SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
With No Final Say, Trump Wants To Change Who Counts For Dividing Up Congress' Seats:
President Trump released a memorandum Tuesday that calls for an unprecedented change to the constitutionally mandated count of every person living in the country — the exclusion of unauthorized immigrants from the numbers used to divide up seats in Congress among the states.
The memo instructs Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, who oversees the Commerce Department, to include in the legally required report of census results to the president "information permitting the President, to the extent practicable" to leave out the number of immigrants living in the U.S. without authorization from the apportionment count.
But the move by the president, who does not have final authority over the census, is more likely to spur legal challenges and political spectacle in the last months before this year's presidential election than a transformation of the once-a-decade head count, which has been disrupted by the coronavirus pandemic.
[...] Since the first U.S. census in 1790, both U.S. citizens and noncitizens — regardless of immigration status — have been included in the country's official population counts.
The fifth sentence of the Constitution specifies that "persons" residing in the states should be counted every 10 years to determine each state's share of seats in the House of Representatives. The 14th Amendment, which ended the counting of an enslaved person as "three fifths" of a free person, goes further to require the counting of the "whole number of persons in each state."
It is Congress — not the president — that Article 1, Section 2 of the country's founding document empowers to carry out the "actual enumeration" of the country's population in "such manner as they shall by law direct."
In Title 2 of the U.S. Code, Congress detailed its instructions for the president to report to lawmakers the tally of the "whole number of persons" living in each state for the reapportionment of House seats. In Title 13, Congress established additional key dates for the "tabulation of total population."
(Score: 2, Informative) by hemocyanin on Friday July 24 2020, @03:49PM (3 children)
I challenge everyone to do ctrl-f for "residing" and "reside ":
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv [cornell.edu]
https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript [archives.gov]
The only sentence to use "reside" is in the 14th Amendment: "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." Thus, the only people who are citizens is the subset of those under US jurisdiction who are born here or naturalized.
What the 14th Amendment actually says on the apportionment scheme: "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."
It doesn't say "reside" it says "in". Although this sentence occurs in an amendment discussing citizenship, Democrats will say that the word "in" includes illegal aliens. If that is so, it would also include all legal aliens, such as anyone visiting Disneyland from other states or even countries. It would include everyone on a cruiseship in harbor no matter where on the globe they are from -- it would include everyone flying over the US. If we interpret "in" in this fashion, any state could have an arbitrarily large number of people "in" it on census day. That of course is ridiculous which is why they try to rewrite the amendment substituting "reside" for "in". But if this "in" is to be our understanding, I expect all the fly-over states to import a billion people for a Census weekend and redraw that apportionment map. They'd all be IN the state after all. Or we could take a rational view, that the drafters did not intend the Amendment to be subject to the whims of whoever could finance the largest weekend gathering.
My view is backed up by Section 2 of the Amendment. Eliminating excessive verbiage makes it clearer:
In other words, if you are citizen and lost your right to vote and are counted in the census, you are NOT included in the numbers used to allot Federal seats. It is an illogical reading to assert that congressional seats should be allotted based on non-citizens "in" a state, when the language expressly reduces that allotment for ineligible citizens in a state. So in the end, count however many people you want "in" your state, but when it comes to allotment of congressional seats -- count the eligible voters.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24 2020, @04:35PM
"It is an illogical reading to assert that congressional seats should be allotted based on non-citizens "in" a state, when the language expressly reduces that allotment for ineligible citizens in a state."
And that is an immoral position that should be corrected along with a host of other issues.
(Score: 2) by vux984 on Friday July 24 2020, @05:37PM
"I challenge everyone to do ctrl-f for "residing" and "reside"
I notice in your own post the 2nd amendment contains "inhabitatants" which is synonymous with "residents"; neither of which would be caught by your ctrl-f so one should probably read rather than keyword search.
I'd also argue it is pretty clear that the "in" in the 14th should be interpreted as to mean "inhabiting" from the context.
"In other words, if you are citizen and lost your right to vote and are counted in the census, you are NOT included in the numbers used to allot Federal seats."
Wow you REALLY got Section 2 wrong, and the pieces you excluded is extremely critical. What section 2 is saying is that that states aren't allowed to capriciously restrict who eligible to vote, and the reduction in apportionment is their punishment. For example, if a state were to pass a rule that you must own three houses and pass a loyalty-to-the-governor test to vote in a federal election, the 14th amendment says, ok... fine, but your representation in congress is going off a fucking cliff now. And it specifically carves out the exclusion for criminals and rebels because not letting them vote does NOT reduce the apportionment -- ie the 2nd amendment says... look no fucking around with who gets to vote or we'll take way your apportionment, but yes just to be clear: its OK to prevent criminals and rebels from voting, and that WON'T reduce your apportionment.
So to paraphrase you:
"So in the end, count however many people you want "in" your state, but when it comes to allotment of congressional seats -- you can count EVERYONE and get credit for them; unless you FUCK with elgible voters who aren't criminals or rebels. You do that, and we'll fuck with your apportionment, you done been warned."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 25 2020, @07:46AM
You've convinced me. Better get in your time machine, go back to the reconstruction era, and tell everyone they misinterpreted the amendment they wrote themselves back then too.