Trump orders new census that does NOT count illegal immigrants

[scruffy]

I would think not..given that the entire stated purpose of the census is for apportionment.
The whole number of persons.
The Constitution does NOT stipulate citizens only--in fact, it is clear, that they meant everyone who is subject to taxation--given that the only stated exception was predicated not on citizenship..but on taxpaying status~

BTW..as to Trump's idea of a mid-decade census..well, nothing says we can't be counted whenever the Govt. decides.
However, the only census that is eligible to be used to apportion is the decennial census.
That is specifically spelled out in the Constitution.

Illegals don't pay taxes.

They can't work, therefore they don't pay.

 

[Edgetho]

~~~~~~
The original U.S. Constitution does not explicitly define citizenship; it primarily addresses the rights and responsibilities of citizens without detailing who qualifies as a citizen. The concept of citizenship was later clarified and established by the Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, which states that all persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens.
The Constitution mentions "citizens" in various contexts but does not provide a clear rule for determining who qualifies as a citizen.

Nobody disputes that. What is disputed is if someone is here ILLEGALLY and they squirt out a future Ward of The State.

The 14th was addressing people who had a right to be here and gave birth. And people who didn't live in Admitted States.

There is nothing in any Law that States people here illegally count as Citizens or can convey citizenship to their offspring by virtue of simply being on US Soil. Illegally or otherwise.

SCOTUS needs to slap this notion down. Soon. Or things will get out of control very quickly.

the scum of the Earth, dimocrap FILTH are already rabble-rousing, trying to stir up violence.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Nobody disputes that. What is disputed is if someone is here ILLEGALLY and they squirt out a future Ward of The State.

The 14th was addressing people who had a right to be here and gave birth. And people who didn't live in Admitted States.

There is nothing in any Law that States people here illegally count as Citizens or can convey citizenship to their offspring by virtue of simply being on US Soil. Illegally or otherwise.

SCOTUS needs to slap this notion down. Soon. Or things will get out of control very quickly.

the scum of the Earth, dimocrap FILTH are already rabble-rousing, trying to stir up violence.

SCOTUS will not "slap" your worries down.

 

[Edgetho]

~~~~~~
Indeed, They're called "Amendments" and can only be achieved by a three-fourths ratification vote of the States.

SCOTUS has absolutely nothing to do with the Amendment process. The poster you're referring to is talking about when SCOTUS invents provisions in the Constitution out of thin air..... Like the 'Right To Privacy' which was overturned by a sane Court just recently.

Judge-Made-Law is one of the worst things that ever happened to this Country. There's way too much of it.

In its place I would propose that Judge-Made-Law stand for a period of 5 (five) years. During that time, it must be acted on and made into Law by Congress or the Law-Making Body of the State in which the ruling took place.

After 5 years, if no New Law has been written, then the Judge-made-Law is null and void and is reversed.

The Judiciary is trying to do too much. Some of it is benign while much of it is not. If we had Legislatures, both State and Federal, that were made up of other than cowards, the Judiciary wouldn't have to get involved as often and make stupid Rulings.

 

[Godboy]

You cannot change the constitution by executive order.

Yet they both did it.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Edgetho, SCOTUS is not concerned with your political science theories.

They are in charge and know it.

 

[dblack]

The supreme court has changed the constitution many times even though they are not allowed to do that.

Well, Ok. So the President should be able to do the same. Just change it, or ignore it, wily nily by EO whenever the mood hits them. Good call!

 

[forkintheroad7]

The GOP has tried to do this before and failed, but now they control the house and senate and it should go thru. This is long long overdue.

BREAKING: Trump orders new census that does NOT count illegal immigrants

“People who are in our Country illegally WILL NOT BE COUNTED IN THE CENSUS.”

thepostmillennial.com

Felons aren't allowed to vote (unless they have served their time & are now crime-free). So why should people who violate our immigration laws be counted in the census?

Those dimrats... so lawless. But again, what are we going to do when there is no Trump around?

Not many of the Rs in Congress seem overly Trump like to me, save a few..

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

The SC has the authority to do that (they ignore StatesRightsForever - imagine that!)

The Office of the President does not have the authority to change the Constitution.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Why do you insist the unelected judges on the SC should have final say on every issue when the constitution says they DON'T have such power.

In fact, that is their only reason for existence--to have the final say on all things Constitutional~

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Illegals don't pay taxes.

They can't work, therefore they don't pay.

Except, that in the real world, they do and they do~

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Some one has to have a final say.

That can't be an executive, too much danger of a dictatorship.

So that leaves the SC.

 

[scruffy]

The purpose of the Decennial Census is Apportionment--the two cannot be divorced...IMO.

Horseshit.

The linkage was INVENTED by the Judiciary, there is no such linkage in the Constitution.

The legal cases involved were hotly disputed with scathing contrary opinions.

Article I Section 2 Clause 1 was completely misinterpreted by a partisan court in Kirkpatrick v Preisler. The "logic" used goes all the way back to Wesberry v Sanders.

Article I Section 2 Clause 3 specifically destroys the Court's bogus insistence on "mathematical equality".

And anyway, if you know statistics, apportioning on the basis of race is the EXACT OPPOSITE of mathematical equality.

 

[Crepitus]

You got a bad case of it, Directly related to your TDS

 

[Rawley]

View attachment 1146689

Not sure if yours is a notch above or below Timmy's

 

[Zincwarrior]

It should follow.

If illegals can't vote in elections, especially in House races, it should serve to show their presence here should not be allowed to influence the number of House seats.

Talk to the Founding Fathers.

 

[Crepitus]

Not sure if yours is a notch above or below Timmy's

Mir egal.

 

[The Duke]

Nobody disputes that. What is disputed is if someone is here ILLEGALLY and they squirt out a future Ward of The State.

The 14th was addressing people who had a right to be here and gave birth. And people who didn't live in Admitted States.

There is nothing in any Law that States people here illegally count as Citizens or can convey citizenship to their offspring by virtue of simply being on US Soil. Illegally or otherwise.

SCOTUS needs to slap this notion down. Soon. Or things will get out of control very quickly.

the scum of the Earth, dimocrap FILTH are already rabble-rousing, trying to stir up violence.

Actually, they already did, not long ago. The leftard bots are working with yesteryear's programming.

Birthright citizenship: Supreme Court gives Trump a win. What does it mean?

The U.S. Supreme Court handed President Trump a win by lifting blocks on his efforts to end birthright citizenship for undocumented immigrants.

www.tallahassee.com

 

[StatesRightsForever]

A 'whataboutism' that makes no sense at all. SCOTUS abrogated power in 1808. Congress could have withdrawn its jurisdiction in Marshall but did not.

It was 1803 but yes, congress should have removed marshall from the SC for giving the courts authority to repeal laws when the constitution says only congress can do that.

 

[StatesRightsForever]

Because they are the judges of the Constitution. Duh.

Where does the constitution say that, you moron?? Fact is the constitution never explicitly says who has authority to declare laws unconstitutional which means, by the 10A, the states have it. WHY CAN'T YOU THINK?