workers should be counted for the census. They should also count for political representation. They should not get to vote.

if someone is counted for political representation, they should be allowed to vote. Is this a conservation or liberal opinion? 

  • Fuck You 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CO Horn

CO Horn 172

Posted
Posted
19 minutes ago, NowThis said:

what about foreign students who are here for 4-6 years? Or even tourists here for 3 summer months? Or 25 million people who walked across the border last week? Does it end? Or are there limits to all persons? 

To answer your question, no there are not limits to all persons.  You want it changed, you'll need a constitutional amendment.  Do you want me to let you know the process?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NowThis

NowThis 931

Posted
Posted
22 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

So children should vote? 

 

as soon as i posted, i knew some ultra clever retort about voting age would come to pass. 

21 minutes ago, CO Horn said:

To answer your question, no there are not limits to all persons.  You want it changed, you'll need a constitutional amendment.  Do you want me to let you know the process?

well there should be. Even in the constitution, the un-taxed natives are excluded. 

So, count all 50 million who walked across the border yesterday, all foreign students, and all tourists. Hell, even count ISIS sleeper cells then. This is fun, but i'm checking the NBA board now. laterz. 

  • Fuck You 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Voldemort86

Voldemort86 2259

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, NowThis said:

idiot, it's up to interpretation as is everything in the constitution you idiot. 

You don’t seem to understand what’s going on right now.

people don’t appreciate that our reality TV President is trying to politicize the freaking census. It’s embarassing that we as a country are talking about this so much.

what people really have an issue with is the orange baby wants to ask the census question, only count citizens towards redistricting, and give a bunch of congressional seats to shitty little red states who are still living in the 1950’s. We haven’t even asked this question on a census since the 1950’s. Trump is just being a massive douchebag because he’s skeptical that the Republicans will have much of an advantage in the house going forward. Democrats have bridged the gap on fund raising and the maps for 2020 are expected to improve for democrats. Trump is trying to cheat. He’s a miserable asshole.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Huckleberry

Huckleberry 34407

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, NowThis said:

as soon as i posted, i knew some ultra clever retort about voting age would come to pass. 

So as soon as you posted you realized how dumb it was to act like human beings who consume government services but aren't allowed to vote shouldn't be counted as part of the population? You know an edit button exists, right?

2 minutes ago, NowThis said:

well there should be. Even in the constitution, the un-taxed natives are excluded. 

*waiting for NowThis to figure out that untaxed Native Americans weren't consuming government services but were considered sovereign when the Constitution was written and were made citizens in 1924*

2 minutes ago, NowThis said:

So, count all 50 million who walked across the border yesterday, all foreign students, and all tourists. Hell, even count ISIS sleeper cells then. This is fun, but i'm checking the NBA board now. laterz. 

giphy.gif

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Voldemort86

Voldemort86 2259

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, NowThis said:

idiot, it's up to interpretation as is everything in the constitution you idiot. 

You don’t seem to understand what’s going on right now.

people don’t appreciate that our reality TV President is trying to politicize the freaking census. It’s embarassing that we as a country are talking about this so much.

what people really have an issue with is the orange baby wants to ask the census question, only count citizens towards redistricting, and give a bunch of congressional seats to shitty little red states who are still living in the 1950’s. We haven’t even asked this question on a census since the 1950’s. Trump is just being a massive douchebag because he’s skeptical that the Republicans will have much of an advantage in the house going forward. Democrats have bridged the gap on fund raising and the maps for 2020 are expected to improve for democrats. Trump is trying to cheat. He’s a miserable asshole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bateshorn

Bateshorn 9989

Posted
Posted
58 minutes ago, NowThis said:

exactly, but illegal aliens were not to be counted, correct? 

Look, i know everyone is tying this to Trump hatred, but the issue is much bigger, he's just a temporary blip.   Illegals should not be counted in any measure involving political representation. They can however be counted for government assistance programs (a liberal idea), no problem with that.  

An illegal alien is a person.  They were to be counted. Otherwise they would have been excluded.  There is plenty of verbiage about foriegn nationals all over the constitution.  The founders were aware of them.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DixonHur

DixonHur 11941

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Bateshorn said:

Also, you couldn't be an illegal immigrant at that time.  You were just an immigrant.  The concept of illegal immigration is a 19th century construct.

Are you suggesting the Founding Fathers were for open borders?  Those damn lefties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 86939

Posted
Posted

Whether you want them here or not, they live here. They pay taxes (sales and even property where they rent). They mow your lawns and cook your food in restaurants and clean your house. 

Count them. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...