Trump to Exclude Illegal Aliens from Congressional Apportionment Counts

[Ame®icano]

The Constitution says all poeople shall be counted. All means citizens abd non-citizens.

At the time it wasn't considered that illegal aliens would be given sanctuary instead of being deported.

Doesn't it suck for you to have to admit to supporting the dilution of American citizen
representation by giving part of that representation to foreign national criminals?

In last Census, all people are counted.

Not all people get representation, just citizens.

The number of PEOPLE that are counted is used to apportion House seats. The 14th Amendment is very clear on this.

Everyone IS counted.

Person that are in the U.S. illegally don't get representation, since they should't be in the country anyways. Otherwise, you could have an influx of illegals at the time of census every ten years, just in time to get counted for appropriating seats, and go back afterwards.

Imagine having congressional district with 100,000 illegals and 100 voters, where those 100 would would get congressional seat. That's what basically happening in California, on a different scale.

And about 14th amendment, you should research what was its intent. The primary reason, other than balancing representation between slave states and free states, was because the Federal government was prevented direct taxation that wasn’t apportioned by states’ populations. The government, wanting as much revenue for the national government as the states would let them get away with, used as expansive a definition of personhood as they could get away with. They did this with full knowledge that tying taxation to total personhood would have included landless, native-born male citizens (and virtually all women) who, under the laws of their states, may have been just as ineligible to vote as the people who just got off the boats, of their own free will or otherwise.

By the way, when I say "you should research", it's just figure of speech, since I doubt you will do so. You're hopelessly stuck in your ideological labyrinth, and you know just what you've been told by your overlords, with complete lack of thought of your own.

The Amendment is written in plain English. You can talk intent all you want but that is 1 person's opinion

Are you stupid, retarded, or both?

Every single Amendment is written in plain English, but it doesn't bother you lefties to go around it when it's against what you want.

But lets go back to 14 Amendment and see who are the "persons" who are being represented, it's in the first sentence:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

People who sneak across the borders, and live wholly outside the laws of society, are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. They are alien invaders, not lawful immigrants. They are not persons that 14 Amendment is talking about, moron.

That is a question that you hneed to answer. It is written 8in plain English but you refuse to accept it.

"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. "

It clearly states the number of persons not citizens. That clearly makes what Trump wants to do unconstitutional. The Supreme Court is likely to do what they did on DACA and throw out Trump's order on procedural grounds.

Again, the same question for you. Are you stupid, retarded, or both?

Section 1 of the Amendment clarifies who are the "persons".

You are the one who is stupid retarded or both. Section 1 clarifies who is a citizen not a person. It says that every person shall be counted. It then uses the word citizen when it comes to voting. Clearly a distinction was intentional or they would have said citizens shall be counted rather than persons.

Section 1 clarifies persons who are the citizens. The persons they're are talking about specifically are freed slaves. Natives are also persons, but they were not considered citizens because they were "subject to the jurisdiction" of their own tribes. Illegals are not subject to the jurisdiction of United States, therefore they do not get representation in US government.

It's not really that hard to process it, unless you received your understanding of the federal Constitution from the government-controlled education system. Your first and lesser problem is comprehension of the issue, and second, bigger problem is that proper English word usage and meanings along with English concepts of implicit vs explicit, context defining meaning of words with multiple definitions, is ignored if they conflict with the true constitutional teachings.

I'll explain it just for you in simplest way possible, but I doubt you're intelligent enough to process it because of your above mentioned "government-controlled education". In order not to waste my time, let me present you with two sentences from two Amendments:

13th Amendment, Section 1. "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. "

14th Amendment, Section 1. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States... "

The question for you is... whose jurisdiction each Amendment is referring to?

It's not a trick question, and if you answer it correctly, I'll apologize to you and continue the discussion. However, failing to answer will eventually confirm what I, and others have suspected, or known about you. The stage is yours.

Just as I thought, busybee01 got tail between his legs.

I(n the section that is in question, they use persons as who counts in terms of Congressional representation. They use the word citizen as to who should be able to vote. Clearly they meant persons and citizens to mean 2 different things.

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.

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

In section 1 they confer certain rights to persons who are not citizens.

You have your tail up Trump's ass to suck it.

Only clear thing here is that you're not answering the question I asked you. What you wrote have nothing to do with my question, and in the attempt to answer "something", you just threw in bunch of gibberish with no relation to anything of value. Anyways, to show you appreciation, I'll say "Well, at least you've tried".

In order to answer the question, you have to read and understand Section 1 from each, 13th and 14th Amendments.

13th Amendment, Section 1. "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. "

14th Amendment, Section 1. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States... "

The question for you was, and still is: "Whose jurisdiction each Amendment is referring to?"

The question is specific, and require specific answer. If you don't understand the question, you can say so and I'll rephrase it, just stop trying to answer something nobody asked you about. It doesn't make you look smarter, or right on the subject neither.

 

[Ame®icano]

The Constitution says all poeople shall be counted. All means citizens abd non-citizens.

At the time it wasn't considered that illegal aliens would be given sanctuary instead of being deported.

Doesn't it suck for you to have to admit to supporting the dilution of American citizen
representation by giving part of that representation to foreign national criminals?

In last Census, all people are counted.

Not all people get representation, just citizens.

The number of PEOPLE that are counted is used to apportion House seats. The 14th Amendment is very clear on this.

Everyone IS counted.

Person that are in the U.S. illegally don't get representation, since they should't be in the country anyways. Otherwise, you could have an influx of illegals at the time of census every ten years, just in time to get counted for appropriating seats, and go back afterwards.

Imagine having congressional district with 100,000 illegals and 100 voters, where those 100 would would get congressional seat. That's what basically happening in California, on a different scale.

And about 14th amendment, you should research what was its intent. The primary reason, other than balancing representation between slave states and free states, was because the Federal government was prevented direct taxation that wasn’t apportioned by states’ populations. The government, wanting as much revenue for the national government as the states would let them get away with, used as expansive a definition of personhood as they could get away with. They did this with full knowledge that tying taxation to total personhood would have included landless, native-born male citizens (and virtually all women) who, under the laws of their states, may have been just as ineligible to vote as the people who just got off the boats, of their own free will or otherwise.

By the way, when I say "you should research", it's just figure of speech, since I doubt you will do so. You're hopelessly stuck in your ideological labyrinth, and you know just what you've been told by your overlords, with complete lack of thought of your own.

The Amendment is written in plain English. You can talk intent all you want but that is 1 person's opinion

Are you stupid, retarded, or both?

Every single Amendment is written in plain English, but it doesn't bother you lefties to go around it when it's against what you want.

But lets go back to 14 Amendment and see who are the "persons" who are being represented, it's in the first sentence:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

People who sneak across the borders, and live wholly outside the laws of society, are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. They are alien invaders, not lawful immigrants. They are not persons that 14 Amendment is talking about, moron.

That is a question that you hneed to answer. It is written 8in plain English but you refuse to accept it.

"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. "

It clearly states the number of persons not citizens. That clearly makes what Trump wants to do unconstitutional. The Supreme Court is likely to do what they did on DACA and throw out Trump's order on procedural grounds.

Again, the same question for you. Are you stupid, retarded, or both?

Section 1 of the Amendment clarifies who are the "persons".

You are the one who is stupid retarded or both. Section 1 clarifies who is a citizen not a person. It says that every person shall be counted. It then uses the word citizen when it comes to voting. Clearly a distinction was intentional or they would have said citizens shall be counted rather than persons.

Section 1 clarifies persons who are the citizens. The persons they're are talking about specifically are freed slaves. Natives are also persons, but they were not considered citizens because they were "subject to the jurisdiction" of their own tribes. Illegals are not subject to the jurisdiction of United States, therefore they do not get representation in US government.

It's not really that hard to process it, unless you received your understanding of the federal Constitution from the government-controlled education system. Your first and lesser problem is comprehension of the issue, and second, bigger problem is that proper English word usage and meanings along with English concepts of implicit vs explicit, context defining meaning of words with multiple definitions, is ignored if they conflict with the true constitutional teachings.

I'll explain it just for you in simplest way possible, but I doubt you're intelligent enough to process it because of your above mentioned "government-controlled education". In order not to waste my time, let me present you with two sentences from two Amendments:

13th Amendment, Section 1. "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. "

14th Amendment, Section 1. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States... "

The question for you is... whose jurisdiction each Amendment is referring to?

It's not a trick question, and if you answer it correctly, I'll apologize to you and continue the discussion. However, failing to answer will eventually confirm what I, and others have suspected, or known about you. The stage is yours.

Hey, busybee01, still no reply? It's not that you are not around, since you posting in other threads for the past three days. So where is the problem?

Believe it or not I have a life unlike you.

Actually, you don't. If presence on this board is a proof of having life, that you suck on it too...

Since I asked you question on last Thursday, you've been posting all over this board every single day on multiple occasions. Unlike you, I wasn't on the board on Friday and Sunday.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

ROFLMOA, Libtard heads exploding across the GLOBE! I CAN HEAR THEM NOW!

Trump to Exclude Illegal Aliens from Congressional Apportionment Counts

Illegal aliens will not be counted for purposes of congressional apportioning thanks to a memorandum set to be signed by President Trump.

www.breitbart.com

Illegal aliens will not be counted for purposes of congressional apportioning thanks to a memorandum set to be signed by President Trump on Tuesday.​

​

Congressional seats and electoral college votes are currently divided up by counting all persons in each district, including illegal aliens. This allows states like California, New York, and Florida to receive more congressional seats and electoral college votes, while diluting political power in states with small illegal alien populations.​

Again. The Supreme Court already dealt with this. Nice try though.

trumpkins are imbeciles

You are WRONG!!!!

They said you had to count them in the census, not use their numbers to distribute districts and electoral votes!!!

California is TOTALLY gaming the system by bringing in new people (illegal Mexicans etc) to gain a much stronger Democrat base.

NO MORE!!!



FUCK OFF YOU GODDAMN CHEATERS!!!!

That’s why even if you don’t like trump as I don’t,will be voting for him again because biden is much worse and will have them coming in again.

 

[busybee01]

The Constitution says all poeople shall be counted. All means citizens abd non-citizens.

At the time it wasn't considered that illegal aliens would be given sanctuary instead of being deported.

Doesn't it suck for you to have to admit to supporting the dilution of American citizen
representation by giving part of that representation to foreign national criminals?

In last Census, all people are counted.

Not all people get representation, just citizens.

The number of PEOPLE that are counted is used to apportion House seats. The 14th Amendment is very clear on this.

Everyone IS counted.

Person that are in the U.S. illegally don't get representation, since they should't be in the country anyways. Otherwise, you could have an influx of illegals at the time of census every ten years, just in time to get counted for appropriating seats, and go back afterwards.

Imagine having congressional district with 100,000 illegals and 100 voters, where those 100 would would get congressional seat. That's what basically happening in California, on a different scale.

And about 14th amendment, you should research what was its intent. The primary reason, other than balancing representation between slave states and free states, was because the Federal government was prevented direct taxation that wasn’t apportioned by states’ populations. The government, wanting as much revenue for the national government as the states would let them get away with, used as expansive a definition of personhood as they could get away with. They did this with full knowledge that tying taxation to total personhood would have included landless, native-born male citizens (and virtually all women) who, under the laws of their states, may have been just as ineligible to vote as the people who just got off the boats, of their own free will or otherwise.

By the way, when I say "you should research", it's just figure of speech, since I doubt you will do so. You're hopelessly stuck in your ideological labyrinth, and you know just what you've been told by your overlords, with complete lack of thought of your own.

The Amendment is written in plain English. You can talk intent all you want but that is 1 person's opinion

Are you stupid, retarded, or both?

Every single Amendment is written in plain English, but it doesn't bother you lefties to go around it when it's against what you want.

But lets go back to 14 Amendment and see who are the "persons" who are being represented, it's in the first sentence:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

People who sneak across the borders, and live wholly outside the laws of society, are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. They are alien invaders, not lawful immigrants. They are not persons that 14 Amendment is talking about, moron.

That is a question that you hneed to answer. It is written 8in plain English but you refuse to accept it.

"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. "

It clearly states the number of persons not citizens. That clearly makes what Trump wants to do unconstitutional. The Supreme Court is likely to do what they did on DACA and throw out Trump's order on procedural grounds.

Again, the same question for you. Are you stupid, retarded, or both?

Section 1 of the Amendment clarifies who are the "persons".

You are the one who is stupid retarded or both. Section 1 clarifies who is a citizen not a person. It says that every person shall be counted. It then uses the word citizen when it comes to voting. Clearly a distinction was intentional or they would have said citizens shall be counted rather than persons.

Section 1 clarifies persons who are the citizens. The persons they're are talking about specifically are freed slaves. Natives are also persons, but they were not considered citizens because they were "subject to the jurisdiction" of their own tribes. Illegals are not subject to the jurisdiction of United States, therefore they do not get representation in US government.

It's not really that hard to process it, unless you received your understanding of the federal Constitution from the government-controlled education system. Your first and lesser problem is comprehension of the issue, and second, bigger problem is that proper English word usage and meanings along with English concepts of implicit vs explicit, context defining meaning of words with multiple definitions, is ignored if they conflict with the true constitutional teachings.

I'll explain it just for you in simplest way possible, but I doubt you're intelligent enough to process it because of your above mentioned "government-controlled education". In order not to waste my time, let me present you with two sentences from two Amendments:

13th Amendment, Section 1. "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. "

14th Amendment, Section 1. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States... "

The question for you is... whose jurisdiction each Amendment is referring to?

It's not a trick question, and if you answer it correctly, I'll apologize to you and continue the discussion. However, failing to answer will eventually confirm what I, and others have suspected, or known about you. The stage is yours.

Just as I thought, busybee01 got tail between his legs.

I(n the section that is in question, they use persons as who counts in terms of Congressional representation. They use the word citizen as to who should be able to vote. Clearly they meant persons and citizens to mean 2 different things.

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.

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

In section 1 they confer certain rights to persons who are not citizens.

You have your tail up Trump's ass to suck it.

Only clear thing here is that you're not answering the question I asked you. What you wrote have nothing to do with my question, and in the attempt to answer "something", you just threw in bunch of gibberish with no relation to anything of value. Anyways, to show you appreciation, I'll say "Well, at least you've tried".

In order to answer the question, you have to read and understand Section 1 from each, 13th and 14th Amendments.

13th Amendment, Section 1. "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. "

14th Amendment, Section 1. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States... "

The question for you was, and still is: "Whose jurisdiction each Amendment is referring to?"

The question is specific, and require specific answer. If you don't understand the question, you can say so and I'll rephrase it, just stop trying to answer something nobody asked you about. It doesn't make you look smarter, or right on the subject neither.

You clearly do not understand the 14th Amendment. It is impossible to explain it to you because you are so stupid. The 14th Amendment does define what a citizen is. However they also say that the count for apportionment shall be of all persons not citizens. Even illegals are subject to the jurisdiction of the US. They can be arrested.

 

[Ame®icano]

The Constitution says all poeople shall be counted. All means citizens abd non-citizens.

At the time it wasn't considered that illegal aliens would be given sanctuary instead of being deported.

Doesn't it suck for you to have to admit to supporting the dilution of American citizen
representation by giving part of that representation to foreign national criminals?

In last Census, all people are counted.

Not all people get representation, just citizens.

The number of PEOPLE that are counted is used to apportion House seats. The 14th Amendment is very clear on this.

Everyone IS counted.

Person that are in the U.S. illegally don't get representation, since they should't be in the country anyways. Otherwise, you could have an influx of illegals at the time of census every ten years, just in time to get counted for appropriating seats, and go back afterwards.

Imagine having congressional district with 100,000 illegals and 100 voters, where those 100 would would get congressional seat. That's what basically happening in California, on a different scale.

And about 14th amendment, you should research what was its intent. The primary reason, other than balancing representation between slave states and free states, was because the Federal government was prevented direct taxation that wasn’t apportioned by states’ populations. The government, wanting as much revenue for the national government as the states would let them get away with, used as expansive a definition of personhood as they could get away with. They did this with full knowledge that tying taxation to total personhood would have included landless, native-born male citizens (and virtually all women) who, under the laws of their states, may have been just as ineligible to vote as the people who just got off the boats, of their own free will or otherwise.

By the way, when I say "you should research", it's just figure of speech, since I doubt you will do so. You're hopelessly stuck in your ideological labyrinth, and you know just what you've been told by your overlords, with complete lack of thought of your own.

The Amendment is written in plain English. You can talk intent all you want but that is 1 person's opinion

Are you stupid, retarded, or both?

Every single Amendment is written in plain English, but it doesn't bother you lefties to go around it when it's against what you want.

But lets go back to 14 Amendment and see who are the "persons" who are being represented, it's in the first sentence:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

People who sneak across the borders, and live wholly outside the laws of society, are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. They are alien invaders, not lawful immigrants. They are not persons that 14 Amendment is talking about, moron.

That is a question that you hneed to answer. It is written 8in plain English but you refuse to accept it.

"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. "

It clearly states the number of persons not citizens. That clearly makes what Trump wants to do unconstitutional. The Supreme Court is likely to do what they did on DACA and throw out Trump's order on procedural grounds.

Again, the same question for you. Are you stupid, retarded, or both?

Section 1 of the Amendment clarifies who are the "persons".

You are the one who is stupid retarded or both. Section 1 clarifies who is a citizen not a person. It says that every person shall be counted. It then uses the word citizen when it comes to voting. Clearly a distinction was intentional or they would have said citizens shall be counted rather than persons.

Section 1 clarifies persons who are the citizens. The persons they're are talking about specifically are freed slaves. Natives are also persons, but they were not considered citizens because they were "subject to the jurisdiction" of their own tribes. Illegals are not subject to the jurisdiction of United States, therefore they do not get representation in US government.

It's not really that hard to process it, unless you received your understanding of the federal Constitution from the government-controlled education system. Your first and lesser problem is comprehension of the issue, and second, bigger problem is that proper English word usage and meanings along with English concepts of implicit vs explicit, context defining meaning of words with multiple definitions, is ignored if they conflict with the true constitutional teachings.

I'll explain it just for you in simplest way possible, but I doubt you're intelligent enough to process it because of your above mentioned "government-controlled education". In order not to waste my time, let me present you with two sentences from two Amendments:

13th Amendment, Section 1. "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. "

14th Amendment, Section 1. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States... "

The question for you is... whose jurisdiction each Amendment is referring to?

It's not a trick question, and if you answer it correctly, I'll apologize to you and continue the discussion. However, failing to answer will eventually confirm what I, and others have suspected, or known about you. The stage is yours.

Just as I thought, busybee01 got tail between his legs.

I(n the section that is in question, they use persons as who counts in terms of Congressional representation. They use the word citizen as to who should be able to vote. Clearly they meant persons and citizens to mean 2 different things.

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.

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

In section 1 they confer certain rights to persons who are not citizens.

You have your tail up Trump's ass to suck it.

Only clear thing here is that you're not answering the question I asked you. What you wrote have nothing to do with my question, and in the attempt to answer "something", you just threw in bunch of gibberish with no relation to anything of value. Anyways, to show you appreciation, I'll say "Well, at least you've tried".

In order to answer the question, you have to read and understand Section 1 from each, 13th and 14th Amendments.

13th Amendment, Section 1. "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. "

14th Amendment, Section 1. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States... "

The question for you was, and still is: "Whose jurisdiction each Amendment is referring to?"

The question is specific, and require specific answer. If you don't understand the question, you can say so and I'll rephrase it, just stop trying to answer something nobody asked you about. It doesn't make you look smarter, or right on the subject neither.

You clearly do not understand the 14th Amendment. It is impossible to explain it to you because you are so stupid. The 14th Amendment does define what a citizen is. However they also say that the count for apportionment shall be of all persons not citizens. Even illegals are subject to the jurisdiction of the US. They can be arrested.

Moron.

Two times I asked you the same question, and your replies have nothing to do with the question. I am not asking asking you about citizenship, I am asking you about jurisdictions mentioned in 13th and 14th Amendment.

13th Amendment, Section 1. "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. "

Under whose jurisdiction is 13th Amendment?

14th Amendment, Section 1. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States... "

Under whose jurisdiction is 14th Amendment?

You're so illiterate that you can't even understand the subject I am asking you about, and with you non existent knowledge you "gained" in government controlled schools, of course you are incapable to think or discuss anything of real value. Like most products of leftist governmental education, you accept the intrusion of the federal government into virtually every aspect of your lives. You read the constitution thru eyes of government peon who can't see further than his own nose, but you're acting like you are at least at level of Constitutional Scholar". You even quote the 14th Amendment as something that is securing "rights" even though this amendment effectively destroyed those very same "rights".

However, unlike illiterate like you, the constitutional scholars, and most lawyers, generally gets the titles after being instructed by other constitutional scholars, and/or lawyers, who have also been taught, or perhaps indoctrinated would be a better word, by previous ones. Since most of this instruction is in an academic environment, one must adhere to the teachings in order to pass and be awarded with basically a "Constitutional Scholar" certificate, or membership to the Bar. One problem with this is any falsehoods, accidental and intentional, entering the teachings can be perpetrated as facts for future scholars. These "new" facts are also taught to the general population (and that would be you, and people like you) to encourage their acceptance of false information.

Second problem is that proper English word usage and meanings along with English concepts of implicit vs explicit, context defining meaning of words with multiple definitions, are ignored if they conflict with the scholars' teachings. That would also be you, and shallow people like you, who get stuck into their own whirlpool of lies, without any chance to get out, which explain your repetitive answering to question that nobody asked you, because you cannot answer a specific question you've been asked.

And that IS why you are a moron.

 

[Ame®icano]

@busybee01

Since you've been avoiding to answer my question, or more likely, you've been intellectually incapable to answer, let me clarify couple of things for you, and others who are reading our conversation. Although I am very skeptical that you could understand the subject, I'd like to give you an idea what it meant with "proper English word usage" in the post above.

Again, I am not a lawyer, and I don't speak "lawyer", but I do have couple of friends that are, with whom on occasion I have privilege to have a conversation about topics they're much more knowledgeable than I am. I have tried to have discussion with you, but I can tell you, I had better conversations with my pet rock than I have with you.

I'll start with Preamble to the Bill of Rights

"The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution." You can read the rest in the link above.

The Bill of Rights (BoR) created no Rights. It simply stated Rights held by "We the People".

Some people praise the 14th Amendment for bringing the BoR to the several States as if the States were lawless kingdoms where anarchy ruled. These people, generally, do not know about the original States and how territories became States. They think States created themselves with no input from common people. Most only vaguely conceive that their State even has a constitution. Most that do have never read their State's original constitution.

The facts are that the State's constitutions protected their Citizens at least as well as the federal one, in most cases better. The federal constitution was designed to lay out specific responsibilities and authorities delegated to the federal government by the several States for matters external to them and among the several States but not matters within them.

You probably noticed bold letters when I mention "several States", and here is why. Most Americans applaud the 14th Amendment for bringing the BoR to the several States but never consider why. When you see “United States” in a sentence, or in the Constitution, or in law, you know that it is referring to the country, right? Well maybe not.


The U.S. Supreme Court in Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945) stated:

"The term 'United States' may be used in any one of several senses. It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations. It may designate the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States extends, or it may be the collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution."

So the term “United States” may be (among others):
1. A nation among other nations, as when the United States is represented at the U.N. A singular entity.
2. The territory over which the sovereignty of the United States extends. Since this is also a singular entity it must mean the areas over which the Federal government has jurisdiction, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and all other possessions and territories of the federal government
3. The Several States united by the Constitution. A plural term. The term Several States is usually used to denote the, currently, 50 separate States in law.

The first definition is easily understood, the second and third are not. Let’s look at the third definition in the U.S. Constitution. Note that these definitions are mutually exclusive to one another. This brings me back to the questions I asked you several times earlier, that you could not answer. To answer, you first need a knowledge of history, then knowledge of the Constitution, and also the knowledge of proper English use of words. You have none of these, and you think that googleing something will provide you with critical thinking. Hint: It wont.

13th Amendment

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Note the "their jurisdiction", it is plural and means the several States, but not the federal government or it's possessions and territories. In English language, and in US law, explicitly naming entities implicitly excludes entities not named. Since this Amendment explicitly and exclusively names the several States it excludes the federal government from its provisions against involuntary servitude. So, the 13th Amendment states explicitly that: Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the several States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction... AND... Implicitly states that: Either slavery or involuntary servitude shall exist within the Federal Government, or any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof. The punishment exception doesn’t apply here since it is negated by the implicit allowance of involuntary servitude.

This is exactly where anti-constitutionals leftists are failing to recognize the clear meaning of this amendment. One thing to remember here is just because the law allows something doesn’t mean it has to either state it or refute it. It would be better to look at our lives and see if we are truly free or not. This brings me back to the beginning of this thread and meaning of the 14th Amendment and the second definition of "United States" and brought up above. The former Confederate States, after being welcomed back into the Union and after voting to ratify the 13th Amendment, balked at the intent of the proposed 14th Amendment. Only Citizens of the several States, known as "We the People", could vote for President and had representation in Congress. This amendment's purpose was to create a new class of citizen, one not of the several States but a subject of the federal government. All federal territories and possessions were, and are, under the exclusive control of Congress through Article 1, Section 8 of the federal constitution.

Damn, I did not realize that is this late, and since I have to get up early, I'll have to wrap it up quickly. So... In retaliation for their refusal to cede to the federal government a Right that was always held exclusively by the several States, the Northern Congressmen refused to seat those former Confederate Congressmen and then passed the Reconstruction Acts that called for the military occupation of those States (except Tennessee who voted for the 14th), the overthrow of the duly-elected officials and the appointment of replacements by Congress. These appointed officials then voted to ratify the amendment. You think that's constitutional?

Since the 14th Amendment was, in my opinion, unlawfully and unconstitutionally declared ratified, why was it important to those who instigated the war between the States to write it? To understand that, you must do unthinkable and step outside your government-controlled education and leftist mindset. Despite the teaching that the Founders were generally supportive of the new concept that "all political authority" was held by "We the People", quite a few were opposed to a Constitutional Republic. Some wanted a monarchy, some a pure democracy, others an oligarchy, with them and their heirs as leaders. They could see that slavery was going to slowly be fazed out. Industrial innovation would reduce, if not eliminate, the need for slaves so the then corrupt officials had to create a situation that would allow them to take control of the nation.

So, to finish, let's look at the 14th Amendment.

Section 1: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States..."

The creation of a new class of citizen wholly subject to the federal government. Note the "subject to THE jurisdiction". It denotes the federal government; if it meant the several States, it would have stated "subject to their jurisdiction" as in the 13th Amendment or "subject to the jurisdictions". That is why the Southern States objected to it. Those majority Northern Congressmen wanted power and did not hold to the idea of a free people not under their domination. They knew exactly what they wrote and used it to eventually destroy the American Republic and "We the People".

Privileges and immunities clause of Fourteenth Amendment protects only those rights peculiar to being CITIZEN OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, it does not protect those rights which relate to STATE CITIZENSHIP. That is exactly why counting illegal aliens for the purpose of Congressional apportioning is unconstitutional, and cannot be allowed. I'll leave it here for now, you have more than enough to read, although I doubt you have enough gray matter to process it, in other words, you're moron. Good night.

 

[Faun]

ROFLMOA, Libtard heads exploding across the GLOBE! I CAN HEAR THEM NOW!

Trump to Exclude Illegal Aliens from Congressional Apportionment Counts

Illegal aliens will not be counted for purposes of congressional apportioning thanks to a memorandum set to be signed by President Trump.

www.breitbart.com

Illegal aliens will not be counted for purposes of congressional apportioning thanks to a memorandum set to be signed by President Trump on Tuesday.​

​

Congressional seats and electoral college votes are currently divided up by counting all persons in each district, including illegal aliens. This allows states like California, New York, and Florida to receive more congressional seats and electoral college votes, while diluting political power in states with small illegal alien populations.​

Yup, that'll be shot down for being unconstitutional. The only people who are not counted are Indians who are not taxed...

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.​

 

[Faun]

If Trump gets overturned, ALASKA should get 15 MILLION RUSSIANS to come to Kodiak Island and count toward the REPUBLICAN EC!!!

CHEATING COCKSUCKERS!!!

^^^

 

[Faun]

The Constitution says all poeople shall be counted. All means citizens abd non-citizens.

The Constitution referred to "persons" because there were no "citizens" at the time it was written. It never intended to include people who were not permanent residents. That is why the children of foreign diplomats were specifically excluded from (future) citizenship.

LOLOL

Dumbfuck, the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868. There were citizens then.

 

[Faun]

In last Census, all people are counted.

Not all people get representation, just citizens.

Quote that from the Constitution...

 

[busybee01]

@busybee01

Since you've been avoiding to answer my question, or more likely, you've been intellectually incapable to answer, let me clarify couple of things for you, and others who are reading our conversation. Although I am very skeptical that you could understand the subject, I'd like to give you an idea what it meant with "proper English word usage" in the post above.

Again, I am not a lawyer, and I don't speak "lawyer", but I do have couple of friends that are, with whom on occasion I have privilege to have a conversation about topics they're much more knowledgeable than I am. I have tried to have discussion with you, but I can tell you, I had better conversations with my pet rock than I have with you.

I'll start with Preamble to the Bill of Rights

"The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution." You can read the rest in the link above.

The Bill of Rights (BoR) created no Rights. It simply stated Rights held by "We the People".

Some people praise the 14th Amendment for bringing the BoR to the several States as if the States were lawless kingdoms where anarchy ruled. These people, generally, do not know about the original States and how territories became States. They think States created themselves with no input from common people. Most only vaguely conceive that their State even has a constitution. Most that do have never read their State's original constitution.

The facts are that the State's constitutions protected their Citizens at least as well as the federal one, in most cases better. The federal constitution was designed to lay out specific responsibilities and authorities delegated to the federal government by the several States for matters external to them and among the several States but not matters within them.

You probably noticed bold letters when I mention "several States", and here is why. Most Americans applaud the 14th Amendment for bringing the BoR to the several States but never consider why. When you see “United States” in a sentence, or in the Constitution, or in law, you know that it is referring to the country, right? Well maybe not.


The U.S. Supreme Court in Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945) stated:

"The term 'United States' may be used in any one of several senses. It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations. It may designate the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States extends, or it may be the collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution."

So the term “United States” may be (among others):
1. A nation among other nations, as when the United States is represented at the U.N. A singular entity.
2. The territory over which the sovereignty of the United States extends. Since this is also a singular entity it must mean the areas over which the Federal government has jurisdiction, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and all other possessions and territories of the federal government
3. The Several States united by the Constitution. A plural term. The term Several States is usually used to denote the, currently, 50 separate States in law.

The first definition is easily understood, the second and third are not. Let’s look at the third definition in the U.S. Constitution. Note that these definitions are mutually exclusive to one another. This brings me back to the questions I asked you several times earlier, that you could not answer. To answer, you first need a knowledge of history, then knowledge of the Constitution, and also the knowledge of proper English use of words. You have none of these, and you think that googleing something will provide you with critical thinking. Hint: It wont.

13th Amendment

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Note the "their jurisdiction", it is plural and means the several States, but not the federal government or it's possessions and territories. In English language, and in US law, explicitly naming entities implicitly excludes entities not named. Since this Amendment explicitly and exclusively names the several States it excludes the federal government from its provisions against involuntary servitude. So, the 13th Amendment states explicitly that: Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the several States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction... AND... Implicitly states that: Either slavery or involuntary servitude shall exist within the Federal Government, or any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof. The punishment exception doesn’t apply here since it is negated by the implicit allowance of involuntary servitude.

This is exactly where anti-constitutionals leftists are failing to recognize the clear meaning of this amendment. One thing to remember here is just because the law allows something doesn’t mean it has to either state it or refute it. It would be better to look at our lives and see if we are truly free or not. This brings me back to the beginning of this thread and meaning of the 14th Amendment and the second definition of "United States" and brought up above. The former Confederate States, after being welcomed back into the Union and after voting to ratify the 13th Amendment, balked at the intent of the proposed 14th Amendment. Only Citizens of the several States, known as "We the People", could vote for President and had representation in Congress. This amendment's purpose was to create a new class of citizen, one not of the several States but a subject of the federal government. All federal territories and possessions were, and are, under the exclusive control of Congress through Article 1, Section 8 of the federal constitution.

Damn, I did not realize that is this late, and since I have to get up early, I'll have to wrap it up quickly. So... In retaliation for their refusal to cede to the federal government a Right that was always held exclusively by the several States, the Northern Congressmen refused to seat those former Confederate Congressmen and then passed the Reconstruction Acts that called for the military occupation of those States (except Tennessee who voted for the 14th), the overthrow of the duly-elected officials and the appointment of replacements by Congress. These appointed officials then voted to ratify the amendment. You think that's constitutional?

Since the 14th Amendment was, in my opinion, unlawfully and unconstitutionally declared ratified, why was it important to those who instigated the war between the States to write it? To understand that, you must do unthinkable and step outside your government-controlled education and leftist mindset. Despite the teaching that the Founders were generally supportive of the new concept that "all political authority" was held by "We the People", quite a few were opposed to a Constitutional Republic. Some wanted a monarchy, some a pure democracy, others an oligarchy, with them and their heirs as leaders. They could see that slavery was going to slowly be fazed out. Industrial innovation would reduce, if not eliminate, the need for slaves so the then corrupt officials had to create a situation that would allow them to take control of the nation.

So, to finish, let's look at the 14th Amendment.

Section 1: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States..."

The creation of a new class of citizen wholly subject to the federal government. Note the "subject to THE jurisdiction". It denotes the federal government; if it meant the several States, it would have stated "subject to their jurisdiction" as in the 13th Amendment or "subject to the jurisdictions". That is why the Southern States objected to it. Those majority Northern Congressmen wanted power and did not hold to the idea of a free people not under their domination. They knew exactly what they wrote and used it to eventually destroy the American Republic and "We the People".

Privileges and immunities clause of Fourteenth Amendment protects only those rights peculiar to being CITIZEN OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, it does not protect those rights which relate to STATE CITIZENSHIP. That is exactly why counting illegal aliens for the purpose of Congressional apportioning is unconstitutional, and cannot be allowed. I'll leave it here for now, you have more than enough to read, although I doubt you have enough gray matter to process it, in other words, you're moron. Good night.

You are the KING of bullshit artists. The first part of the 14th Amendment clearly defines who a citizen is. However section 2 states that all persons shall be counted for purposes of apportionment of Congressional seats. It then uses the word citizens when it talks about voting. Clearly they meant to differentiate between people who can vote and people who should be counted. Words mean things and you are trying to get them to mean something else by obfuscating.

 

[Ame®icano]

ROFLMOA, Libtard heads exploding across the GLOBE! I CAN HEAR THEM NOW!

Trump to Exclude Illegal Aliens from Congressional Apportionment Counts

Illegal aliens will not be counted for purposes of congressional apportioning thanks to a memorandum set to be signed by President Trump.

www.breitbart.com

Illegal aliens will not be counted for purposes of congressional apportioning thanks to a memorandum set to be signed by President Trump on Tuesday.​

​

Congressional seats and electoral college votes are currently divided up by counting all persons in each district, including illegal aliens. This allows states like California, New York, and Florida to receive more congressional seats and electoral college votes, while diluting political power in states with small illegal alien populations.​

Yup, that'll be shot down for being unconstitutional. The only people who are not counted are Indians who are not taxed...

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.​

"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.” - Ronald Reagan

It's fun to watch these leftist demagogues embarrass themselves. How could you possibly know that in 1924 Congress adopted the Indian Citizenship Act, which extended US citizenship to the members of all recognized Native American tribes, and made all such persons fully subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

 

[Ame®icano]

In last Census, all people are counted.

Not all people get representation, just citizens.

Quote that from the Constitution...

I did, earlier...

How about you read my post #146, and note, whatever I said to busybee01 is valid for you too.

 

[Ame®icano]

@busybee01

Since you've been avoiding to answer my question, or more likely, you've been intellectually incapable to answer, let me clarify couple of things for you, and others who are reading our conversation. Although I am very skeptical that you could understand the subject, I'd like to give you an idea what it meant with "proper English word usage" in the post above.

Again, I am not a lawyer, and I don't speak "lawyer", but I do have couple of friends that are, with whom on occasion I have privilege to have a conversation about topics they're much more knowledgeable than I am. I have tried to have discussion with you, but I can tell you, I had better conversations with my pet rock than I have with you.

I'll start with Preamble to the Bill of Rights

"The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution." You can read the rest in the link above.

The Bill of Rights (BoR) created no Rights. It simply stated Rights held by "We the People".

Some people praise the 14th Amendment for bringing the BoR to the several States as if the States were lawless kingdoms where anarchy ruled. These people, generally, do not know about the original States and how territories became States. They think States created themselves with no input from common people. Most only vaguely conceive that their State even has a constitution. Most that do have never read their State's original constitution.

The facts are that the State's constitutions protected their Citizens at least as well as the federal one, in most cases better. The federal constitution was designed to lay out specific responsibilities and authorities delegated to the federal government by the several States for matters external to them and among the several States but not matters within them.

You probably noticed bold letters when I mention "several States", and here is why. Most Americans applaud the 14th Amendment for bringing the BoR to the several States but never consider why. When you see “United States” in a sentence, or in the Constitution, or in law, you know that it is referring to the country, right? Well maybe not.


The U.S. Supreme Court in Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945) stated:

"The term 'United States' may be used in any one of several senses. It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations. It may designate the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States extends, or it may be the collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution."

So the term “United States” may be (among others):
1. A nation among other nations, as when the United States is represented at the U.N. A singular entity.
2. The territory over which the sovereignty of the United States extends. Since this is also a singular entity it must mean the areas over which the Federal government has jurisdiction, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and all other possessions and territories of the federal government
3. The Several States united by the Constitution. A plural term. The term Several States is usually used to denote the, currently, 50 separate States in law.

The first definition is easily understood, the second and third are not. Let’s look at the third definition in the U.S. Constitution. Note that these definitions are mutually exclusive to one another. This brings me back to the questions I asked you several times earlier, that you could not answer. To answer, you first need a knowledge of history, then knowledge of the Constitution, and also the knowledge of proper English use of words. You have none of these, and you think that googleing something will provide you with critical thinking. Hint: It wont.

13th Amendment

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Note the "their jurisdiction", it is plural and means the several States, but not the federal government or it's possessions and territories. In English language, and in US law, explicitly naming entities implicitly excludes entities not named. Since this Amendment explicitly and exclusively names the several States it excludes the federal government from its provisions against involuntary servitude. So, the 13th Amendment states explicitly that: Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the several States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction... AND... Implicitly states that: Either slavery or involuntary servitude shall exist within the Federal Government, or any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof. The punishment exception doesn’t apply here since it is negated by the implicit allowance of involuntary servitude.

This is exactly where anti-constitutionals leftists are failing to recognize the clear meaning of this amendment. One thing to remember here is just because the law allows something doesn’t mean it has to either state it or refute it. It would be better to look at our lives and see if we are truly free or not. This brings me back to the beginning of this thread and meaning of the 14th Amendment and the second definition of "United States" and brought up above. The former Confederate States, after being welcomed back into the Union and after voting to ratify the 13th Amendment, balked at the intent of the proposed 14th Amendment. Only Citizens of the several States, known as "We the People", could vote for President and had representation in Congress. This amendment's purpose was to create a new class of citizen, one not of the several States but a subject of the federal government. All federal territories and possessions were, and are, under the exclusive control of Congress through Article 1, Section 8 of the federal constitution.

Damn, I did not realize that is this late, and since I have to get up early, I'll have to wrap it up quickly. So... In retaliation for their refusal to cede to the federal government a Right that was always held exclusively by the several States, the Northern Congressmen refused to seat those former Confederate Congressmen and then passed the Reconstruction Acts that called for the military occupation of those States (except Tennessee who voted for the 14th), the overthrow of the duly-elected officials and the appointment of replacements by Congress. These appointed officials then voted to ratify the amendment. You think that's constitutional?

Since the 14th Amendment was, in my opinion, unlawfully and unconstitutionally declared ratified, why was it important to those who instigated the war between the States to write it? To understand that, you must do unthinkable and step outside your government-controlled education and leftist mindset. Despite the teaching that the Founders were generally supportive of the new concept that "all political authority" was held by "We the People", quite a few were opposed to a Constitutional Republic. Some wanted a monarchy, some a pure democracy, others an oligarchy, with them and their heirs as leaders. They could see that slavery was going to slowly be fazed out. Industrial innovation would reduce, if not eliminate, the need for slaves so the then corrupt officials had to create a situation that would allow them to take control of the nation.

So, to finish, let's look at the 14th Amendment.

Section 1: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States..."

The creation of a new class of citizen wholly subject to the federal government. Note the "subject to THE jurisdiction". It denotes the federal government; if it meant the several States, it would have stated "subject to their jurisdiction" as in the 13th Amendment or "subject to the jurisdictions". That is why the Southern States objected to it. Those majority Northern Congressmen wanted power and did not hold to the idea of a free people not under their domination. They knew exactly what they wrote and used it to eventually destroy the American Republic and "We the People".

Privileges and immunities clause of Fourteenth Amendment protects only those rights peculiar to being CITIZEN OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, it does not protect those rights which relate to STATE CITIZENSHIP. That is exactly why counting illegal aliens for the purpose of Congressional apportioning is unconstitutional, and cannot be allowed. I'll leave it here for now, you have more than enough to read, although I doubt you have enough gray matter to process it, in other words, you're moron. Good night.

You are the KING of bullshit artists. The first part of the 14th Amendment clearly defines who a citizen is. However section 2 states that all persons shall be counted for purposes of apportionment of Congressional seats. It then uses the word citizens when it talks about voting. Clearly they meant to differentiate between people who can vote and people who should be counted. Words mean things and you are trying to get them to mean something else by obfuscating.

Is that all you figured out from my post? If so, you are king of morons.

How about you answer the questions I asked you twice already? It's not that you have no time, since you already replied to this post, and you can't clam that unlike me, you do have a life, since you're here much more than I am. Answers please!

13th Amendment, Section 1. "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. "

14th Amendment, Section 1. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States... "

The question for you was, and still is: "Whose jurisdiction each Amendment is referring to?"

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Illegal aliens will not be counted for purposes of congressional apportioning thanks to a memorandum set to be signed by President Trump on Tuesday.Congressional seats and electoral college votes are currently divided up by counting all persons in each district, including illegal aliens. This allows states like California, New York, and Florida to receive more congressional seats and electoral college votes, while diluting political power in states with small illegal alien populations.

First, the Census doesn't make a distinction between legal, illegal or natural born people. They merely count people.

Second, Trump will be long gone by the time they start allocating seats.

So this is Trump playing to the racists, again.

What's racist about it?
You racist leftists have killed the meaning of that word

 

[Ame®icano]

@busybee01 and @Faun

Since your government controlled education did not provide you with tools that could encourage your thinking any other way then they got for you, here are couple more thoughts just for you. My post from last night I finished with:

Privileges and immunities clause of Fourteenth Amendment protects only those rights peculiar to being CITIZEN OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, it does not protect those rights which relate to STATE CITIZENSHIP. That is exactly why counting illegal aliens for the purpose of Congressional apportioning is unconstitutional, and cannot be allowed.

Let's elaborate this, and at the same time answer Faun's demand from post #150.

Maxwell v. Dow, 176 US 598 (1900)

"... and of the State wherein they reside..."

This is interesting because a State Citizen is by definition a Citizen of their respective State but since a federal citizen is, legally, a citizen of the District of Columbia which is not one of the several States, they would have been considered alien to them. That means they would be ineligible to vote within one of them. Got it? No, you don't, morons.

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Since federal citizens had little State Constitutional protections, this portion forces a State to respect the privileges and Immunities GRANTED to them by the federal government. Note that the term "Rights" is not here.

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.

Note the lawfully designated "several States". This changes the apportionment to "persons" which includes the mentioned federal citizen. Left insists that it includes illegal aliens, since they're "persons", but according to constitution, along with explanation of proper English use of words, illegal aliens are not federal citizens, and they cannot be apportioned. Got it yet? Of course you don't morons, so let's continue.

14th Amendment, Section 2: 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.

This reduces the basis for representation by excluding persons whose right to vote has been suspended. But not the exception to the reduction for "participation in rebellion". This was aimed at those former members of the Confederacy who would be denied their Right to vote. While white males, a considerable number that would affect representation, were denied that Right by the unlawful Reconstruction Acts, those former Confederate States soon to be APPOINTED reps would not be diminished allowing the traitorous Congress to further enslave the former "We the People".

You have enough to chew on this for awhile, I'll be back later with more goodies for you. Morons.

 

[busybee01]

@busybee01

Since you've been avoiding to answer my question, or more likely, you've been intellectually incapable to answer, let me clarify couple of things for you, and others who are reading our conversation. Although I am very skeptical that you could understand the subject, I'd like to give you an idea what it meant with "proper English word usage" in the post above.

Again, I am not a lawyer, and I don't speak "lawyer", but I do have couple of friends that are, with whom on occasion I have privilege to have a conversation about topics they're much more knowledgeable than I am. I have tried to have discussion with you, but I can tell you, I had better conversations with my pet rock than I have with you.

I'll start with Preamble to the Bill of Rights

"The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution." You can read the rest in the link above.

The Bill of Rights (BoR) created no Rights. It simply stated Rights held by "We the People".

Some people praise the 14th Amendment for bringing the BoR to the several States as if the States were lawless kingdoms where anarchy ruled. These people, generally, do not know about the original States and how territories became States. They think States created themselves with no input from common people. Most only vaguely conceive that their State even has a constitution. Most that do have never read their State's original constitution.

The facts are that the State's constitutions protected their Citizens at least as well as the federal one, in most cases better. The federal constitution was designed to lay out specific responsibilities and authorities delegated to the federal government by the several States for matters external to them and among the several States but not matters within them.

You probably noticed bold letters when I mention "several States", and here is why. Most Americans applaud the 14th Amendment for bringing the BoR to the several States but never consider why. When you see “United States” in a sentence, or in the Constitution, or in law, you know that it is referring to the country, right? Well maybe not.


The U.S. Supreme Court in Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945) stated:

"The term 'United States' may be used in any one of several senses. It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations. It may designate the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States extends, or it may be the collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution."

So the term “United States” may be (among others):
1. A nation among other nations, as when the United States is represented at the U.N. A singular entity.
2. The territory over which the sovereignty of the United States extends. Since this is also a singular entity it must mean the areas over which the Federal government has jurisdiction, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and all other possessions and territories of the federal government
3. The Several States united by the Constitution. A plural term. The term Several States is usually used to denote the, currently, 50 separate States in law.

The first definition is easily understood, the second and third are not. Let’s look at the third definition in the U.S. Constitution. Note that these definitions are mutually exclusive to one another. This brings me back to the questions I asked you several times earlier, that you could not answer. To answer, you first need a knowledge of history, then knowledge of the Constitution, and also the knowledge of proper English use of words. You have none of these, and you think that googleing something will provide you with critical thinking. Hint: It wont.

13th Amendment

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Note the "their jurisdiction", it is plural and means the several States, but not the federal government or it's possessions and territories. In English language, and in US law, explicitly naming entities implicitly excludes entities not named. Since this Amendment explicitly and exclusively names the several States it excludes the federal government from its provisions against involuntary servitude. So, the 13th Amendment states explicitly that: Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the several States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction... AND... Implicitly states that: Either slavery or involuntary servitude shall exist within the Federal Government, or any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof. The punishment exception doesn’t apply here since it is negated by the implicit allowance of involuntary servitude.

This is exactly where anti-constitutionals leftists are failing to recognize the clear meaning of this amendment. One thing to remember here is just because the law allows something doesn’t mean it has to either state it or refute it. It would be better to look at our lives and see if we are truly free or not. This brings me back to the beginning of this thread and meaning of the 14th Amendment and the second definition of "United States" and brought up above. The former Confederate States, after being welcomed back into the Union and after voting to ratify the 13th Amendment, balked at the intent of the proposed 14th Amendment. Only Citizens of the several States, known as "We the People", could vote for President and had representation in Congress. This amendment's purpose was to create a new class of citizen, one not of the several States but a subject of the federal government. All federal territories and possessions were, and are, under the exclusive control of Congress through Article 1, Section 8 of the federal constitution.

Damn, I did not realize that is this late, and since I have to get up early, I'll have to wrap it up quickly. So... In retaliation for their refusal to cede to the federal government a Right that was always held exclusively by the several States, the Northern Congressmen refused to seat those former Confederate Congressmen and then passed the Reconstruction Acts that called for the military occupation of those States (except Tennessee who voted for the 14th), the overthrow of the duly-elected officials and the appointment of replacements by Congress. These appointed officials then voted to ratify the amendment. You think that's constitutional?

Since the 14th Amendment was, in my opinion, unlawfully and unconstitutionally declared ratified, why was it important to those who instigated the war between the States to write it? To understand that, you must do unthinkable and step outside your government-controlled education and leftist mindset. Despite the teaching that the Founders were generally supportive of the new concept that "all political authority" was held by "We the People", quite a few were opposed to a Constitutional Republic. Some wanted a monarchy, some a pure democracy, others an oligarchy, with them and their heirs as leaders. They could see that slavery was going to slowly be fazed out. Industrial innovation would reduce, if not eliminate, the need for slaves so the then corrupt officials had to create a situation that would allow them to take control of the nation.

So, to finish, let's look at the 14th Amendment.

Section 1: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States..."

The creation of a new class of citizen wholly subject to the federal government. Note the "subject to THE jurisdiction". It denotes the federal government; if it meant the several States, it would have stated "subject to their jurisdiction" as in the 13th Amendment or "subject to the jurisdictions". That is why the Southern States objected to it. Those majority Northern Congressmen wanted power and did not hold to the idea of a free people not under their domination. They knew exactly what they wrote and used it to eventually destroy the American Republic and "We the People".

Privileges and immunities clause of Fourteenth Amendment protects only those rights peculiar to being CITIZEN OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, it does not protect those rights which relate to STATE CITIZENSHIP. That is exactly why counting illegal aliens for the purpose of Congressional apportioning is unconstitutional, and cannot be allowed. I'll leave it here for now, you have more than enough to read, although I doubt you have enough gray matter to process it, in other words, you're moron. Good night.

You are the KING of bullshit artists. The first part of the 14th Amendment clearly defines who a citizen is. However section 2 states that all persons shall be counted for purposes of apportionment of Congressional seats. It then uses the word citizens when it talks about voting. Clearly they meant to differentiate between people who can vote and people who should be counted. Words mean things and you are trying to get them to mean something else by obfuscating.

Is that all you figured out from my post? If so, you are king of morons.

How about you answer the questions I asked you twice already? It's not that you have no time, since you already replied to this post, and you can't clam that unlike me, you do have a life, since you're here much more than I am. Answers please!

13th Amendment, Section 1. "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. "

14th Amendment, Section 1. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States... "

The question for you was, and still is: "Whose jurisdiction each Amendment is referring to?"

You are the King of the MORONS. Jurisdiction has nothing to do with it. The 14th Amendment plainly states that a count of all persons shall be used for reapportionment of House seats. It uses the word citizens when it talks about voting. If only citizens were to be used in apportioning House seats they would have said citizens.

 

[busybee01]

@busybee01 and @Faun

Since your government controlled education did not provide you with tools that could encourage your thinking any other way then they got for you, here are couple more thoughts just for you. My post from last night I finished with:

Privileges and immunities clause of Fourteenth Amendment protects only those rights peculiar to being CITIZEN OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, it does not protect those rights which relate to STATE CITIZENSHIP. That is exactly why counting illegal aliens for the purpose of Congressional apportioning is unconstitutional, and cannot be allowed.

Let's elaborate this, and at the same time answer Faun's demand from post #150.

Maxwell v. Dow, 176 US 598 (1900)

"... and of the State wherein they reside..."

This is interesting because a State Citizen is by definition a Citizen of their respective State but since a federal citizen is, legally, a citizen of the District of Columbia which is not one of the several States, they would have been considered alien to them. That means they would be ineligible to vote within one of them. Got it? No, you don't, morons.

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Since federal citizens had little State Constitutional protections, this portion forces a State to respect the privileges and Immunities GRANTED to them by the federal government. Note that the term "Rights" is not here.

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.

Note the lawfully designated "several States". This changes the apportionment to "persons" which includes the mentioned federal citizen. Left insists that it includes illegal aliens, since they're "persons", but according to constitution, along with explanation of proper English use of words, illegal aliens are not federal citizens, and they cannot be apportioned. Got it yet? Of course you don't morons, so let's continue.

14th Amendment, Section 2: 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.

This reduces the basis for representation by excluding persons whose right to vote has been suspended. But not the exception to the reduction for "participation in rebellion". This was aimed at those former members of the Confederacy who would be denied their Right to vote. While white males, a considerable number that would affect representation, were denied that Right by the unlawful Reconstruction Acts, those former Confederate States soon to be APPOINTED reps would not be diminished allowing the traitorous Congress to further enslave the former "We the People".

You have enough to chew on this for awhile, I'll be back later with more goodies for you. Morons.

Maybe you need to get a education so you can read.

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.

The "several states" clearly refers to the states that make up the US. It then says "to counting thde whole number of persons in each state" which means count everyone except Indians.

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.

This simply defines who can vote. It also states that you can exclude prisoners from the count.

You need to chew on your ignorance. MORON.

 

[busybee01]

If Biden wins and Democrats take the Senate they can redo the whole thing. Or maybe Biden can issue a EO. In 1920, the census was tossed and redone the next year.

Can Congress Just Throw Out the Census Results?

They've done it before.

nationalinterest.org

 

[PoliticalChic]

@busybee01 and @Faun

Since your government controlled education did not provide you with tools that could encourage your thinking any other way then they got for you, here are couple more thoughts just for you. My post from last night I finished with:

Privileges and immunities clause of Fourteenth Amendment protects only those rights peculiar to being CITIZEN OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, it does not protect those rights which relate to STATE CITIZENSHIP. That is exactly why counting illegal aliens for the purpose of Congressional apportioning is unconstitutional, and cannot be allowed.

Let's elaborate this, and at the same time answer Faun's demand from post #150.

Maxwell v. Dow, 176 US 598 (1900)

"... and of the State wherein they reside..."

This is interesting because a State Citizen is by definition a Citizen of their respective State but since a federal citizen is, legally, a citizen of the District of Columbia which is not one of the several States, they would have been considered alien to them. That means they would be ineligible to vote within one of them. Got it? No, you don't, morons.

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Since federal citizens had little State Constitutional protections, this portion forces a State to respect the privileges and Immunities GRANTED to them by the federal government. Note that the term "Rights" is not here.

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.

Note the lawfully designated "several States". This changes the apportionment to "persons" which includes the mentioned federal citizen. Left insists that it includes illegal aliens, since they're "persons", but according to constitution, along with explanation of proper English use of words, illegal aliens are not federal citizens, and they cannot be apportioned. Got it yet? Of course you don't morons, so let's continue.

14th Amendment, Section 2: 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.

This reduces the basis for representation by excluding persons whose right to vote has been suspended. But not the exception to the reduction for "participation in rebellion". This was aimed at those former members of the Confederacy who would be denied their Right to vote. While white males, a considerable number that would affect representation, were denied that Right by the unlawful Reconstruction Acts, those former Confederate States soon to be APPOINTED reps would not be diminished allowing the traitorous Congress to further enslave the former "We the People".

You have enough to chew on this for awhile, I'll be back later with more goodies for you. Morons.

Informative and thoughtful.