Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
If illegals were counted, then we would see more Republican Congressmen. And that would not work out well for immigrants.No, this is serious. I want you think about the implications of counting non-eligible persons for electoral proportionment.Thought experiment:Some claim this could imperil the Hispanic vote. From what I can make out of their claim it has to do with making districts based upon total population instead of number of eligible voters.
Counting everyone and not just eligible voters magnifies the electoral influence of locales, typically urban, with sizable populations of people not eligible to vote, including legal and illegal immigrants as well as children.
And the two plaintiffs (probably pawns of progressive lawyers) claim the law violates “one person, one vote” ruling.
I'm confused. How does a redistricting plan have anything to do with this ruling? Is it going to allow individuals to vote more than once? Anyhow, the full story is @ Hispanic voter clout imperiled by Texas case before U.S. Supreme Court - One America News Network
The plaintiffs are conservatives. And their case most certainly is not a progressive plot.
In a nutshell, these people want districts to be drawn by number of eligible voters, because counting children and illegal aliens would give extra voting power to urban and more liberal communities. By making eligible voters the new criteria, instead of total population, urban/liberal regions would end up with reduced legislative representation. Of course, that's not the excuse they've brought to court. The plaintiffs claim that the 'one person-one vote' principle requires is violated when regions are districted by population, because some of the population doesn't vote or can't vote.
Liberals are complaining that it's a move that's only designed to diminish the representation power of minorities, particularly Hispanics. And they are right. However, they're also complaining about the wrong things. The plaintiffs are making a bullshit claim, and the argument against their case should be about the fact that the constitution demands apportionment based on population, and that never in the long history of restricted voting rights in this country has the constitution been interpreted to mean population of eligible voters; it has always been the full and total population.
A voting district with 200,000 illegal immigrants and two scared white citizens of Fox Nation.
Take it from there.
The move.
If you count them, it actually means creating more districts where a smaller number of citizens have political control over an immigrant population.
How do you think that will work out for the immigrants?
It's working out pretty well for them in sanctuary cities run by regressives.
This will be interesting to see play out.
The take away is the Republican Party represents the few, the white and financially well off; R's do not want those they don't represent to be counted or to vote, and by
Some claim this could imperil the Hispanic vote. From what I can make out of their claim it has to do with making districts based upon total population instead of number of eligible voters.
Counting everyone and not just eligible voters magnifies the electoral influence of locales, typically urban, with sizable populations of people not eligible to vote, including legal and illegal immigrants as well as children.
And the two plaintiffs (probably pawns of progressive lawyers) claim the law violates “one person, one vote” ruling.
I'm confused. How does a redistricting plan have anything to do with this ruling? Is it going to allow individuals to vote more than once? Anyhow, the full story is @ Hispanic voter clout imperiled by Texas case before U.S. Supreme Court - One America News Network
The plaintiffs are conservatives. And their case most certainly is not a progressive plot.
In a nutshell, these people want districts to be drawn by number of eligible voters, because counting children and illegal aliens would give extra voting power to urban and more liberal communities. By making eligible voters the new criteria, instead of total population, urban/liberal regions would end up with reduced legislative representation. Of course, that's not the excuse they've brought to court. The plaintiffs claim that the 'one person-one vote' principle requires is violated when regions are districted by population, because some of the population doesn't vote or can't vote.
Liberals are complaining that it's a move that's only designed to diminish the representation power of minorities, particularly Hispanics. And they are right. However, they're also complaining about the wrong things. The plaintiffs are making a bullshit claim, and the argument against their case should be about the fact that the constitution demands apportionment based on population, and that never in the long history of restricted voting rights in this country has the constitution been interpreted to mean population of eligible voters; it has always been the full and total population.
Well said!
R's do not want those they don't represent to be counted or to vote
Yes, illegal aliens shouldn't be counted and shouldn't vote.
?
If illegals were counted, then we would see more Republican Congressmen. And that would not work out well for immigrants.No, this is serious. I want you think about the implications of counting non-eligible persons for electoral proportionment.Thought experiment:The plaintiffs are conservatives. And their case most certainly is not a progressive plot.
In a nutshell, these people want districts to be drawn by number of eligible voters, because counting children and illegal aliens would give extra voting power to urban and more liberal communities. By making eligible voters the new criteria, instead of total population, urban/liberal regions would end up with reduced legislative representation. Of course, that's not the excuse they've brought to court. The plaintiffs claim that the 'one person-one vote' principle requires is violated when regions are districted by population, because some of the population doesn't vote or can't vote.
Liberals are complaining that it's a move that's only designed to diminish the representation power of minorities, particularly Hispanics. And they are right. However, they're also complaining about the wrong things. The plaintiffs are making a bullshit claim, and the argument against their case should be about the fact that the constitution demands apportionment based on population, and that never in the long history of restricted voting rights in this country has the constitution been interpreted to mean population of eligible voters; it has always been the full and total population.
A voting district with 200,000 illegal immigrants and two scared white citizens of Fox Nation.
Take it from there.
The move.
If you count them, it actually means creating more districts where a smaller number of citizens have political control over an immigrant population.
How do you think that will work out for the immigrants?
It's working out pretty well for them in sanctuary cities run by regressives.
It would be advantageous to the GOP to count illegals, just as it was advantageous to the South to count slaves.
Thought experiment:Some claim this could imperil the Hispanic vote. From what I can make out of their claim it has to do with making districts based upon total population instead of number of eligible voters.
Counting everyone and not just eligible voters magnifies the electoral influence of locales, typically urban, with sizable populations of people not eligible to vote, including legal and illegal immigrants as well as children.
And the two plaintiffs (probably pawns of progressive lawyers) claim the law violates “one person, one vote” ruling.
I'm confused. How does a redistricting plan have anything to do with this ruling? Is it going to allow individuals to vote more than once? Anyhow, the full story is @ Hispanic voter clout imperiled by Texas case before U.S. Supreme Court - One America News Network
The plaintiffs are conservatives. And their case most certainly is not a progressive plot.
In a nutshell, these people want districts to be drawn by number of eligible voters, because counting children and illegal aliens would give extra voting power to urban and more liberal communities. By making eligible voters the new criteria, instead of total population, urban/liberal regions would end up with reduced legislative representation. Of course, that's not the excuse they've brought to court. The plaintiffs claim that the 'one person-one vote' principle requires is violated when regions are districted by population, because some of the population doesn't vote or can't vote.
Liberals are complaining that it's a move that's only designed to diminish the representation power of minorities, particularly Hispanics. And they are right. However, they're also complaining about the wrong things. The plaintiffs are making a bullshit claim, and the argument against their case should be about the fact that the constitution demands apportionment based on population, and that never in the long history of restricted voting rights in this country has the constitution been interpreted to mean population of eligible voters; it has always been the full and total population.
A voting district with 200,000 illegal immigrants and two scared white citizens of Fox Nation.
Take it from there.
Except that the plaintiffs are specifically positing an oppositional relationship between population vs eligible voters. Whereas all precedent and law has always insisted on apportionment based on population, the plaintiffs in the new case want to court to come up with a whole brand new system.
Regardless of whether or not the system suggested by the plaintiffs is a good one, it would require a constitutional amendment.
It was population, plus 3/5 of slaves, minus Indians not taxed. This was all before the 14th amendment mandated equal protection under the law, and the Reynolds case mandated one person one vote.
I still don't have an opinion on this yet, but considering progressives love making things up using the 14th amendment, why should people get butt hurt if the right tries the same thing?
This is why I argue against massive judicial latitude when it comes to interpreting the constitution.
The Reynolds cased dealt with legislative districts of 3 vs 3000. And again, the criterion used was to apportion based on population, not voter registry.
because that wasn't the question being asked. What is now being asked is does "one person, one vote" apply to the voter or does it not, and it applies to the population when apportioning voter representation.
correct. And the consequences of this might be what? Think through it and consider why the right wanted every person counted in the last census, knowing this would aid them in gerrymandering (this also requires thought and some history): See;
Breaking News, Analysis, Politics, Blogs, News Photos, Video, Tech Reviews - TIME.com
The issue is all about the party which represents the few, gaining the most number of seats in the H. of Rep. and their State Legislatures.
It is anti democratic; of course that is not a surprise since they have tried to change the description of our nation from a democratic republic to a constitutional republic, and pretend to know what the original intent of those dead for 200 years or so really meant.
It would shift representation away from districts with ineligible voters, and towards ones with more eligible voters by percentage.
And our nation has always been a constitutional republic. If you notice most countries that have to say they are "Democratic" usually aren't.
If illegals were counted, then we would see more Republican Congressmen. And that would not work out well for immigrants.No, this is serious. I want you think about the implications of counting non-eligible persons for electoral proportionment.Thought experiment:
A voting district with 200,000 illegal immigrants and two scared white citizens of Fox Nation.
Take it from there.
The move.
If you count them, it actually means creating more districts where a smaller number of citizens have political control over an immigrant population.
How do you think that will work out for the immigrants?
It's working out pretty well for them in sanctuary cities run by regressives.
It would be advantageous to the GOP to count illegals, just as it was advantageous to the South to count slaves.
If you don't believe me, contact the census bureau, I'm very sure they will give you the same answer they did me. They count everyone for representation.
While these cases still dealt with population instead of eligible voters, the concepts seem similar.
Except that the plaintiffs are specifically positing an oppositional relationship between population vs eligible voters. Whereas all precedent and law has always insisted on apportionment based on population, the plaintiffs in the new case want to court to come up with a whole brand new system.
Regardless of whether or not the system suggested by the plaintiffs is a good one, it would require a constitutional amendment.
It was population, plus 3/5 of slaves, minus Indians not taxed. This was all before the 14th amendment mandated equal protection under the law, and the Reynolds case mandated one person one vote.
I still don't have an opinion on this yet, but considering progressives love making things up using the 14th amendment, why should people get butt hurt if the right tries the same thing?
This is why I argue against massive judicial latitude when it comes to interpreting the constitution.
The Reynolds cased dealt with legislative districts of 3 vs 3000. And again, the criterion used was to apportion based on population, not voter registry.
No one is suggesting using the voter registry, just the total numbers eligible to vote, I know it's hard for you to understand, but there is a difference.
Your right for a change, it about how representation to congress is allocated to each state. It clearly states, citizens eligible to vote, are the ones to be counted for representation. There's no reason the States wouldn't use the same formula.
because that wasn't the question being asked. What is now being asked is does "one person, one vote" apply to the voter or does it not, and it applies to the population when apportioning voter representation.
No, this is serious. I want you think about the implications of counting non-eligible persons for electoral proportionment.
If you count them, it actually means creating more districts where a smaller number of citizens have political control over an immigrant population.
How do you think that will work out for the immigrants?
If illegals were counted, then we would see more Republican Congressmen. And that would not work out well for immigrants.No, this is serious. I want you think about the implications of counting non-eligible persons for electoral proportionment.The move.
If you count them, it actually means creating more districts where a smaller number of citizens have political control over an immigrant population.
How do you think that will work out for the immigrants?
It's working out pretty well for them in sanctuary cities run by regressives.
It would be advantageous to the GOP to count illegals, just as it was advantageous to the South to count slaves.
If you don't believe me, contact the census bureau, I'm very sure they will give you the same answer they did me. They count everyone for representation.
BULLSHIT. Many people don't want to be counted and hence are not.
Your right for a change, it about how representation to congress is allocated to each state. It clearly states, citizens eligible to vote, are the ones to be counted for representation. There's no reason the States wouldn't use the same formula.
You really are dense, aren't you? The constitution requires Congressional representation to be allocated based on population. The clause you are trying to invoke involves actions where states would engage in discrimination against some portion citizens (for example, black people) who would otherwise be eligible to vote. If a state forbade black people from voting, then that portion of the population would be ignored in determining the state's Congressional representation.
Seeing as nothing in the current case comes close to such a scenario, you're barking up the wrong forest. Also, seeing as the clause you site addresses representation, not the manner in which districts are drawn, you're not even in the same solar system.
Your right for a change, it about how representation to congress is allocated to each state. It clearly states, citizens eligible to vote, are the ones to be counted for representation. There's no reason the States wouldn't use the same formula.
You really are dense, aren't you? The constitution requires Congressional representation to be allocated based on population. The clause you are trying to invoke involves actions where states would engage in discrimination against some portion citizens (for example, black people) who would otherwise be eligible to vote. If a state forbade black people from voting, then that portion of the population would be ignored in determining the state's Congressional representation.
Seeing as nothing in the current case comes close to such a scenario, you're barking up the wrong forest. Also, seeing as the clause you site addresses representation, not the manner in which districts are drawn, you're not even in the same solar system.
So you're denying that "citizens, that are eligible to vote" are the only people who should be counted for representation according to the 14th? I think that would include citizens of all races, wouldn't it?
While these cases still dealt with population instead of eligible voters, the concepts seem similar.
Except that the plaintiffs are specifically positing an oppositional relationship between population vs eligible voters. Whereas all precedent and law has always insisted on apportionment based on population, the plaintiffs in the new case want to court to come up with a whole brand new system.
Regardless of whether or not the system suggested by the plaintiffs is a good one, it would require a constitutional amendment.
It was population, plus 3/5 of slaves, minus Indians not taxed. This was all before the 14th amendment mandated equal protection under the law, and the Reynolds case mandated one person one vote.
I still don't have an opinion on this yet, but considering progressives love making things up using the 14th amendment, why should people get butt hurt if the right tries the same thing?
This is why I argue against massive judicial latitude when it comes to interpreting the constitution.
The Reynolds cased dealt with legislative districts of 3 vs 3000. And again, the criterion used was to apportion based on population, not voter registry.
No one is suggesting using the voter registry, just the total numbers eligible to vote, I know it's hard for you to understand, but there is a difference.
Registration is required to be eligible, no? In any event, I think you understood what I was saying. You just want to nitpick in hopes that you'll accomplish a red herring. The constitution says population. Supreme Court precedent says population. Once again, I am not saying anything here about the merits of changing the system to be based on eligible voters. I'm talking about using the courts to change the constitution.
No, you have to be qualified to register. The 14th is part of the Constitution, it is clear on who should be counted for representation so there's nothing for the court to change, except maybe previous bad rulings.
No, you have to be qualified to register. The 14th is part of the Constitution, it is clear on who should be counted for representation so there's nothing for the court to change, except maybe previous bad rulings.
It says no such thing, you fucking moron. It says that representation is determined by population. Go read it. Put your finger underneath each word. Jesus fucking Christ, how stupid can you be?
No, you have to be qualified to register. The 14th is part of the Constitution, it is clear on who should be counted for representation so there's nothing for the court to change, except maybe previous bad rulings.
It says no such thing, you fucking moron. It says that representation is determined by population. Go read it. Put your finger underneath each word. Jesus fucking Christ, how stupid can you be?
AWWW, is the poor regressive having a bad day? Tell me, what does AMENDMENT mean? The portion you are referring to, does it fall before or after the 14th?
It was population, plus 3/5 of slaves, minus Indians not taxed. This was all before the 14th amendment mandated equal protection under the law, and the Reynolds case mandated one person one vote.
I still don't have an opinion on this yet, but considering progressives love making things up using the 14th amendment, why should people get butt hurt if the right tries the same thing?
This is why I argue against massive judicial latitude when it comes to interpreting the constitution.
The Reynolds cased dealt with legislative districts of 3 vs 3000. And again, the criterion used was to apportion based on population, not voter registry.
because that wasn't the question being asked. What is now being asked is does "one person, one vote" apply to the voter or does it not, and it applies to the population when apportioning voter representation.
correct. And the consequences of this might be what? Think through it and consider why the right wanted every person counted in the last census, knowing this would aid them in gerrymandering (this also requires thought and some history): See;
Breaking News, Analysis, Politics, Blogs, News Photos, Video, Tech Reviews - TIME.com
The issue is all about the party which represents the few, gaining the most number of seats in the H. of Rep. and their State Legislatures.
It is anti democratic; of course that is not a surprise since they have tried to change the description of our nation from a democratic republic to a constitutional republic, and pretend to know what the original intent of those dead for 200 years or so really meant.
It would shift representation away from districts with ineligible voters, and towards ones with more eligible voters by percentage.
And our nation has always been a constitutional republic. If you notice most countries that have to say they are "Democratic" usually aren't.
WE aren't most countries, and we the people do elect our representatives and the Electoral College democratically, under the law. The point being Conservatives fear the mob, they laud the power elite and they reject the principles upon which our nation was "conceived and dedicated".
because that wasn't the question being asked. What is now being asked is does "one person, one vote" apply to the voter or does it not, and it applies to the population when apportioning voter representation.
It applies to each individual, whether they are a voter or not, in the district.
Aren't the voting ineligible entitled to representation?This will be interesting to see play out.
The take away is the Republican Party represents the few, the white and financially well off; R's do not want those they don't represent to be counted or to vote, and by
Some claim this could imperil the Hispanic vote. From what I can make out of their claim it has to do with making districts based upon total population instead of number of eligible voters.
Counting everyone and not just eligible voters magnifies the electoral influence of locales, typically urban, with sizable populations of people not eligible to vote, including legal and illegal immigrants as well as children.
And the two plaintiffs (probably pawns of progressive lawyers) claim the law violates “one person, one vote” ruling.
I'm confused. How does a redistricting plan have anything to do with this ruling? Is it going to allow individuals to vote more than once? Anyhow, the full story is @ Hispanic voter clout imperiled by Texas case before U.S. Supreme Court - One America News Network
The plaintiffs are conservatives. And their case most certainly is not a progressive plot.
In a nutshell, these people want districts to be drawn by number of eligible voters, because counting children and illegal aliens would give extra voting power to urban and more liberal communities. By making eligible voters the new criteria, instead of total population, urban/liberal regions would end up with reduced legislative representation. Of course, that's not the excuse they've brought to court. The plaintiffs claim that the 'one person-one vote' principle requires is violated when regions are districted by population, because some of the population doesn't vote or can't vote.
Liberals are complaining that it's a move that's only designed to diminish the representation power of minorities, particularly Hispanics. And they are right. However, they're also complaining about the wrong things. The plaintiffs are making a bullshit claim, and the argument against their case should be about the fact that the constitution demands apportionment based on population, and that never in the long history of restricted voting rights in this country has the constitution been interpreted to mean population of eligible voters; it has always been the full and total population.
Well said!
The people who wouldn't be counted are not able to vote anyway. It's an interesting interpretation, one I do not have a view on as of yet.
