I don’t know why they wouldn’t. The question does not ask if they are undocumented, does it? I have several Indian friends and none of them are illegal immigrants.
Oh come now. We all know what this is about. It’s about the socialist/communist leadership in states like California wanting to count every illegal entrant in order to increase their number of representatives in Congress, and increase the government cheese they get from Washington. But they do not want to contribute an apportioned share of our federal tax burden, which is also part of the rule of apportionment.
JWK
“The proportion of taxes are fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of the territory, or fertility of soil”3 Elliot’s, 243,“Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax”3 Elliot’s, 244 ___ Mr. George Nicholas, during the ratification debates of our Constitution.
At basic fundamental level, shouldn’t a community have an accurate count of individuals living and working there? If that count isn’t accurate, the government can’t provide services at the proper level and then everyone in that community suffers.
Your innuendo is without foundation. I have never, even remotely, suggested in this thread that everyone should not be counted.
JWK
Socialist democrats running for office will promise food on the table, free public housing, health care for all, guaranteed income, free college tuition, and other niceties by taxing the so called rich; and if by chance they ever do get political power because of such promises made, their socialist iron-fisted dependency will enslave the very fools who elected them.
Speaking of facts, the wording “DIRECT TAX” was intentionally rejected and removed from the language of the 16th Amendment during its framing.
So yes! Congress has power to lay and collect taxes on incomes without apportionment, but if in doing so the tax takes the form of a direct tax, as it did in Eisner vs Macomber, decided after the amendment’s passage, it must be apportioned.
And why is this so?
According to the Supreme Court in Eisner, amendments to the Constitution “must be construed with the . . . clauses of the original Constitution and the effect attributed to them before the Amendment was adopted.”
Additionally, as also indicated in Eisner, it is generally accepted that “an amendment shall not be extended by loose construction, so as to repeal or modify” earlier provisions of the Constitution, unless the intent is unmistakable.
So, it is abundantly clear, from the historical record, if a tax on incomes takes the form of a direct tax it violates the limitations of the 16th Amendment. Additionally, since “direct tax” was intentionally removed from the amendment’s wording, the following provision of our constitution still stands with full force and effect!
No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
No Capitation, or other direct tax, means no capitation or other direct tax may be laid without apportionment.
JWK
The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS’N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)
