You realize that the example you gave is exactly what’s happening by counting them in the census don’t you?
1 Like
In the OP case, the New York case, United States District Judge Jesse Furman will be joined by United States Circuit Judge Peter W. Hall and Senior United States Circuit Judge Richard C. Wesley, both of the Second Circuit, sitting by designation.
Because these cases are being heard by three Judge panels, any appeal goes straight to the United States Supreme Court as an appeal of right. The Supreme Court can either summarily affirm, summarily reverse or note jurisdiction and set the case for argument.
Interesting name. How is it pronounced?
Neither can felons but they counted for representative purposes.
Neither can children yet they are counted.
It’s not about voting.
Allan
U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman ordered expedited briefing in the case, which targets an executive order from President Donald Trump seeking to exclude undocumented immigrants from population figures for the purpose of creating legislative districts.
Illegal aliens should not be counted and all of us should unite in that. They are here illegally. Why should they be rewarded for this criminal activity. Why should all those immigrants who went through the legal process be shafted? Why should tax paying Americans be shafted? If “we” are to allow this, why have borders? Why have an immigration system at all? It makes a joke of everything that represents law and order.
Change the constitution if you dont want illegal aliens counted in the census.
There’s nothing to change. The Founding Fathers took it for granted that the laws would be enforced and I agree. Enforce the laws…equally…to all…and there’s no need to change anything.
Nope. It’s in the constitution. Persons.
As safiel suggested, there is an amendment process.
The president should be spearheading this effort.
Instead we get a lame EO.
Allan
Oh…and did they specifically say “illegal” persons? If not, it ain’t so. If they meant illegal, they’d have said…“illegal”. Now where is that in the Constitution? One must assume that all laws are being enforced.
Now you know what the founding father of this nation were assuming.
If they wanted citizens, it would have been written citizens.
Allan
You…are assuming by not reading the word “illegal”. If they wanted to include “illegal”, do you really not think they were smart enough to say it? Seriously? That isn’t how it works my friend and if this goes to SCOTUS, they’ll repeat what I just told you. Then you can come back and say, “thank you Smyrna”.
SCOTUS only takes cases with important federal questions
One of which is not “Does persons mean citizens?”
Persons are everyone.
Citizens are not.
Allan
“We” will see. That will be another reason to come back and say, “thank you Smyrna” when it happens…if…it has to go that far?
Nothing to see. No way SCOTUS issues an opinion on this.
Allan
You would think that a strict constructionist supreme court would not look to interpret the constitution is such ways. You have to look at what the constitution says, and not what you want it to say. There are methods for amending the constitution outside of the Supreme Court making law.
Here we go folks.
The textualist Supreme Court Justice Anthony Scalia would be rolling over in his grave.
.
.
.
.WW, PSHS
2 Likes
/cat/ /sass/
UPDATE
Absolutely ZERO surprise here.
The three judge panel reversed the Trump order and has ordered the inclusion of undocumented citizens in the apportionment count.
Link to ruling of the court, in Donald J. Trump, et. al. v State of New York, et al.
Because this case was tried by a three Judge panel, any appeal goes straight to the Supreme Court, which must hear it as a mandatory appeal.
Most likely, the Supreme Court will summarily affirm the ruling above, without oral arguments.
1 Like
