johnwk
03-31-2018, 09:46 AM
.
See: At Least Twelve States to Sue Trump Administration Over Census Citizenship Question (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/27/us/census-citizenship-question.html)
”WASHINGTON — At least 12 states signaled Tuesday that they would sue to block the Trump administration from adding a question about citizenship to the 2020 census, arguing that the change would cause fewer Americans to be counted and violate the Constitution.”
But a little further down in the article we find the Attorney General of the socialist State of Massachusetts, Maura Healey, gives the real reason why she and these other states are suing. She indicates, the citizenship question “. . . will result in an undercount of the population and threaten federal funding for our state and cities.”
Keep in mind each state’s socialist federal funding is alleged to be apportioned based upon their state’s population size. So, according to Maura Healey and these other States, the census is about how much federal government cheese their state will get, and the citizenship question would scare illegal entrants into not stepping forward to be counted in the census, thus reducing the amount of government cheese these States would get.
Now, let us look at the specific reason why our Founding Fathers required a census every ten years, which is far different from what our Fifth Column socialists and Yellow Journalists tell us.
During the framing of our existing Constitution the question of determining each State’s number of representatives in Congress became a matter of heated debate and created an impasse. On July 2nd (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_702.asp)of the Convention Sherman of Connecticut remarked: “We are now at a full stop, and nobody he supposed meant that we should break up without doing something” The Convention did not sit for the next couple of days to allow an appointed committee to hopefully come up with a workable plan to determine how the States would be represented in Congress.
On July 12 of the Convention, (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_712.asp) and after fierce debates concerning taxation and representation, Mr. MORRIS proposed a workable compromise, “that taxation shall be in proportion to Representation."
Eventually this proposal, often referred to as the “Great Compromise” of the Convention of 1787, became Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of our existing Constitution: “Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States…….” The intention behind these words was the creation of an agreed upon fair share formula to determine each state’s allotted number of representatives in Congress, and also determine each state’s share of any direct tax used to fill the national treasury.
The formula, considering subsequent amendments to our Constitution, may be represented as follows and applies to any federal direct tax laid among the States, and also determines how each states’ number of representatives are calculated:
State`s Population
_________________ X House membership (435) = State`s No. of Reps
Population of U.S.
State`s Population
_________________ X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE`S SHARE OF TAX
Total U.S. Population
Eventually, the Convention specifically required in the Constitution that a census would be taken every ten years to confirm and adjust any alterations in the various state population sizes, and thus be able to determine each states’ number of representatives, and each states’ share of any direct taxes Congress may lay to finance the federal government’s authorized functions.
The principle behind this agreed upon formula, as applied to the states and their inhabitants, boils down to “Representation with a proportional financial obligation”, or, one man, one vote, and one vote, one dollar, a principle despised by socialists, communists and progressives, all of whom are part of an ongoing Fifth Column movement in the United States working to undermine and overthrow the very intentions under which our Constitution was adopted.
In Federalist No. 54 we are reminded that our Constitution’s rule requiring an apportionment of both Representatives and direct taxes “…will have a very salutary effect.” Madison observes in this paper . . . “Were” the various States’ “share of representation alone to be governed by this rule, they would have an interest in exaggerating their inhabitants. Were the rule to decide their share of taxation alone, a contrary temptation would prevail. By extending the rule to both objects, the States will have opposite interests, which will control and balance each other, and produce the requisite impartiality.”
But now we see that our open border, socialist, sanctuary city and state officials have a dishonest reason for welcoming illegal entrants. The more illegal entrants they invite into their state, the larger is their population count during a census, and thus they feel entitled to a larger share of free government cheese, while their obligation to contribute an apportioned share of any direct taxes goes unenforced!
It should also be noted that our Supreme Court has repeatedly confirmed the Sixteenth Amendment did not repealed the rule that “direct taxes” are still, to this date, required to be apportioned! The last time the Court confirmed this fact was when Justice Roberts stated in the Obamacare case:
"The shared responsibility payment is thus not a direct tax that must be apportioned among the several States."
So, what we have learned is one of the motives of elected officials in certain States and cities inviting illegal entrants into their borders is to increase their apportioned share of government cheese. But there is another, and even more notoriously evil motive. Inviting in the poverty stricken, poorly educated, low and unskilled populations of other countries ___ a financially dependent class who will eventually get to vote ___ ensures the socialists, communists and progressive elected officials who run these sanctuary cities and states will have a captive and dependent voting block to keep themselves in power, while hard working American citizens across the country will be taxed to provide the government cheese which these sinister politicians use to buy votes which helps to keep them in power.
The bottom line is, the census was specifically intended to confirm and adjust any alterations in the various state population sizes on a periodic timetable, which in turn is intended to be used to apportion each state’s number of representatives, and, each state’s share of a direct tax used to finance the constitutionally authorized functions of our federal government. But don’t expect our Yellow Journalists, including those who appear on Fox News, to mention how apportionment is intended to apply to taxation. If they did, it would no longer be profitable for sanctuary city and state officials to invite in and protect the poverty stricken, poorly educated, low and unskilled populations of other counties. To do so would increase their apportioned financial obligation to fill the national treasury instead of sucking it dry.
JWK
If we can make 51 percent of America’s population dependent upon the federal government for its subsistence, we can then bribe them for their vote, keep ourselves in power and keep the remaining portion of America’s productive population enslaved to pay the bills ____ Our Washington Establishment’s Marxist game plan, a plan to establish a federal plantation and be in charge of redistributing the bread which labor, business and investors have worked to produce.
See: At Least Twelve States to Sue Trump Administration Over Census Citizenship Question (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/27/us/census-citizenship-question.html)
”WASHINGTON — At least 12 states signaled Tuesday that they would sue to block the Trump administration from adding a question about citizenship to the 2020 census, arguing that the change would cause fewer Americans to be counted and violate the Constitution.”
But a little further down in the article we find the Attorney General of the socialist State of Massachusetts, Maura Healey, gives the real reason why she and these other states are suing. She indicates, the citizenship question “. . . will result in an undercount of the population and threaten federal funding for our state and cities.”
Keep in mind each state’s socialist federal funding is alleged to be apportioned based upon their state’s population size. So, according to Maura Healey and these other States, the census is about how much federal government cheese their state will get, and the citizenship question would scare illegal entrants into not stepping forward to be counted in the census, thus reducing the amount of government cheese these States would get.
Now, let us look at the specific reason why our Founding Fathers required a census every ten years, which is far different from what our Fifth Column socialists and Yellow Journalists tell us.
During the framing of our existing Constitution the question of determining each State’s number of representatives in Congress became a matter of heated debate and created an impasse. On July 2nd (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_702.asp)of the Convention Sherman of Connecticut remarked: “We are now at a full stop, and nobody he supposed meant that we should break up without doing something” The Convention did not sit for the next couple of days to allow an appointed committee to hopefully come up with a workable plan to determine how the States would be represented in Congress.
On July 12 of the Convention, (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_712.asp) and after fierce debates concerning taxation and representation, Mr. MORRIS proposed a workable compromise, “that taxation shall be in proportion to Representation."
Eventually this proposal, often referred to as the “Great Compromise” of the Convention of 1787, became Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of our existing Constitution: “Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States…….” The intention behind these words was the creation of an agreed upon fair share formula to determine each state’s allotted number of representatives in Congress, and also determine each state’s share of any direct tax used to fill the national treasury.
The formula, considering subsequent amendments to our Constitution, may be represented as follows and applies to any federal direct tax laid among the States, and also determines how each states’ number of representatives are calculated:
State`s Population
_________________ X House membership (435) = State`s No. of Reps
Population of U.S.
State`s Population
_________________ X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE`S SHARE OF TAX
Total U.S. Population
Eventually, the Convention specifically required in the Constitution that a census would be taken every ten years to confirm and adjust any alterations in the various state population sizes, and thus be able to determine each states’ number of representatives, and each states’ share of any direct taxes Congress may lay to finance the federal government’s authorized functions.
The principle behind this agreed upon formula, as applied to the states and their inhabitants, boils down to “Representation with a proportional financial obligation”, or, one man, one vote, and one vote, one dollar, a principle despised by socialists, communists and progressives, all of whom are part of an ongoing Fifth Column movement in the United States working to undermine and overthrow the very intentions under which our Constitution was adopted.
In Federalist No. 54 we are reminded that our Constitution’s rule requiring an apportionment of both Representatives and direct taxes “…will have a very salutary effect.” Madison observes in this paper . . . “Were” the various States’ “share of representation alone to be governed by this rule, they would have an interest in exaggerating their inhabitants. Were the rule to decide their share of taxation alone, a contrary temptation would prevail. By extending the rule to both objects, the States will have opposite interests, which will control and balance each other, and produce the requisite impartiality.”
But now we see that our open border, socialist, sanctuary city and state officials have a dishonest reason for welcoming illegal entrants. The more illegal entrants they invite into their state, the larger is their population count during a census, and thus they feel entitled to a larger share of free government cheese, while their obligation to contribute an apportioned share of any direct taxes goes unenforced!
It should also be noted that our Supreme Court has repeatedly confirmed the Sixteenth Amendment did not repealed the rule that “direct taxes” are still, to this date, required to be apportioned! The last time the Court confirmed this fact was when Justice Roberts stated in the Obamacare case:
"The shared responsibility payment is thus not a direct tax that must be apportioned among the several States."
So, what we have learned is one of the motives of elected officials in certain States and cities inviting illegal entrants into their borders is to increase their apportioned share of government cheese. But there is another, and even more notoriously evil motive. Inviting in the poverty stricken, poorly educated, low and unskilled populations of other countries ___ a financially dependent class who will eventually get to vote ___ ensures the socialists, communists and progressive elected officials who run these sanctuary cities and states will have a captive and dependent voting block to keep themselves in power, while hard working American citizens across the country will be taxed to provide the government cheese which these sinister politicians use to buy votes which helps to keep them in power.
The bottom line is, the census was specifically intended to confirm and adjust any alterations in the various state population sizes on a periodic timetable, which in turn is intended to be used to apportion each state’s number of representatives, and, each state’s share of a direct tax used to finance the constitutionally authorized functions of our federal government. But don’t expect our Yellow Journalists, including those who appear on Fox News, to mention how apportionment is intended to apply to taxation. If they did, it would no longer be profitable for sanctuary city and state officials to invite in and protect the poverty stricken, poorly educated, low and unskilled populations of other counties. To do so would increase their apportioned financial obligation to fill the national treasury instead of sucking it dry.
JWK
If we can make 51 percent of America’s population dependent upon the federal government for its subsistence, we can then bribe them for their vote, keep ourselves in power and keep the remaining portion of America’s productive population enslaved to pay the bills ____ Our Washington Establishment’s Marxist game plan, a plan to establish a federal plantation and be in charge of redistributing the bread which labor, business and investors have worked to produce.