User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/4/2016 2:03:57 PM EDT
[#1]
Wait, can we count illegal machineguns as to "common use"?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/4/2016 2:04:30 PM EDT
[#2]
This ruling would be correct if we did NOT have universal sufferance, in that non-voting citizens still require representation. But since we do have universal sufferance, the court's ruling falls strictly under the category of mental gymnastics to shoehorn a political world view into written law. Complete and utter bullshit that dilutes the vote of legitimate citizens.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/4/2016 2:08:26 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This ruling would be correct if we did NOT have universal sufferance, in that non-voting citizens still require representation. But since we do have universal sufferance, the court's ruling falls strictly under the category of mental gymnastics to shoehorn a political world view into written law. Complete and utter bullshit that dilutes the vote of legitimate citizens. How does universal suffrage change anything? What do you think is actually unconstitutional here? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/4/2016 2:09:05 PM EDT
[#4]
Illegals being counted in the census for districting and voting purposes is in fact taxation without representation .
If a state or district is awarded more representation due to counting illigal immigrants then the people with less illegal immigrantsmight as well be a partial vote. They are having their power they pay tax for stolen and given to people who have high illegal immigrant populations. How many less house representatives and electoral votes would California have if you subtracted the millions of illegals from their counted population? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/4/2016 2:13:26 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Look at the history of the Indians at the time. That exception was carved out because untaxed Indians were those on reservations whom had quasi sovereign states. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: that is so much horse shit...period You'll need to revise this: Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. Either we are for the Constitution being enforced as written or we're not. If we're not, shit gets a little sticky with the amendments we do like. So why are Indians excluded then? And illegal aliens should be excluded from EVERYTHING. Even voting.  And breathing 'Merican air. Go someplace else and breathe, not here. Look at the history of the Indians at the time. That exception was carved out because untaxed Indians were those on reservations whom had quasi sovereign states. So are Indians not US Citizens. Do they get their own Sioux, Cherokee, Apache, etc. passports? They have no representation in US govt.? I know the poor Indian got fucked by not enforcing their immigration laws at the time, but are you suggesting that the American Indian are not American?  |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/4/2016 2:14:45 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Illegals being counted in the census for districting and voting purposes is in fact taxation without representation . If a state or district is awarded more representation due to counting illigal immigrants then the people with less illegal immigrantsmight as well be a partial vote. They are having their power they pay tax for stolen and given to people who have high illegal immigrant populations. How many less house representatives and electoral votes would California have if you subtracted the millions of illegals from their counted population? No, it's not taxation without representation. I don't understand why the concept is so hard for most people to understand. Does a region or polity have a representative in the central legislature who can vote on laws regarding revenue? If yes, the people therein have representation, whether or not an individual is eligible to vote for said representative. If not, and that region or polity is subject to taxation by the central government, then there is indeed a case of taxation without representation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/4/2016 2:17:48 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's nice, dear. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
that is so much horse shit...period You'll need to revise this: Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. Either we are for the Constitution being enforced as written or we're not. If we're not, shit gets a little sticky with the amendments we do like. Gov. employees, including judges, who do not adhere to their oaths, are operating outside the law and are thus outlaws. They should be dealt with as such. That's nice, dear. You have just created joinder. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/4/2016 2:26:29 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
OK. Give us the argument. I eagerly await your dazzling display of rational analysis of history and constitutional law. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You could argue the sky is yellow too. You'd be 100% wrong in fact, history, and context. why because you say so....  OK. Give us the argument. I eagerly await your dazzling display of rational analysis of history and constitutional law. I gave my argument Not tax paying Indians do not get counted show precedence that non tax paying illegals should not get counted. You said history doesn't back me up so you show me where it does not back up my argument, |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/4/2016 2:29:36 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Legal status should matter and can be argued that it does matter. Just because some disagree does not make it right and proper. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I could argue that the "Indians not taxed" could be used to set a precedence for all un taxed individuals such as illegal aliens residing in an area and still be within the limits of the Constitution. Children aren't taxed, yet have always been counted. Children that work very much are taxed with the knowledge that when they grow up they will be taxed. Illegals that work are not (with some exceptions) taxed within any age range.. Workers are a nice red herring, but work status doesn't matter... Legal status should matter and can be argued that it does matter. Just because some disagree does not make it right and proper. The Constitution doesn't say it only counts taxpayers or whatever other criteria you want to add, so if we want SCOTUS justices to be strict constitutionalists, they can't create their own restrictions, now can they? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/4/2016 2:30:58 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How can you count them if you don't know where they are? If you know where they are, WHY ARE THEY NOT BEING DEPORTED? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
that is so much horse shit...period You'll need to revise this: Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. Either we are for the Constitution being enforced as written or we're not. If we're not, shit gets a little sticky with the amendments we do like. How can you count them if you don't know where they are? If you know where they are, WHY ARE THEY NOT BEING DEPORTED? That's a political question, not a Constitutional question. I agree. They should be deported. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/4/2016 2:31:49 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wait, can we count illegal machineguns as to "common use"? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/4/2016 2:33:53 PM EDT
[#12]
This . . . right here . . . this singular SCOTUS ruling . . . is the straw on the camels back that will turn Texas blue . . .
Probably not in my life time, but assuredly in my sons.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/4/2016 2:34:29 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I gave my argument Not tax paying Indians do not get counted show precedence that non tax paying illegals should not get counted. You said history doesn't back me up so you show me where it does not back up my argument, Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You could argue the sky is yellow too. You'd be 100% wrong in fact, history, and context. why because you say so.... OK. Give us the argument. I eagerly await your dazzling display of rational analysis of history and constitutional law. I gave my argument Not tax paying Indians do not get counted show precedence that non tax paying illegals should not get counted. You said history doesn't back me up so you show me where it does not back up my argument, Except that they're A) Not Indians, and B) Are taxed. Except for those two little details... |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/4/2016 2:35:38 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So why are Indians excluded then? And illegal aliens should be excluded from EVERYTHING. Even voting.
And breathing 'Merican air. Go someplace else and breathe, not here. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
that is so much horse shit...period You'll need to revise this: Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. Either we are for the Constitution being enforced as written or we're not. If we're not, shit gets a little sticky with the amendments we do like. So why are Indians excluded then? And illegal aliens should be excluded from EVERYTHING. Even voting.
And breathing 'Merican air. Go someplace else and breathe, not here. only the tax exempt indians are, as in the ones living on reserves that the gov. preserved for their use specifically. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/4/2016 2:37:59 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
[The Constitution doesn't say it only counts taxpayers or whatever other criteria you want to add, so if we want SCOTUS justices to be strict constitutionalists, they can't create their own restrictions, now can they? but it does say Indians and alludes to non tax paying non citizens. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/4/2016 2:40:15 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Except that they're A) Not Indians, and B) Are taxed. Except for those two little details... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You could argue the sky is yellow too. You'd be 100% wrong in fact, history, and context. why because you say so.... OK. Give us the argument. I eagerly await your dazzling display of rational analysis of history and constitutional law. I gave my argument Not tax paying Indians do not get counted show precedence that non tax paying illegals should not get counted. You said history doesn't back me up so you show me where it does not back up my argument, Except that they're A) Not Indians, and B) Are taxed. Except for those two little details... A.) what makes an Indian an Indian (the qualifier was non-citizen and not so much their race) b.) they are not taxed (even Indians pay sales tax outside the reservation) |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/4/2016 2:41:06 PM EDT
[#17]
So if I live in a congressional district with 10,000 staunch Republicans and 100,000 liberal illegal immigrants, it would be awesome. Imposing my ultra right wing representative on them.
Instead I live in a 60/40% Democrat dominated district. Sucks.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/4/2016 2:41:22 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This has nothing to do with "taxation without representation." That involves a subordinate political or geographic subdivision of a state having its people be taxed by a higher level of government with no representation in the legislative body which has a say over the laws regarding revenue. Most people here don't seem to understand the nature of that issue. Non-citizens are frequently counted for purposes of apportionment of legislators, among other things. This goes back to the original constitution. Generally, it is limited to residents (counting). No one is being disenfranchised here, although given that we've excessively expanded the franchise, such a thing would not in all cases be bad. What this does is give more representation to areas with large numbers of illegals. Since they tend to live in Hispanic areas, it therefore amplifies the Hispanic vote. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/4/2016 2:45:14 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
but it does say Indians and alludes to non tax paying non citizens. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
[The Constitution doesn't say it only counts taxpayers or whatever other criteria you want to add, so if we want SCOTUS justices to be strict constitutionalists, they can't create their own restrictions, now can they? but it does say Indians and alludes to non tax paying non citizens. It's referring to a specific situation in which a class of persons fall under a different sovereignty, that of their tribe. They were governed by their tribes and thus not subject to taxation, while those choosing to live separately were potentially subject to taxation like anyone else in the U.S., regardless of origins. It has no relation to issues regarding the lawfulness of migration, although it could certainly be twisted that way. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/4/2016 2:47:40 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What this does is give more representation to areas with large numbers of illegals. Since they tend to live in Hispanic areas, it therefore amplifies the Hispanic vote. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
This has nothing to do with "taxation without representation." That involves a subordinate political or geographic subdivision of a state having its people be taxed by a higher level of government with no representation in the legislative body which has a say over the laws regarding revenue. Most people here don't seem to understand the nature of that issue. Non-citizens are frequently counted for purposes of apportionment of legislators, among other things. This goes back to the original constitution. Generally, it is limited to residents (counting). No one is being disenfranchised here, although given that we've excessively expanded the franchise, such a thing would not in all cases be bad. What this does is give more representation to areas with large numbers of illegals. Since they tend to live in Hispanic areas, it therefore amplifies the Hispanic vote. I'm aware of what it does, although it doesn't always have that effect. When it comes to State legislators and how their districts are drawn, this is certainly something that could be addressed by law. The court was the wrong venue for this, as the constitution is silent on such matters, and clearly indicates how Federal Representatives are to be apportioned. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/4/2016 2:48:16 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This . . . right here . . . this singular SCOTUS ruling . . . is the straw on the camels back that will turn Texas blue . . .
Probably not in my life time, but assuredly in my sons. How? Please show your reasoning. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/4/2016 2:58:02 PM EDT
[#22]
Another nail in the coffin.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/4/2016 3:03:21 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Honestly, on a very strict reading of the Constitution, I'm not sure how you could rule another way without amending it. I'm so glad they'll rule so literally for counting illegals for apportionment but not for the 2A, search and seizure and other shady rulings that might threaten the status quo of those in power. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/4/2016 3:15:21 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No, it's not taxation without representation. I don't understand why the concept is so hard for most people to understand. Does a region or polity have a representative in the central legislature who can vote on laws regarding revenue? If yes, the people therein have representation, whether or not an individual is eligible to vote for said representative. If not, and that region or polity is subject to taxation by the central government, then there is indeed a case of taxation without representation. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Illegals being counted in the census for districting and voting purposes is in fact taxation without representation . If a state or district is awarded more representation due to counting illigal immigrants then the people with less illegal immigrantsmight as well be a partial vote. They are having their power they pay tax for stolen and given to people who have high illegal immigrant populations. How many less house representatives and electoral votes would California have if you subtracted the millions of illegals from their counted population? No, it's not taxation without representation. I don't understand why the concept is so hard for most people to understand. Does a region or polity have a representative in the central legislature who can vote on laws regarding revenue? If yes, the people therein have representation, whether or not an individual is eligible to vote for said representative. If not, and that region or polity is subject to taxation by the central government, then there is indeed a case of taxation without representation. To me California getting more representation due to being an illegal immigrant Haven is no different than giving resident of another state 3/5 of a vote |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/4/2016 3:18:34 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryI am so confused on this.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/4/2016 3:21:19 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Honestly, on a very strict reading of the Constitution, I'm not sure how you could rule another way without amending it. I like the decision, because the court is actually reading the constitution... Why can't they do this with EVERY CASE...most cases should be unanimous..not 4-4..or 5-4. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
