guess we have to put up with this SLIDE in notables again
try to discern anons
this is FAKE NEWS
many digs on the board months ago
>>6006358 DEVELOPING: POTUS eyeing Amy Coney Barrett to replace RBG - @OANN
19 posts of silly questions
fyi i would like to know
that doesnt mean i want to come face to face with a large hostile smelly reptilian
>aphids and pollen and corn rash and mud.
reality is ugly up close
dont forget chemicals and mass nitrogen fert.
factory farming
lawfag here with a constitutional law topic - voting and the census
RAISED BY THE Q POST and now going to SCOTUS
the constitutution's original formula for purposes of apportionment of congress - (Art 1 section 2) counted citizens only BUT because of objections by slave holding states provided that non citizens (slaves) would count as 3/5 of a vote. Indians who were not taxed were excluded altogether.
Congress was granted full power to conduct the census in whatever way it wishes:
[The Census] shall be made … in such Manner as [Congress] shall by Law direct. (Art 1 Sec 2)
The Congress is also authorized to ask various questions in the census aside from the basic headcount by virtue of this clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause.
the counting formula was amended after the civil war (14th amendment) which provided for the counting of "the whole number of persons in each State…" again excluding Indians not taxed.
So the first question is: Does Congress has the power to ask whatever questions it wishes on the census? The answer is yes, provided such questions have a rational basis (ie are not legally discriminatory) THIS IS WHERE THE FIGHT IS RIGHT NOW AND GOING TO SCOTUS SOON
Second question - Assume Congress determines a % of residents are not citizens can Congress exclude them from the apportionment formula? As the law is now illegals ARE included in the census and NO citizenship or legal residency questions are included. That means that illegals are included in the apportionment of Congress - somehow that just seems plain WRONG.
And it is - while some may argue that it is fair becuase services are provided and money should be apportioned accordningly - that begs the question - since this population can be legally EXPELLED at any time the absurdity of this argument appears obvious.
MORE IMPORTANT, HOWEVER - is the question of the effect on legal citizens and particularly the right to vote - in apportionment cases SCOTUS has long made clear that the gold standard is "one person one vote". So the problem again becomes obvious - that is: since illegal aliens are not entitled to vote but ARE counted in the census to determine the number of persons in each Congressional district- by definition THE ONE PERSON ONE VOTED RULE IS VIOLATED!
Lawfag believes that once the number of illegals are identified in the census the next step os to exclude them from the apportionment formula - this would mean MASSIVE redistricting in RED states and PERMANENT loss of power - SCOTUS would have no choice but to uphold the one person one vote rule - TRUST THE PLAN
ARTICLE FOR FURTHER STUDY:
https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2054&context=caselrev