Exclude Illegal Aliens From Census?

@beckyromero Exactly.

@beckyromero It's an interesting POV.
We'll have to see how the Supreme Court rules.
They might have more insight than you and me.

The part you are not considering is whether the illegals should be counted for Congressional apportionment. If illegals are considered, how about citizens of say Belgium or any other country? I'm thinking the members of Congress and the Senate are supposed to represent [i][b]citizens [/b][/i]in their district.

@Budwick [quote]The part you are not considering is whether the illegals should be counted for Congressional apportionment. [/quote]

"Persons." "[u]Persons[/u]." "[u][b]Persons[/b][/u]."

If the framers wanted to say "citizens" they would have done so. It wasn't like they were uneducated. They knew the difference. They didn't exclude the loyalists who didn't flee to Canada. They didn't exclude the multitudes of immigrants who helped build this country.

And beyond that...

Why it may be helpful for the government to know who has running water and electricity, people shouldn't be required by law to answer such questions.

The Constitution [b]only[/b] says that the Census is needed to provide reapportionment for Congress. It says NOTHING about that Congress wants to know things so as to where to distribute funds.

@beckyromero [quote]
"Persons." "Persons." "Persons."

If the framers wanted to say "citizens" they would have done so. [/quote]

I get it.
Maybe they should foreseen sanctuary cities and the like.
The founders were pretty dedicated in assuring that power would rest in the hands of the people. Whether they intended to include persons here illegally or not might be at the root of the decision.

@Budwick

Any true strict-constructionist cannot honestly decide otherwise and must allow the counting of all "persons."

Anyone voting or saying otherwise is being disingenuous.

Not even the "taxing" clause like Chief Justice John Roberts used to save ObamaCare can help on this one.

@Budwick If they wanted to say [i]citizen[/i], they wouldn't have used the word [i]person[/i]. The 14th amendment is precisely and deliberately worded.

@beckyromero You make a great point and lay your view out quite well. Much appreciated. I'll confess I never quite looked at the issue in this way, but will consider your points a bit before I adjust my beliefs.

I find it especially interesting that you've taken this approach though. Don't get me wrong, it's an excellent approach and I commend you for it. But it seems to me that the current nominee for the SCOTUS would also take a very similar view in that she's indicated her support of textualism. Yet that approach is hated by those who are more in favor of activism on the highest court.

@carpediem "Activism" seems to depend more upon whether or not the observer

a) agrees or disagrees with a given decision, or

b) understands the role of the judiciary.

@SomeMichGuy Textualism versus activism. You either judge balls and strikes based on the text of the constitution as Becky appropriately laid it out. Or you want to change the strike zone because you want a certain outcome that doesn't fit into your beliefs. It has nothing to do, in my opinion, with who is observing. It's not always grey. It's closer to black or white.

@carpediem You might want to acquaint yourself with [i]Original Meanings[/i] by Jack Rakove.

The judicial process comes about because of laws not contemplating every possible contingency, and proposed conflicts of laws (either on the face or as presented in argument), for instance. In these cases, courts have to try to resolve issues which have competing interests, which ultimately IS "legislating from the bench", which is what I understand "activism" to be.

The Constitution itself has ambiguities revealed through the years, and textualism has taken a beating at the hands, e.g., of the NRA, which observers have agreed has essentially foisted on the rest of America an alternate reading of the Second Amendment.

Where was textualism in [quote]Citizens United[/quote]?? Businesses are only "persons" by legal fiction and are not any of the parties to the Constitution...and certainly don't have the franchise.

Modern "textualism" seems to be yet another self-serving attempt to cloak rightwing activism with a mantle of appeal to American exceptionalism. The behavior of the electorate, the executive, the legislature, and the judiciary in esp. the current Administration is something that the Founders never considered, and Madison might well have thrown up his hands at a Senate conspiring with a President who continually lies and was unfit for office in other ways...and now we are looking at the possible collusion of the judiciary, as well.

Remember, an unspecified set of rights is reserved to the non-Federal parties to the Constitution. And the prohibition against an establishment of religion, shouldn't that also extend to the attempt to claim a certain take on the Constitution is from God, etc.?

@SomeMichGuy You've picked the wrong guy to copy and paste. This guy pushes for a second look at the bill of rights. Hardly a position I give any credibility towards. In an interview when asked about the bill of rights he quotes:

"I have a revisionist comment here. The story that the Constitution was ratified because the Anti-Federalists extracted a promise to get a Bill of Rights, needs a good, serious, second look. I think the real reason we have a Bill of Rights is that Madison decided for political reasons that it had to be added to the Constitution"

So please.... Think for yourself. I don't subscribe to this kind of nonsense. You might as well be quoting Saul Alinsky.

@carpediem ? I did not copy & paste anything quoting anyone.

Rakove is a serious historian who sees an argument to be made for that position, but the point of [i]Original Meanings[/i] is based upon contract law at the time.

Revisionist in terms of who sponsored the Bill of Rights is not rewriting either those amendments or the Constitution.

Yeah, I actually read this stuff...

@SomeMichGuy The guy wants to re-write much of the constitution and amendments. I'll pass.

@carpediem lol No, he says that the "original meaning" argument ignores the legal reality of the time re: contracts.

It is a simple argument and squares with the legal understanding ppl familiar with English common law of the time would know. Basic contract formation for valid contracts.

A serious originalist should have to take judicial notice of this background...but most pretend that there is no party to the Constitution's text other than the proposers, and ignore the ratifiers and how the Constitution & Bill of Rights were "sold", how they were represented during the various states' ratifying votes.

@SomeMichGuy This guy Rakove - is he a justice of the supreme court?

@Budwick No he is a historian of the Constitution & Revolution.

Doesn't mean he cannot raise valid historical points, and a true originalist would welcome this viewpoint.

@SomeMichGuy Yeah, from what I know of the guy, he's been studying ways to try and alter what the founders meant for decades now.

So, unless he can sell his snake oils to the court, what he has to say is meaningless anyway.