As we have seen firsthand, California, which happens to be a communist/socialist sanctuary State and openly encourages illegal immigration, gets the most number of Representatives [53 votes] in the House of Representatives because of our Constitution’s rule of apportionment, a rule which distributes each state’s number of representatives based upon its total population size which includes illegal entrants and non-citizens in the count.
Using available statistical information, approximately seven of California’s Representatives in the House are allocated because of its illegal and non-citizen population size. California’s illegal and non-citizen population is also used to determine California’s huge number of Electoral College votes which happens to be 55, beating out Texas which has 38, while New York and Florida both have a mere 29 votes each. The Electoral College vote determines who our President and Vice President is.
Politically speaking, California gets a very real benefit from swelling its population with illegal immigrants. It gets a larger vote in Congress when spending federal revenue because of its illegal entrant population size, and likewise gets a larger voice in determining who our President and Vice President is, also because of its illegal and non-citizen population which adds to its political influence.
Our Founder’s understood that apportioning each state’s number of representatives based upon each state’s population size, could very well encourage a state to swell or exaggerate its population size during our nation’s census, in order to gain additional Representatives which would translate into undue influence in Congress Assembled. But to prevent the states from exaggerating their population size in order to obtain additional Representatives and political influence, the rule of apportionment was also tied to each state’s share in financing our federal government by the following words: “Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states . . . “ In other words, the larger a state’s representation in the House was, so too was that state’s share of any federal direct tax laid by Congress.
Unfortunately our communist and socialist government school teachers will not teach their students the wisdom and brilliance of our Founders applying the rule of apportionment to both taxation and representation. But I will!
Madison in Federalist No. 45 explains the wisdom of the rule of apportionment being applied to representatives and taxation as follows:
“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.”
Of course, since the rule of apportionment is no longer being applied to direct taxation as intended by our Founders and commanded by our Constitution, California is free to encourage illegal immigration into its state which increases its representation in Congress without also increasing its share of our federal tax burden. And this is a communists’ and socialists’ delight ___ representation without a proportional financial obligation.
It is also important to note that under the rule of apportionment when applied to direct taxation, the tax turns out to be an equal per capita tax. For example, if a direct tax were laid today to raise a specific sum and the people of California each had to pay one dollar to meet California’s apportioned share of the total sum being raised by Congress, the people of Idaho would likewise only have to pay one dollar each if the tax were shared evenly among the people living in Idaho. And, although California’s total share of the tax would be far greater than that of Idaho because of California’s larger population, California gets a larger representation in Congress, which is also part of our Constitution’s fair share apportioning formula! The two formulas are:
State`s Population
_________________X House membership (435) = State`s No. of Representatives
Population of U.S.
and . . .
.
State`s population
_________________ X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE`S SHARE OF TAX BURDEN
Total U.S. Population
However, as it now stands, approximately 15 states pay a higher per capita share of federal taxes than does California, but these states do not get representation in Congress proportionately equal to the per capita taxes paid as intended by the rule of apportionment.
Considering California’s love affair with illegal immigration used to increase its representation in Congress, Is it not time to have a conversation to discuss the wisdom, brilliance and merits of our founder’s rule tying taxation and representation by the same metric, and forcing California to pay an apportioned share of our federal tax burden, proportionately equal to its representation in Congress?
JWK
Useful Links:
Federal per capita tax revenue by state
State demographics by citizenship status
Federal taxes paid by state per capita
U.S. unauthorized immigrant population estimates by state, 2016
Using available statistical information, approximately seven of California’s Representatives in the House are allocated because of its illegal and non-citizen population size. California’s illegal and non-citizen population is also used to determine California’s huge number of Electoral College votes which happens to be 55, beating out Texas which has 38, while New York and Florida both have a mere 29 votes each. The Electoral College vote determines who our President and Vice President is.
Politically speaking, California gets a very real benefit from swelling its population with illegal immigrants. It gets a larger vote in Congress when spending federal revenue because of its illegal entrant population size, and likewise gets a larger voice in determining who our President and Vice President is, also because of its illegal and non-citizen population which adds to its political influence.
Our Founder’s understood that apportioning each state’s number of representatives based upon each state’s population size, could very well encourage a state to swell or exaggerate its population size during our nation’s census, in order to gain additional Representatives which would translate into undue influence in Congress Assembled. But to prevent the states from exaggerating their population size in order to obtain additional Representatives and political influence, the rule of apportionment was also tied to each state’s share in financing our federal government by the following words: “Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states . . . “ In other words, the larger a state’s representation in the House was, so too was that state’s share of any federal direct tax laid by Congress.
Unfortunately our communist and socialist government school teachers will not teach their students the wisdom and brilliance of our Founders applying the rule of apportionment to both taxation and representation. But I will!
Madison in Federalist No. 45 explains the wisdom of the rule of apportionment being applied to representatives and taxation as follows:
“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.”
Of course, since the rule of apportionment is no longer being applied to direct taxation as intended by our Founders and commanded by our Constitution, California is free to encourage illegal immigration into its state which increases its representation in Congress without also increasing its share of our federal tax burden. And this is a communists’ and socialists’ delight ___ representation without a proportional financial obligation.
It is also important to note that under the rule of apportionment when applied to direct taxation, the tax turns out to be an equal per capita tax. For example, if a direct tax were laid today to raise a specific sum and the people of California each had to pay one dollar to meet California’s apportioned share of the total sum being raised by Congress, the people of Idaho would likewise only have to pay one dollar each if the tax were shared evenly among the people living in Idaho. And, although California’s total share of the tax would be far greater than that of Idaho because of California’s larger population, California gets a larger representation in Congress, which is also part of our Constitution’s fair share apportioning formula! The two formulas are:
State`s Population
_________________X House membership (435) = State`s No. of Representatives
Population of U.S.
and . . .
.
State`s population
_________________ X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE`S SHARE OF TAX BURDEN
Total U.S. Population
However, as it now stands, approximately 15 states pay a higher per capita share of federal taxes than does California, but these states do not get representation in Congress proportionately equal to the per capita taxes paid as intended by the rule of apportionment.
Considering California’s love affair with illegal immigration used to increase its representation in Congress, Is it not time to have a conversation to discuss the wisdom, brilliance and merits of our founder’s rule tying taxation and representation by the same metric, and forcing California to pay an apportioned share of our federal tax burden, proportionately equal to its representation in Congress?
JWK
Useful Links:
Federal per capita tax revenue by state
State demographics by citizenship status
Federal taxes paid by state per capita
U.S. unauthorized immigrant population estimates by state, 2016
