• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Supreme Court hears arguments in Trump plan to cut undocumented immigrants from Census

pauldun170

Diamond Member
This should be a unanimous decision and the Trump administrations arguments should be laughed at accordingly.
The language of the constitution is crystal clear in this case and if any one Judge agrees with the administration then you'll know that we have bigger issues.


Reminder the constitution is pretty clear in its language concerning Persons within the US and Citizens within the US
 
This should be a unanimous decision and the Trump administrations arguments should be laughed at accordingly.
The language of the constitution is crystal clear in this case and if any one Judge agrees with the administration then you'll know that we have bigger issues.


Reminder the constitution is pretty clear in its language concerning Persons within the US and Citizens within the US
What if we already know we have bigger issues?
 
yeah the constitution is unambiguous on this one. maybe one of SCOTUS will ask the Trump Admin lawyer if illegals should count for 0/5ths of a person and see what their reaction is
 
Geeez, I thought by now Trump would have had enough of pissing, crapping and stomping on the Constitution. What's with this guy that he's supposed to already have his bags and boxes packed, pilfered the office supplies bare and sent to Mar a Lago all those other "retirement packages" he's managed to stash over the years.

No golden parachute for you, you crook, unless you think a really long stay in the hoosegow is a tax paid retirement home gifted to you by the Democrat Party.

Let's hope Biden tasks some really smart folks to undo all of those racist policies Trump instituted during his disastrous single term in office, including that racist motivated monument he's been trying to erect for himself along our southern border.
 
I agree that the constitutional language is extremely clear on this issue and it has been universally interpreted to include all persons every since the beginning of the country.

However, given the current partisan makeup of the Court and the highly activist bias of certainly so-called conservative justices, I think the chance of 9-0 ruling are just about nil. Frankly I'd be happy with a win for USA.
 
This should be a unanimous decision and the Trump administrations arguments should be laughed at accordingly.
The language of the constitution is crystal clear in this case and if any one Judge agrees with the administration then you'll know that we have bigger issues.


Reminder the constitution is pretty clear in its language concerning Persons within the US and Citizens within the US
Constitution says people, not citizens shall be counted. End of case.
 
I will say this. Dale Ho is a freaking rock star in his arguments. Pulls out the 1828 dictionary that the government cited and spells out what resident was defined as as understood at the founding. Then cites the practice of federal marshals in conducting the census in previous years.

The down side? I'm betting they punt since Trump hasn't actually done it yet.
 
Since when are conservatives really concerned by the Constitution? This should be a slam dunk 9-0. They are a bunch of phonies just like their stance on "religious freedom" Conservatives only want Christion religious freedom
 
The relevant law is:
Section 2 of the 14th Amendment amended Article I, Section 2 to include that the "respective Numbers" of the "several States" will be determined by "counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Census

So the constitution says "persons in each state" which is the same as people; however the Constitution also says ".. the rights of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed" and many still argue over whether "people" in this case is referring to the militia or individuals. The law currently interprets "people" in the 2nd amendment to mean citizens as we don't allow non-citizens (meant to say illegal immigrants) to buy legal guns, so the wording "people" isn't foolproof.

If I were to to put my Judge hat on, I think it comes down to one major point. Slaves were included in the original census, although "The Federal Constitution stipulated that a slave-counted as three-fifths of a person for purposes of taxation and apportionment of the House of Representatives." Since slaves were not counted as citizens (and wouldn't be until 1866), but still included in the census, it could and should be argued that non-citizens (legal and illegal immigrants) today should also be counted.

but I suspect the decision will be 5-4 along party lines as they all seem to be.
 
Last edited:
The relevant law is:
Section 2 of the 14th Amendment amended Article I, Section 2 to include that the "respective Numbers" of the "several States" will be determined by "counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Census

So the constitution says "persons in each state" which is the same as people; however the Constitution also says ".. the rights of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed" and many still argue over whether "people" in this case is referring to the militia or individuals. The law currently interprets "people" in the 2nd amendment to mean citizens as we don't allow non-citizens to buy legal guns, so the wording "people" isn't foolproof.

If I were to to put my Judge hat on, I think it comes down to one major point. Slaves were included in the original census, although "The Federal Constitution stipulated that a slave-counted as three-fifths of a person for purposes of taxation and apportionment of the House of Representatives." Since slaves were not counted as citizens (and wouldn't be until 1866), but still included in the census, it could and should be argued that non-citizens today should also be counted.

but I suspect the decision will be 5-4 along party lines as they all seem to be.
We definitely allow non-citizens to buy guns legally.
 
Trump is very selective in counting things....

Only count the votes for him
Only count the people he likes
Only count his wealth for bragging rights, but not for the IRS
Only count the golf strokes so he wins
 
The relevant law is:
Section 2 of the 14th Amendment amended Article I, Section 2 to include that the "respective Numbers" of the "several States" will be determined by "counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Census

So the constitution says "persons in each state" which is the same as people; however the Constitution also says ".. the rights of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed" and many still argue over whether "people" in this case is referring to the militia or individuals. The law currently interprets "people" in the 2nd amendment to mean citizens as we don't allow non-citizens to buy legal guns, so the wording "people" isn't foolproof.

If I were to to put my Judge hat on, I think it comes down to one major point. Slaves were included in the original census, although "The Federal Constitution stipulated that a slave-counted as three-fifths of a person for purposes of taxation and apportionment of the House of Representatives." Since slaves were not counted as citizens (and wouldn't be until 1866), but still included in the census, it could and should be argued that non-citizens today should also be counted.

but I suspect the decision will be 5-4 along party lines as they all seem to be.


Constitution list 3 groups.
Persons, people, citizens

Person is the easy one.
Constitution makes a clear distinction that citizen is different than person. Person is accepted as "Human"
Every single human on the planet is a "Person"
If a Canadian decides to cross the border and setup shop selling pancakes, the constitution considers him a "Person".
A tourist who is hanging out at McDonalds is classified as a "Person".

People is a class of Person that identify as part of our natural identity. Historically, you could look at this as reflecting the time when we did not think about trying to keep people out. The laws themselves basically laid it out. Prior to the 14th amendment, Mr Canadian who setup shop in selling Pancakes decides to buy some land next to his shop in upstate New York. In the early days of the US All he has to do to become a citizen is live in that house for 2 years. As time went on they'd up the residency requirement a bit but in a nutshell, "The People" are residents of US territory.

Citizen
is basically a type of person who was either Born here or Naturalized though whatever process is available at the time.

Now review the Amendments and take special note on the language used and when.

First Amendment -
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; - >All persons
or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; - >All persons
or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. - > All residents of the US


Second Amendment
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. - >Applies to Residents of the US.

A Person has no right to cross the border to go gun shopping.
A Resident does therefor all Citizens enjoy that right


Third Amendment
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
-> All persons. If French McFuancy owns a vacation home in South Dakota because Covid chicks put out, the Army cvan't hijack his house.

Fourth Amendment
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Notice the mixed use here. Right of US residents to be secure in their own humanity and "stuff"


Fifth Amendment
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

-> All Persons. EVERYONE has this right.




Special note on the 17th as it basically adds in that who
17th Amendment
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.
When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

That one get wacky since it state People (resident) instead of Citizen selecting a Senator. Rewason being is that at the time a state laws may not have required Governors to be citizens. Therefore, if wacky Canadians cousin crossed the border, built a house next door to his cousins pancake shop and on a whim tossed his name into the Governors races and won, he being a resident could pick a senator incase an existing Senator got stabbed with a meteorite.



Going back to Census
Original
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at least one Representative;…

Amended
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.[4]

Then you get to the fun part
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 is basically saying the Blacks males can vote too and don't screw around or else

26th Amendment
Section 1
The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.
Section 2
The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
 
Last edited:
It's a shameful state of affairs that so-called conservatives claim we've been doing it wrong for 220 years & that the SCOTUS would even deign to consider the notion.
 
It's a shameful state of affairs that so-called conservatives claim we've been doing it wrong for 220 years & that the SCOTUS would even deign to consider the notion.
I thought I read somewhere that they had to hear this case, it wasn't a discretionary selection.
 
I thought I read somewhere that they had to hear this case, it wasn't a discretionary selection.

I believe that is incorrect. The SCOTUS is not required to rule on any case originating in a lower court, with few exceptions. At least 4 justices ruled to grant certiorari-

 
This should be a unanimous decision and the Trump administrations arguments should be laughed at accordingly.
The language of the constitution is crystal clear in this case and if any one Judge agrees with the administration then you'll know that we have bigger issues.


Reminder the constitution is pretty clear in its language concerning Persons within the US and Citizens within the US
Yes, but originally, would white male slave holders consider poor brown people to be counted in whole numbers? We know they were already counting people as fractions, right?
 
Yes, but originally, would white male slave holders consider poor brown people to be counted in whole numbers? We know they were already counting people as fractions, right?
Mandatory gif
200_d.gif
 
We definitely allow non-citizens to buy guns legally.

You are correct, although they must have an immigrant visa. I meant to say we don't allow illegal imigrants to buy them, but we would be counting illegals in the census.

 
You are correct, although they must have an immigrant visa. I meant to say we don't allow illegal imigrants to buy them, but we would be counting illegals in the census.

Yes, because illegal aliens are persons. The 2nd applies to "the people", not persons.
 
Yes, because illegal aliens are persons. The 2nd applies to "the people", not persons.

Thanks. I was not fully aware or forgetful of the distinction between people and persons in the constitution as I haven't studied the constituion in many years. I was reminded of this from pauldin170s post.
 
Back
Top