The 2018 Midterms

I'm confused. The census determines Congressional representation. You guys aren't claiming that people who are living here illegally should be granted representation in Congress are you? That would be nuts.
 
Jaw said:
I'm confused. The census determines Congressional representation. You guys aren't claiming that people who are living here illegally should be granted representation in Congress are you? That would be nuts.
Click to expand...

Watch the population of California reduce by 10 million
 
DZYyA-lXcAEU3Zc.jpg
 
Marc E. Elias
‏Verified account @marceelias
4h4 hours ago

Marc E. Elias Retweeted Marc E. Elias

UPDATE: Moments ago Walker’s attorney’s informed the state Supreme Court

that "the Governor has decided not to seek relief from the Supreme Court at this time.”

The call for special elections will move forward tomorrow by noon. Democracy wins!
 
This kind of ****, and what happened in NC (legislators called a special session after their guy lost the gubernatorial election to strip powers from the incoming governor) is really indicative of where we are right now. It's insulting to the idea of democracy.
 
Julio3000 said:
Is that the only use of the census?
Click to expand...

What an odd question. No, that isn't the only use. Determining race, hispanic ethnicity, number of people in the home, etc also aren't the only use.

That's why we ask multiple questions.
 
Julio3000 said:
This kind of ****, and what happened in NC (legislators called a special session after their guy lost the gubernatorial election to strip powers from the incoming governor) is really indicative of where we are right now. It's insulting to the idea of democracy.
Click to expand...

Can we add Pennsylvania to the list? when the redistricting ruling came down the reprimanded (R) legislature's (gerrymandered (R) legislature!!) attempts to impeach the state supreme court justices that made the ruling.

I again go back to (R) policies/philosophy being roundly out of the mainstream and unpopular to a legitimate vote.
How else to deregulate New Deal instituted business standards.

context:
With all of the hoopla / bells and whistles provided by the administration and their apologists see where issue of Immigration ranks

http://news.gallup.com/poll/231533/...thcare%20High;%20Energy,%20Unemployment%20Low
 
Jaw said:
What an odd question. No, that isn't the only use. Determining race, hispanic ethnicity, number of people in the home, etc also aren't the only use.

That's why we ask multiple questions.
Click to expand...

The question you posed didn't make sense to me. There are many, many reasons to have an accurate count of people living in a given state/county/region/district. So there are corresponding reasons to want the count to be as accurate as possible.

I'm confused. The census determines Congressional representation. You guys aren't claiming that people who are living here illegally should be granted representation in Congress are you? That would be nuts.
Click to expand...

Since you ask, though, yes. They have been and are, in the sense that all residents are counted for the purpose of apportionment. The Roberts court, in a 9-0, decision, upheld this as recently as last year.
 
And that decision is what is wrong now in western society. To grant power to those who are here illegally diminishes those that come leggally and we the people who are citizens. It's yet another system in place to ensure the leftists have power. Easy to win poor voters when you promise free stuff.
 
thethe said:
And that decision is what is wrong now in western society. To grant power to those who are here illegally diminishes those that come leggally and we the people who are citizens. It's yet another system in place to ensure the leftists have power. Easy to win poor voters when you promise free stuff.
Click to expand...

Buddy, take it up with the framers, not the justices. The language that leads to that decision is not accidental.
 
Julio3000 said:
Buddy, take it up with the framers, not the justices. The language that leads to that decision is not accidental.
Click to expand...

Was the intention to have illegal aliens included or non voting eligible people? Was this just an interpretation that went too far?
 
Astounding. I need to read that decision. I can't understand how giving more weight to voters in high (illegal) immigration areas isn't disenfranchising voters elsewhere.
 
AP Politics
‏Verified account @AP_Politics
19m19 minutes ago

BREAKING: Liberal Rebecca Dallet defeats conservative Michael Screnock

in Wisconsin Supreme Court race seen as midterm indicator.

@AP race call at 8:57 p.m. CDT. #Election2018 @APracecall
 
Matthew Yglesias
‏Verified account @mattyglesias
4m4 minutes ago

Dallet seems like the first candidate I’ve seen seen this cycle to attempt

the much-derided “run against Trump” strategy and … it worked!
 
Jaw said:
Astounding. I need to read that decision. I can't understand how giving more weight to voters in high (illegal) immigration areas isn't disenfranchising voters elsewhere.
Click to expand...

I don't actually remember who brought the case, but I mentioned it because it was merely the most recent decision. But I'll underscore what I wrote earlier--it was a 9-0 decision because the constitutional language is pretty clear. If the framers had meant "citizens," they wouldn't have written "residents." The opinion is quite straightforward and worth your perusal.

Now, since the number of representatives is capped, you are correct in suggesting that it's zero-sum. A rep added in one state means one removed from another. This may not pass common-sense muster with you, but neither does the alternative, really. The government at the federal, state, and local level is responsible for securing resources for their state/district/municipality. Demand for those resources is determined by the population in those various subdivisions. Is it "unfair" for one area to get more representation than another based on a large disparity in population but a smaller disparity in citizen population? Arguably, yes. Is it also "unfair" for non-citizens to be contributing to the economy and the local tax coffers and have no franchise or representation at all for a potentially lengthy passsge to citizenship? Arguably, yes.

Our bicameral system already has a huge check in place to prevent small states from being rolled by more populous ones. Legal remedies to check proportional representation at the expense of states whose populations are growing seem rather anti-democratic to me, I guess.

If you take the position that I suspect thethe is getting at--that the framers didn't foresee illegal immigration on the current scale and didn't specifically intend the current status quo, I can only throw up my hands and say that they didn't foresee concealable semiautomatic handguns or AR-15s with high-capacity magazines, either, nor specifically intend our individual right to own them outside the context of ye olde well-regulated militia. If you want to join us on the dark side, I say the more, the merrier.
 
Julio3000 said:
I don't actually remember who brought the case, but I mentioned it because it was merely the most recent decision. But I'll underscore what I wrote earlier--it was a 9-0 decision because the constitutional language is pretty clear. If the framers had meant "citizens," they wouldn't have written "residents." The opinion is quite straightforward and worth your perusal.

Now, since the number of representatives is capped, you are correct in suggesting that it's zero-sum. A rep added in one state means one removed from another. This may not pass common-sense muster with you, but neither does the alternative, really. The government at the federal, state, and local level is responsible for securing resources for their state/district/municipality. Demand for those resources is determined by the population in those various subdivisions. Is it "unfair" for one area to get more representation than another based on a large disparity in population but a smaller disparity in citizen population? Arguably, yes. Is it also "unfair" for non-citizens to be contributing to the economy and the local tax coffers and have no franchise or representation at all for a potentially lengthy passsge to citizenship? Arguably, yes.

Our bicameral system already has a huge check in place to prevent small states from being rolled by more populous ones. Legal remedies to check proportional representation at the expense of states whose populations are growing seem rather anti-democratic to me, I guess.

If you take the position that I suspect thethe is getting at--that the framers didn't foresee illegal immigration on the current scale and didn't specifically intend the current status quo, I can only throw up my hands and say that they didn't foresee concealable semiautomatic handguns or AR-15s with high-capacity magazines, either, nor specifically intend our individual right to own them outside the context of ye olde well-regulated militia. If you want to join us on the dark side, I say the more, the merrier.
Click to expand...

Your points on citizens/residents are solid, but I would add to thethe's point about large scale immigration that the framers had no concept of the massive amount of budget resources we have come to spend on the welfare/entitlement state. Nevertheless, I agree with you that this should be read and interpreted with the same spirit of guaranteeing rights that it was written, and that the Constitution should be amended if it's a problem. This is also my view on the 2nd Amendment, which I know you do not share.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top