PDA

View Full Version : Open borders, the census, sanctuary states, and the rule of apportionment




johnwk
07-25-2019, 04:43 PM
As we have seen firsthand, California, which happens to be a communist/socialist sanctuary State and openly encourages illegal immigration, gets the most number of Representatives [53 votes] in the House of Representatives because of our Constitution’s rule of apportionment, a rule which distributes each state’s number of representatives based upon its total population size which includes illegal entrants and non-citizens in the count.


Using available statistical information, approximately seven of California’s Representatives in the House are allocated because of its illegal and non-citizen population size. California’s illegal and non-citizen population is also used to determine California’s huge number of Electoral College votes which happens to be 55, beating out Texas which has 38, while New York and Florida both have a mere 29 votes each. The Electoral College vote determines who our President and Vice President is.


Politically speaking, California gets a very real benefit from swelling its population with illegal immigrants. It gets a larger vote in Congress when spending federal revenue because of its illegal entrant population size, and likewise gets a larger voice in determining who our President and Vice President is, also because of its illegal and non-citizen population which adds to its political influence.


Our Founder’s understood that apportioning each state’s number of representatives based upon each state’s population size, could very well encourage a state to swell or exaggerate its population size during our nation’s census, in order to gain additional Representatives which would translate into undue influence in Congress Assembled. But to prevent the states from exaggerating their population size in order to obtain additional Representatives and political influence, the rule of apportionment was also tied to each state’s share in financing our federal government by the following words: “Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states . . . “ In other words, the larger a state’s representation in the House was, so too was that state’s share of any federal direct tax laid by Congress.


Unfortunately our communist and socialist government school teachers will not teach their students the wisdom and brilliance of our Founders applying the rule of apportionment to both taxation and representation. But I will!


Madison in Federalist No. 45 explains the wisdom of the rule of apportionment being applied to representatives and taxation as follows:


“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.”


Of course, since the rule of apportionment is no longer being applied to direct taxation as intended by our Founders and commanded by our Constitution, California is free to encourage illegal immigration into its state which increases its representation in Congress without also increasing its share of our federal tax burden. And this is a communists’ and socialists’ delight ___ representation without a proportional financial obligation.


It is also important to note that under the rule of apportionment when applied to direct taxation, the tax turns out to be an equal per capita tax. For example, if a direct tax were laid today to raise a specific sum and the people of California each had to pay one dollar to meet California’s apportioned share of the total sum being raised by Congress, the people of Idaho would likewise only have to pay one dollar each if the tax were shared evenly among the people living in Idaho. And, although California’s total share of the tax would be far greater than that of Idaho because of California’s larger population, California gets a larger representation in Congress, which is also part of our Constitution’s fair share apportioning formula! The two formulas are:


State`s Population
_________________X House membership (435) = State`s No. of Representatives

Population of U.S.


and . . .

.
State`s population
_________________ X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE`S SHARE OF TAX BURDEN

Total U.S. Population


However, as it now stands, approximately 15 states pay a higher per capita share of federal taxes than does California, but these states do not get representation in Congress proportionately equal to the per capita taxes paid as intended by the rule of apportionment.


Considering California’s love affair with illegal immigration used to increase its representation in Congress, Is it not time to have a conversation to discuss the wisdom, brilliance and merits of our founder’s rule tying taxation and representation by the same metric, and forcing California to pay an apportioned share of our federal tax burden, proportionately equal to its representation in Congress?

JWK

Useful Links:

Federal per capita tax revenue by state ('https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_tax_revenue_by_state')

State demographics by citizenship status ('https://ballotpedia.org/State_demographics_by_citizenship_status')

Federal taxes paid by state per capita ('https://www.money-rates.com/research-center/federal-income-taxes-by-state.htm')

U.S. unauthorized immigrant population estimates by state, 2016 ('https://www.pewhispanic.org/interactives/u-s-unauthorized-immigrants-by-state/')

Swordsmyth
07-25-2019, 04:59 PM
Invaders don't count and their children don't qualify for citizenship.

Zippyjuan
07-25-2019, 05:11 PM
Some states just build huge prisons so they can have more people counted on the census. Build them in rural areas and multiply their "populations".

https://www.facingsouth.org/2009/09/prisoners-of-the-census-how-the-incarcerated-are-counted-distorts-our-politics.html


While it is difficult to generalize across states because of the significant variation in budget practices, it is clear that in many instances prison populations boost funding to rural prison communities, usually at the expense of neighboring communities without prisons. Arizona gives a clear demonstration of this principle due to its large rural prisons and robust revenue sharing within the state. Florence, Arizona, has a free population of about 5,000 and another 12,000 who are incarcerated. The state and federal funds specifically linked to the incarcerated population have been estimated at $4 million annually, compared to $1.8 million for the free residents and $2.3 million in local revenue. This windfall led other towns to attempt to annex prisons nearby, with some towns fighting to annex the same prison.

johnwk
07-25-2019, 05:12 PM
Invaders don't count and their children don't qualify for citizenship.

If you are saying children born on American soil to illegal entrants are not citizens upon birth, I agree completely because their parents/parent is not subject to our "jurisdiction" within the meaning of the 14th Amendment.


JWK

Swordsmyth
07-25-2019, 05:14 PM
Some states just build huge prisons so they can have more people counted on the census. Build them in rural areas and multiply their "populations".
The effect is not nearly so large nor does it involve invaders who shouldn't be counted.

If you want to change the system to only count qualified voters I think we can get together.

PAF
07-25-2019, 05:42 PM
Open borders is not the problem. It is welfare/incentives, and the elimination of private property rights.

Border: the part of an area that forms its outer boundary; the line that separates one area, state, or country from another.

Wall: to enclose, shut off.

Crossing over a border into a state or a country denotes that customs and laws should be observed/respected. If one decides that they do not like those customs/laws, they are free to leave and go elsewhere. NOTHING in our Constitution states or demands that welfare/incentives are mandated to be paid out to foreigners coming into our country. Or Americans in Section 8, for that matter.

Taking rightful private property does not eliminate welfare, it only enhances it. Not only does the property owner lose his valuable land, it is the TAX PAYER who foots the bill to pay the land owner, and also when the government hires attorneys to litigate against the private property/business owner, only to hand that land over to the fed.gov.

Border walls are very different than private walls/fences. Border walls cut off private property, businesses, communities, which interrupts/stops the flow of Free Trade. It restricts tourism, natural ecosystems, declines/destroys property values, and the right to freely travel.

If the politicians were the least bit interested in solving the problems they would simply cut off the welfare spigot, both Personal Welfare and Corporate Welfare. But they will not do this on their own, because it would result in actually shrinking the government, and result in less government contracts, which lobbyists would not be happy about.

The problems in the OP will always be a problem and continue to expand, because people in this country completely ignore the actual solution. It is never even mentioned in the MSM. Thus, there is no way to hold representatives accountable to apply the actual solution.

The other word that irritates me is "illegal". Once deemed "legal" they are then eligible for government programs. "Undocumented" is a much better word, and would save the tax payer enormous amounts of money. But again, the government/police state apparatus complex would never endorse that on their own.

So the gubermint and the lobbyists get to say tomorrow: 'Nother Day, 'Nother Dolla'. And that makes SS very, very happy (I had to get that in ;-) )

Swordsmyth
07-25-2019, 05:46 PM
Open borders is not the problem. It is welfare/incentives, and the elimination of private property rights.

Border: the part of an area that forms its outer boundary; the line that separates one area, state, or country from another.

Wall: to enclose, shut off.

Crossing over a border into a state or a country denotes that customs and laws should be observed/respected. If one decides that they do not like those customs/laws, they are free to leave and go elsewhere. NOTHING in our Constitution states or demands that welfare/incentives are mandated to be paid out to foreigners coming into our country. Or Americans in Section 8, for that matter.

Taking rightful private property does not eliminate welfare, it only enhances it. Not only does the property owner lose his valuable land, it is the TAX PAYER who foots the bill to pay the land owner, and also when the government hires attorneys to litigate against the private property/business owner, only to hand that land over to the fed.gov.

Border walls are very different than private walls/fences. Border walls cut off private property, businesses, communities, which interrupts/stops the flow of Free Trade. It restricts tourism, natural ecosystems, declines/destroys property values, and the right to freely travel.

If the politicians were the least bit interested in solving the problems they would simply cut off the welfare spigot, both Personal Welfare and Corporate Welfare. But they will not do this on their own, because it would result in actually shrinking the government, and result in less government contracts, which lobbyists would not be happy about.

The problems in the OP will always be a problem and continue to expand, because people in this country completely ignore the actual solution. I tis never even discussed in the MSM. Thus, there is no way to hold representatives accountable to apply the actual solution.

The other word that irritates me is "illegal". Once deemed "legal" they are then eligible for government programs. "Undocumented" is a much better word, and would save the tax payer enormous amounts of money. But again, the government/police state apparatus complex would never endorse that on their own.

So the gubermint and the lobbyists get to say tomorrow: 'Nother Day, 'Nother Dolla'


Crossing over a border into a state or a country denotes that customs and laws should be observed/respected.

Including laws about how many foreigners may enter and stay.

Those who do not observe and respect our laws must be kept out and removed lest they impose their customs and laws on us.

Swordsmyth
07-25-2019, 05:48 PM
The other word that irritates me is "illegal". Once deemed "legal" they are then eligible for government programs. "Undocumented" is a much better word, and would save the tax payer enormous amounts of money. But again, the government/police state apparatus complex would never endorse that on their own.

So the gubermint and the lobbyists get to say tomorrow: 'Nother Day, 'Nother Dolla'
The word invaders is much better and they do get government programs and vote to increase them.

The government/police state apparatus complex endorses open borders because open borders feeds it.

PAF
07-25-2019, 05:56 PM
The government/police state apparatus complex endorses open borders because open borders feeds it.

End the Personal Welfare and the Corporate Welfare would reduce.

Welfare is what keeps them coming, not existence or absence of a wall.

And for others, the opportunity to actually work, which you and MSM fail to even report anymore. Because - neither of you like the idea of Private Contract Rights between Employer and Employee. Fact, Jack.

Swordsmyth
07-25-2019, 06:04 PM
End the Personal Welfare and the Corporate Welfare would reduce.

Welfare is what keeps them coming, not existence or absence of a wall.

And for others, the opportunity to actually work, which you and MSM fail to even report anymore. Because - neither of you like the idea of Private Contract Rights between Employer and Employee. Fact, Jack.
Their incentive to work is why border security is necessary, it brought and will bring people here even in the absence of welfare but it does nothing to keep them from imposing big government and welfare on us, which is exactly what they did and do, excessive immigration is why we have the welfare and size government that we have.

PAF
07-25-2019, 06:08 PM
Their incentive to work is why border security is necessary, it brought and will bring people here even in the absence of welfare but it does nothing to keep them from imposing big government and welfare on us, which is exactly what they did and do, excessive immigration is why we have the welfare and size government that we have.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRKTXCRqRXQ


Follow the moola! All of the answers are there ;-)

Swordsmyth
07-25-2019, 06:10 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRKTXCRqRXQ


Follow the moola! All of the answers are there ;-)

And the moola from the bad guys is and always has been on the side of excessive immigration.

PAF
07-25-2019, 06:13 PM
And the moola from the bad guys is and always has been on the side of excessive immigration.


Infinite loop: Please refer to post #11. Enjoy ;-)

Cleaner44
07-25-2019, 06:13 PM
Some states just build huge prisons so they can have more people counted on the census. Build them in rural areas and multiply their "populations".

https://www.facingsouth.org/2009/09/prisoners-of-the-census-how-the-incarcerated-are-counted-distorts-our-politics.html

Our prison population in Florence is made up of Arizona criminals. Moving them out to a small town doesn't increase our state's population. We don't import prisoners from other states and increase our population. You should alert your boss to your error and take a pay cut for posting false information.

By the way, the prison in Florence is the oldest in the state, having been built in 1908, before AZ was even a state.

You can get a good view of the original cellblock in the movie Stir Crazy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyU6En9HN8E

Swordsmyth
07-25-2019, 06:14 PM
Infinite loop: Please refer to post #11. Enjoy ;-)
Denying reality doesn't change it.

PAF
07-25-2019, 06:20 PM
Denying reality doesn't change it.

That's what I've been trying to tell you! Sheesh!

johnwk
07-25-2019, 07:06 PM
Just for the record and to see an example of this apportioned tax being utilized by Congress, and documentation of each state’s bill for an apportioned tax, see an Act laying a direct tax for $3 million (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=003/llsl003.db&recNum=94) in which the rule of apportionment is applied.

And then see Section 7 of the direct tax of 1813 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=003/llsl003.db&recNum=112) allowing each state to raise its share of the tax in their own chosen way and then pay their respective quota while being entitled to certain deductions in meeting their payment on time.

Tell me, has any government school teacher ever taught you how the direct apportioned tax is to work? By contrast, is it not a fact that government school teachers embrace apportionment when it comes to “one man, one vote”?

JWK

They are not "liberals" or "progressives". The Democrat Party Leadership is infested with communists and socialists who delude, lure and addict our nations needy with free government cheese.

Sonny Tufts
07-26-2019, 07:07 AM
And then see Section 7 of the direct tax of 1813 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=003/llsl003.db&recNum=112) allowing each state to raise its share of the tax in their own chosen way and then pay their respective quota while being entitled to certain deductions in meeting their payment on time.

As usual, you're hopelessly wrong. Nothing in Section 7 allows a State to determine the tax base or to otherwise "raise its share of the tax in their own chosen way"; to the contrary, Sections 2 and 4 of the Act provide that the tax is to be assessed as provided in the Act of July 24, 1813. Section 5 of that Act provides as follows:


That whenever a direct tax shall be laid by the authority of the United States, the same shall be assessed and laid on the value of all lands, lots of ground with their improvements, dwelling houses and slaves...

In every direct tax Congress has ever inposed it has specified the tax base as land, buildings and slaves, except for the 1861 direct tax, which excluded slaves. It has never left it up to the States to determine what to tax.

You've been taught this before, but you continue to post the lie that the States could determine what to tax. You really should stop doing that. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?536409-The-census-question-and-the-big-freaken-socialist-communist-lie-by-omission&p=6824339&highlight=direct#post6824339

johnwk
07-26-2019, 07:56 AM
I take it most, if not all democrats, have no problem with California increasing its apportioned share of representatives by encouraging illegal immigration into its State, while it does not pay an apportioned share of our federal tax burden which is also part of the rule of apportionment.

I understand California, after this coming census count, may receive another two or three representatives, mostly due to illegal immigration which would increase its number of representatives from illegal immigration up to ten, and its overall number of Representatives up to 56!

Of course the ten representatives California may have from illegal immigration, cancels out the entire House vote of 38 other states, a few of which pay more per capita in federal taxes than California’s population does. So much for our Constitution’s command that “Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the various States”.

What is not surprising is, communists and socialists are just fine with representation without a proportional financial obligation. But why is there not one “conservative” tv/radio talk show host defending the brilliance and wisdom of our Founder’s rule of apportioning both representatives and taxation?

Here is the thinking of some of our Founders with regard to the necessity of apportioning both representatives and taxation by the same metric [population].

Pinckney addressing the S.C. ratification convention with regard to the rule of apportionment :

“With regard to the general government imposing internal taxes upon us, he contended that it was absolutely necessary they should have such a power: requisitions had been in vain tried every year since the ratification of the old Confederation, and not a single state had paid the quota required of her. The general government could not abuse this power, and favor one state and oppress another, as each state was to be taxed only in proportion to its representation.” 4 Elliot‘s, S.C., 305-6 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&fileName=004/lled004.db&recNum=317&itemLink)

And see:
“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 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&fileName=003/lled003.db&recNum=254&itemLink),“Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax” 3 Elliot’s, 244 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&fileName=003/lled003.db&recNum=255&itemLink) ___ Mr. George Nicholas, during the ratification debates of our Constitution.

Mr. Madison goes on to remark about Congress’s “general power of taxation” that, "they will be limited to fix the proportion of each State, and they must raise it in the most convenient and satisfactory manner to the public."3 Elliot, 255 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&fileName=003/lled003.db&recNum=266&itemLink)

And if there is any confusion about the rule of apportionment intentionally designed to insure that the people of each state are to be taxed proportionately equal to their representation in Congress, Mr. PENDLETON says:

“The apportionment of representation and taxation by the same scale is just; it removes the objection, that, while Virginia paid one sixth part of the expenses of the Union, she had no more weight in public counsels than Delaware, which paid but a very small portion”3 Elliot’s 41 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&fileName=003/lled003.db&recNum=52)

JWK

"If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?"___ Justice Story

johnwk
07-26-2019, 10:08 AM
You've been taught this before, but you continue to post the lie that the States could determine what to tax. You really should stop doing that.


What I have repeatedly indicated is a number of the various states, seven to be exact, indicated in their ratification document of our Constitution, that if Congress laid a direct tax, the States ought to be allowed to raise their share of the tax in their own chosen way, within a time period set by Congress, but if any state refused or neglected to pay their apportioned share on time, then Congress ought to enter the state and collect the tax with interest thereon. For documentation showing this intention see, e.g.,

· Ratification of the Constitution by the State of Massachusetts; February 6, 1788 (https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/ratma.asp)

Fourthly, That Congress do not lay direct Taxes but when the Monies arising from the Impost & Excise are insufficient for the publick exigencies nor then until Congress shall have first made a requisition upon the States to assess levy & pay their respective proportions of such Requisition agreeably to the Census fixed in the said Constitution; in such way & manner as the Legislature of the States shall think best, & in such case if any State shall neglect or refuse to pay its proportion pursuant to such requisition then Congress may assess & levy such State's proportion together with interest thereon at the rate of Six per cent per annum from the time of payment prescribed in such requisition;


· Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New Hampshire; June 21, 1788 (https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/ratnh.asp)


Fourthly That Congress do not lay direct Taxes but when the money arising from Impost, Excise and their other resources are insufficient for the Publick Exigencies; nor then, untill Congress shall have first made a Requisition upon the States, to Assess, Levy, & pay their respective proportions, of such requisitions agreeably to the Census fixed in the said Constitution in such way & manner as the Legislature of the State shall think best and in such Case if any State shall neglect, then Congress may Assess & Levy such States proportion together with the Interest thereon at the rate of six per Cent per Annum from the Time of payment prescribed in such requisition-


· Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New York; July 26, 1788 (https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/ratny.asp)


And that the Congress will not lay direct Taxes within this State, but when the Monies arising from the Impost and Excise shall be insufficient for the public Exigencies, nor then, until Congress shall first have made a Requisition upon this State to assess levy and pay the Amount of such Requisition made agreably to the Census fixed in the said Constitution (https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/usconst.asp) in such way and manner as the Legislature of this State shall judge best, but that in such case, if the State shall neglect or refuse to pay its proportion pursuant to such Requisition, then the Congress may assess and levy this States proportion together with Interest at the Rate of six per Centum per Annum from the time at which the same was required to be paid.


· Ratification of the Constitution by the State of North Carolina; November 21, 1789 (https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/ratnc.asp)


III. When Congress shall lay direct taxes or excises, they shall immediately inform the executive power of each state, of the quota of such State, according to the census herein directed, which is proposed to be thereby raised: And if the legislature of any state shall pass a law, which shall be effectual for raismg such quota at the time required by Congress, the taxes and excises laid by Congress shall not be collected in such state.




· Ratification of the Constitution by the State of Rhode Island; May 29, 1790. (https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/ratri.asp)


that the Congress will not lay direct taxes within this State, but when the monies arising from the Impost, Tonnage and Excise shall be insufficient for the publick exigencies, nor until the Congress shall have first made a requisition upon this State to assess, levy and pay the amount of such requisition, made agreeable to the census fixed in the said constitution, in such way and manner, as the legislature of this State shall judge best, and that the Congress will not lay any capitation or poll tax.


· Ratification of the Constitution by the State of South Carolina; May 23, 1788. (https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/ratsc.asp)


Resolved that the general Government of the United States ought never to impose direct taxes, but where the monies arising from the duties, imposts and excise are insufficient for the public exigencies nor then until Congress shall have made a requisition upon the states to Assess levy and pay their respective proportions of such requisitions And in case any state shall neglect or refuse to pay its proportion pursuant to such requisition then Congress may assess and levy such state's proportion together with Interest thereon at the rate of six per centum per annum from the time of payment prescribed by such requisition-


· Ratification of the Constitution by the State of Virginia; June 26, 1788. (https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/ratva.asp)

Third, When Congress shall lay direct taxes or excises, they shall immediately inform the Executive power of each State of the quota of such state according to the Census herein directed, which is proposed to be thereby raised; And if the Legislature of any State shall pass a law which shall be effectual for raising such quota at the time required by Congress, the taxes and excises laid by Congress shall not be collected, in such State.


Also see: Wailes vs. Smith, Comptroller, 1893, in which the Court states:


By an Act of Congress, approved 5th August. 1861, a direct tax of twenty millions of dollars was levied upon real property, and this tax was apportioned amongst the several States according to representation, as prescribed by the Federal Constitution—the apportionment of this State being $436,823.33. Provision was made for the assessment and collection of this tax against the individual owners of such property, but any State was allowed to assume and pay its quota of said tax; and under this provision the State of Maryland assumed and paid into the Treasury of the United States $371,299.83, being its apportionment, less fifteen per cent, allowed by the Act for the cost of collection. And thus the tax against the property of her citizens was thereby satisfied and extinguished.


:rolleyes:

JWK

Sonny Tufts
07-26-2019, 02:15 PM
What I have repeatedly indicated is a number of the various states, seven to be exact, indicated in their ratification document of our Constitution, that if Congress laid a direct tax, the States ought to be allowed to raise their share of the tax in their own chosen way, within a time period set by Congress, but if any state refused or neglected to pay their apportioned share on time, then Congress ought to enter the state and collect the tax with interest thereon.

And you’ve been repeatedly told that none of these proposals was ever included in the Constitution and that the States knew it when they ratified the Constitution. You’ve also been told that allowing the wishes of less than 75% of the States to be shoehorned into the Constitution violates the Article V amendment process. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?516880-President-Trump-gives-up-on-tax-reform-and-embraces-income-tax-manipulation/page4

The point is that contrary to the wish lists of the States you cited, Congress has never been required to allow a State to determine a different tax base from the one specified by Congress. Indeed, under the 1813, 1815, and 1816 direct tax statutes (but not the 1798 tax) the only leeway Congress gave the states was to assume payment of the quota and get a discount if they paid early and to change the apportionment amounts among its counties from the amounts set forth by Congress. Presumably, however, if a State already had the funds in its treasury to pay its quota or raised the money in some other way (e.g., by taxing something other than land, buildings, and slaves or by selling bonds) and timely remitted the payment, Congress wouldn't have cared that the funds hadn’t come from land taxes.

As far as the direct tax of 1861 is concerned, Section 53 of that act did provide that a State could “assume, assess, collect and pay into the Treasury of the United States the direct tax or its quota thereof… in its own way and manner [this phrase had not been used in previous direct tax acts], by and through its own officers, assessors, and collectors; that it shall be lawful to use for this purpose the last or any subsequent valuation, list, or appraisal made by State or Territorial authority for the purpose of State or Territorial taxation therein…to make any laws or regulations for these purposes, to fix or change the compensation to officers, assessors, and collectors…” It’s not clear from this language whether a State could simply use its own officials and appraisals to impose and collect the tax on land and buildings or whether it could come up with its quota by other means – e. g., imposing taxes on something else, selling bonds, or simply using funds from its treasury. The section did permit any claim by a State against the federal government to be offset against the State's quota, but that's the only explicit reference to using something other than the tax on land and buildings to satisfy a State's obligation.

Having said all that, it's certainly possible that a State that assumed its quota could have raised the money by taxing something else. In fact, 7 out of 18 States assumed payment of their quotas of the 1813 tax, and 4 out of 18 States assumed their quotas of the 1815 and 1816 taxes. See https://www.jstor.org/stable/1879642?seq=8#metadata_info_tab_contents at pages 442-443. I have no idea how the assuming States raised the money to pay their quotas, but given the possibility they taxed something else, I was incorrect to claim that Congress never left it up to the States to determine the tax base -- if a State assumed the payment of its quota, it could have effectively changed the tax base by raising the money through its own taxes instead of allowing the federal governent to collect the quota through land taxes. I apologize for my misstatement and my characterization of your reading of Section 7 of the 1813 tax as a lie.

phill4paul
07-26-2019, 02:29 PM
Welfare is what keeps them coming, not existence or absence of a wall.



This is simply not true, though you keep it on endless loop. It is the amount of wages they can earn here compared to the wages in their country of nationality. The remittances sent back are in excess of 20 times the average wage than that of their home nation in some instances.
Welfare is a BONUS. But, it is not the driving factor.

Swordsmyth
07-26-2019, 03:29 PM
This is simply not true, though you keep it on endless loop. It is the amount of wages they can earn here compared to the wages in their country of nationality. The remittances sent back are in excess of 20 times the average wage than that of their home nation in some instances.
Welfare is a BONUS. But, it is not the driving factor.

And excessive immigration from anti-liberty cultures is how we got welfare and big government.

phill4paul
07-26-2019, 03:39 PM
And excessive immigration from anti-liberty cultures is how we got welfare and big government.

And will continue as long as we have an 'open borders' mentality. They that wish death on America, who would welcome a global socialism, like democrats, some libertarians and neo-conservatives are aware of this. But, they feel if they repeat lies often enough, if the young are inculcated in their public schools, and if media marches in lockstep, they will get their way.

Swordsmyth
07-26-2019, 03:43 PM
And will continue as long as we have an 'open borders' mentality. They that wish death on America, who would welcome a global socialism, like democrats, some libertarians and neo-conservatives are aware of this. But, they feel if they repeat lies often enough, if the young are inculcated in their public schools, and if media marches in lockstep, they will get their way.
You can't educate people who have been miseducated as fast as they can come here or be born here, separation is the only chance for liberty.

johnwk
07-26-2019, 04:12 PM
your reading of Section 7 of the 1813 tax as a lie.

see: Wailes vs. Smith, Comptroller, 1893, in which the Court states:


By an Act of Congress, approved 5th August. 1861, a direct tax of twenty millions of dollars was levied upon real property, and this tax was apportioned amongst the several States according to representation, as prescribed by the Federal Constitution—the apportionment of this State being $436,823.33. Provision was made for the assessment and collection of this tax against the individual owners of such property, but any State was allowed to assume and pay its quota of said tax; and under this provision the State of Maryland assumed and paid into the Treasury of the United States $371,299.83, being its apportionment, less fifteen per cent, allowed by the Act for the cost of collection. And thus the tax against the property of her citizens was thereby satisfied and extinguished.

So, as it turns out, Congress did make provision for the States to raise and pay its quota of the direct tax in its own way!

“SEC. 53. And be it further enacted, That any State or Territory and the District of Columbia may lawfully assume, assess, collect, and pay into the Treasury of the United States the direct tax, or its quota thereof, imposed by this act upon the State, Territory, or the District of Columbia, in its own way and manner, by and through its own officers, assessors, and collectors; that it shall be lawful to use for this purpose the last or any subsequent valuation, list, or appraisal made by State or Territorial authority for the purpose of State or Territorial taxation therein, next preceding the date when this act takes effect, to make any laws or . . . “




JWK

johnwk
07-27-2019, 07:54 AM
Getting back to the subject of the thread, is it not a common sense idea to lay a direct apportioned tax among the states, for example $50 billion, to pay the national cost connected to illegal immigration?

Under this tax, California which embraces illegal immigration and is a sanctuary State, would be charged with the highest share of the total sum being collected when following the fair share formula contained in our Constitution:

State`s population

_________________ X $ 50 BILLION = STATE`S SHARE OF TAX BURDEN

Total U.S. Population

For an example of this apportioned tax being utilized by Congress, and documentation of each state’s bill for an apportioned tax, see an Act laying a direct tax for $3 million (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=003/llsl003.db&recNum=94)in which the rule of apportionment is applied.

Since California is a sanctuary state and embraces illegal immigration, should it not pay its fair apportioned share of the national cost of illegal immigration?
Mr. PENDLETON points to the justice of the rule of apportioning during the ratification process of our Constitution as follows:

“The apportionment of representation and taxation by the same scale is just; it removes the objection, that, while Virginia paid one sixth part of the expenses of the Union, she had no more weight in public counsels than Delaware, which paid but a very small portion” 3 Elliot’s 41 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&fileName=003/lled003.db&recNum=52)

Since California has an overwhelming influence in the House [53 votes], and seven of those votes is due to California’s illegal entrant and non-citizen population ___ seven votes which cancels out the House vote of 38 other States ___ should California not pay an apportioned share of our federal tax burden for exercising those votes as intended by our Founders?

JWK

"If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?" ___ Justice Story

Stratovarious
07-27-2019, 08:08 AM
Open borders is not the problem. It is welfare/incentives, and the elimination of private property rights.

Border: the part of an area that forms its outer boundary; the line that separates one area, state, or country from another.

Wall: to enclose, shut off.

Crossing over a border into a state or a country denotes that customs and laws should be observed/respected. If one decides that they do not like those customs/laws, they are free to leave and go elsewhere. NOTHING in our Constitution states or demands that welfare/incentives are mandated to be paid out to foreigners coming into our country. Or Americans in Section 8, for that matter.

Taking rightful private property does not eliminate welfare, it only enhances it. Not only does the property owner lose his valuable land, it is the TAX PAYER who foots the bill to pay the land owner, and also when the government hires attorneys to litigate against the private property/business owner, only to hand that land over to the fed.gov.

Border walls are very different than private walls/fences. Border walls cut off private property, businesses, communities, which interrupts/stops the flow of Free Trade. It restricts tourism, natural ecosystems, declines/destroys property values, and the right to freely travel.

If the politicians were the least bit interested in solving the problems they would simply cut off the welfare spigot, both Personal Welfare and Corporate Welfare. But they will not do this on their own, because it would result in actually shrinking the government, and result in less government contracts, which lobbyists would not be happy about.

The problems in the OP will always be a problem and continue to expand, because people in this country completely ignore the actual solution. It is never even mentioned in the MSM. Thus, there is no way to hold representatives accountable to apply the actual solution.

The other word that irritates me is "illegal". Once deemed "legal" they are then eligible for government programs. "Undocumented" is a much better word, and would save the tax payer enormous amounts of money. But again, the government/police state apparatus complex would never endorse that on their own.

So the gubermint and the lobbyists get to say tomorrow: 'Nother Day, 'Nother Dolla'. And that makes SS very, very happy (I had to get that in ;-) )

''Open borders is not the problem. It is welfare/incentives, and the elimination of private property rights.''



It is half the problem as I and COUNTLESS others have been telling you for months on end now, kill incentives , protect the
borders. I have said 1000 times here, the complete program , not one simple fix.
So, yea, theres' 1001..........

johnwk
07-27-2019, 08:17 AM
''Open borders is not the problem. It is welfare/incentives, and the elimination of private property rights.''



It is half the problem as I and COUNTLESS others have been telling you for months on end now, kill incentives , protect the
borders. I have said 1000 times here, the complete program , not one simple fix.
So, yea, theres' 1001..........

I agree with killing incentives, and one way to kill California's love affair with encouraging illegal immigration would be to make California pay an apportioned share of the national costs connected with illegal immigration, and there are many costs other than the welfare incentive.

JWK

Stratovarious
07-27-2019, 09:57 AM
I agree with killing incentives, and one way to kill California's love affair with encouraging illegal immigration would be to make California pay an apportioned share of the national costs connected with illegal immigration, and there are many costs other than the welfare incentive.

JWK

Yes, and then double it.

Anti Federalist
07-27-2019, 05:09 PM
This is simply not true, though you keep it on endless loop. It is the amount of wages they can earn here compared to the wages in their country of nationality. The remittances sent back are in excess of 20 times the average wage than that of their home nation in some instances.
Welfare is a BONUS. But, it is not the driving factor.

This.

+rep

johnwk
07-29-2019, 05:37 AM
Yes, and then double it.

And lock up public officials who engage in harboring!

JWK

Stratovarious
07-29-2019, 06:31 AM
And lock up public officials who engage in harboring!

JWK

Absolutely !!

fedupinmo
07-29-2019, 07:09 AM
Getting back to the subject of the thread, is it not a common sense idea to lay a direct apportioned tax among the states, for example $50 billion, to pay the national cost connected to illegal immigration?

Under this tax, California which embraces illegal immigration and is a sanctuary State, would be charged with the highest share of the total sum being collected when following the fair share formula contained in our Constitution:

State`s population

_________________ X $ 50 BILLION = STATE`S SHARE OF TAX BURDEN

Total U.S. Population

For an example of this apportioned tax being utilized by Congress, and documentation of each state’s bill for an apportioned tax, see an Act laying a direct tax for $3 million (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=003/llsl003.db&recNum=94)in which the rule of apportionment is applied.

Since California is a sanctuary state and embraces illegal immigration, should it not pay its fair apportioned share of the national cost of illegal immigration?
Mr. PENDLETON points to the justice of the rule of apportioning during the ratification process of our Constitution as follows:

“The apportionment of representation and taxation by the same scale is just; it removes the objection, that, while Virginia paid one sixth part of the expenses of the Union, she had no more weight in public counsels than Delaware, which paid but a very small portion” 3 Elliot’s 41 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&fileName=003/lled003.db&recNum=52)

Since California has an overwhelming influence in the House [53 votes], and seven of those votes is due to California’s illegal entrant and non-citizen population ___ seven votes which cancels out the House vote of 38 other States ___ should California not pay an apportioned share of our federal tax burden for exercising those votes as intended by our Founders?

JWK

"If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?" ___ Justice Story

Since revenue bills must originate in that same House, the odds are much against passage.

Sonny Tufts
07-29-2019, 07:48 AM
Getting back to the subject of the thread, is it not a common sense idea to lay a direct apportioned tax among the states, for example $50 billion, to pay the national cost connected to illegal immigration?...

... should California not pay an apportioned share of our federal tax burden for exercising those votes as intended by our Founders?

There's a big difference between imposing a direct tax on the States, as you propose, and imposing a direct tax on, say, land and allowing the States to assume the tax, as was done in the previous direct taxes imposed by Congress (except for the 1798 tax). The former is equivalent to the old requisition system under the Articles of Confederation (except that apportionment under the Articles was done by land values, not population), and there's no way the Founders intended that system to be the primary method of taxation under the Constitution; see Federalist 15 and 30. See also George Mason's reaction to Gouverneur Morris' proposal that taxation should be in proportion to representation: "Mr. Mason also admiotted the justice of the principle but was afarid embarassments might be occasioned to the legislature by it. It might drive the legislature to the plan of requisitions." 5 Eliot's 302 http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&fileName=005/lled005.db&recNum=323&itemLink=r%3Fammem%2Fhlaw%3A%40field%28DOCID%2B%40 lit%28ed0053%29%29%230050005&linkText=1

Morris then agreed to limit his proposal to direct taxes.

Given that less than 50% of the States chose to assume the direct tax of 1813 and that only 4 of the 18 States chose to do so in 1815 and 1816, there's no reason to believe that California would assume a direct tax imposed on land. Politicians are always willing to point the finger at someone else, and the members of the California legislature would hardly agree to raise taxes themselves when they could instead blame Congress for imposing the tax on land.

Edit: It's doubtful whether a tax imposed solely on the States (as opposed to one imposed on landowners that a State is given the option to assume), as you seem to recommend, would even be constitutional, which may be why Congress has never imposed such a tax. Although the contours of the intergovernmental tax immunmity doctrine are not fully developed, the caselaw casts doubt on the validity of taxing the States themselves. See footnotes 11 and 14 from South Carolina v. Baker, 485 U.S. 505 (1988):


11. The sources of the state and federal immunities are, of course, different: the state immunity arises from the constitutional structure and a concern for protecting state sovereignty whereas the federal immunity arises from the Supremacy Clause. The immunities have also differed somewhat in their underlying political theory and in their doctrinal contours. Many of this Court's opinions have suggested that the Constitution should be interpreted to confer a greater tax immunity on the Federal Government than on States because all the people of the States are represented in the Federal Government whereas all the people of the Federal Government are not represented in individual States. Helvering v. Gerhardt, 304 U.S. 405, 412 (1938); McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 435-436 (1819); New York v. United States, 326 U.S. 572, 577 , and n. 3 (1946) (opinion of Frankfurter, J.). In fact, the federal tax immunity has always been greater than the States' immunity. The Federal Government, for example, possesses the power to enact statutes immunizing those with whom it deals from state taxation even if intergovernmental tax immunity doctrine would not otherwise confer an immunity. See, e. g., Graves v. New York ex rel. O'Keefe, 306 U.S. 466, 478 (1939). The States lack any such power. Also, although the Federal Government has always enjoyed blanket immunity from any state tax considered to be "on" the Government under the prevailing methodology, the States have never enjoyed immunity from all federal taxes considered to be "on" a State. See infra, at 523, and n. 14. To some, Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, 469 U.S. 528 (1985), may suggest further limitations on state tax immunity. We need not, however, decide here the extent to which the scope of the federal and state immunities differ or the extent, if any, to which States are currently immune from direct nondiscriminatory federal taxation. It is enough for our purposes that federal and state tax immunity cases have always shared the identical methodology for determining whether a tax is "on" a government, and that this identity has persisted even though the methodology for both federal and state immunities has changed as intergovernmental tax immunity doctrine shifted into the modern era. See Graves, supra, at 485.

14. All federal activities are immune from direct state taxation, see Graves, 306 U.S., at 477 , but at least some state activities have always been subject to direct federal taxation. For a time, only the States' governmental, as opposed to proprietary, activities enjoyed tax immunity, see e. g., Helvering v. Powers, 293 U.S. 214, 227 (1934); South Carolina v. United States, 199 U.S. 437, 454 -463 (1905), but this distinction was subsequently abandoned as untenable by all eight Justices participating in New York v. United States, 326 U.S. 572 (1946). See id., at 579-581, 583 (opinion of Frankfurter, J., joined by Rutledge, J.); id., at 586 (Stone, C. J., concurring, joined by Reed, Murphy, and Burton, JJ.); id., at 591 (Douglas, J., dissenting, joined by Black, J.). Two Justices reasoned that any nondiscriminatory tax on a State was constitutional, even if directly collected from the State. See id., at 582-584 (Frankfurter, J., joined by Rutledge, J.). Four other Justices declined to hold that every nondiscriminatory tax levied directly on a State would be constitutional because "there may be non-discriminatory taxes which, when laid on a State, would nevertheless impair the sovereign status of the State quite as much as a like tax imposed by a State on property or activities of the national government. Mayo v. United States, 319 U.S. 441, 447 -448 (1943). This is not because the tax can be regarded as discriminatory but because a sovereign government is the taxpayer, and the tax, even though non-discriminatory, may be regarded as infringing its sovereignty." 326 U.S., at 587 (Stone, C. J., concurring, joined by Reed, Murphy, and Burton, JJ.) (emphasis added) (the cited discussion from Mayo stressed the difference between levying a tax on a government and on those with whom the government deals); see also 326 U.S., at 588 ("Only when and because the subject of taxation is State property or a State activity must we consider whether such a non-discriminatory tax unduly interferes with the performance of the State's functions of government"). The four Justices then concluded that the tax at issue was constitutional even though directly levied on the State because recognizing an immunity would "accomplish a withdrawal from the taxing power of the nation a subject of taxation of a nature which has been traditionally within that power from the beginning." Ibid. We need not concern ourselves here, however, with the extent to which, if any, States are currently immune from direct federal taxation. See n. 11, supra. For our purposes, the important principle New York reaffirms is that the issue whether a nondiscriminatory federal tax might nonetheless violate state tax immunity does not even arise unless the Federal Government seeks to collect the tax directly from a State.

Slave Mentality
07-29-2019, 08:51 AM
......... excessive immigration is why we have the welfare and size government that we have.

http://www.picsmine.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Shit-Meme-hell-yeah-thats-some-funny-shit-right-there.jpg

Swordsmyth
07-29-2019, 04:12 PM
http://www.picsmine.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/$#@!-Meme-hell-yeah-thats-some-funny-$#@!-right-there.jpg

https://media.8ch.net/file_store/a36c34bd04079eb08c593c005ea877374d20d79fa093327d47 53e49926d8e548.jpg

johnwk
07-30-2019, 05:56 AM
There's a big

load of nonsense posted by you.


You refuse to discus the rule of apportionment as applied to open borders, the census, and sanctuary states, and why our founders adopted the rule as explained by James Madison. Instead, you distract with a boatload of crap having nothing to do with one of the reasons for which the rule was adopted.



The fact is, California is encouraging massive illegal immigration into its state which in turn increases its number of Representatives [votes in the House], but is not paying its apportioned share of federal taxes relative to its representation, apportionment being a rule which was designed to protect against representation without a proportional financial obligation.


Our founders agreed that not only would each state’s number of representatives be determined by the rule of apportionment, but also agreed that if Congress ever laid a direct tax upon the people of the various states, that tax would be an equal per capita tax among the States!


In fact, the people of 13 states are now paying a higher per capita tax than the people of California, [LINK (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_tax_revenue_by_state) FISCAL YEAR 2015], and would be relieved of this undue and unjust burden if apportionment were observed with respect to taxation.


While the people of these 13 States now pay a higher per capita tax than the socialists and communists living in California, they do not receive a proportional vote in Congress equal to the tax they pay! And this very injustice was to be protected against by the rule of apportionment which was part of the “Great Compromise” agreed to during the framing and ratification of our Constitution.


The rule of apportionment was also designed to discourage a state from swelling its population size, as California now does by encouraging illegal immigration to increase its representation in Congress, as doing so would also increase its share of federal taxation.


Unfortunately, our communists and socialists have been successful in avoiding the rule of apportionment being applied to taxation, while it is strenuously enforced with regard to representation. And now, because of this injustice which communists and socialists have successfully perpetrated upon the political system of the United States, it allows the seven votes in the House which California gets from its illegal alien and non-citizen population, to cancel out the House vote of the people of 38 other States!


And instead of acknowledging this injustice and agreeing that applying the rule of apportionment to taxation as intended by our Founders, you have the audacity to distract, distort, and obfuscate at ever turn. You, Sir, are very much part of America's problem, very much like the communists and socialists who teach our children in government operated schools.

:rolleyes:

JWK


"If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides that such protection was afforded, [the rule of apportionment], would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?"___ Justice Story

PAF
07-30-2019, 06:30 AM
load of nonsense posted by you.


You refuse to discus the rule of apportionment as applied to open borders, the census, and sanctuary states, and why our founders adopted the rule as explained by James Madison. Instead, you distract with a boatload of crap having nothing to do with one of the reasons for which the rule was adopted.



The fact is, California is encouraging massive illegal immigration into its state which in turn increases its number of Representatives [votes in the House], but is not paying its apportioned share of federal taxes relative to its representation, apportionment being a rule which was designed to protect against representation without a proportional financial obligation.


Our founders agreed that not only would each state’s number of representatives be determined by the rule of apportionment, but also agreed that if Congress ever laid a direct tax upon the people of the various states, that tax would be an equal per capita tax among the States!


In fact, the people of 13 states are now paying a higher per capita tax than the people of California, [LINK (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_tax_revenue_by_state) FISCAL YEAR 2015], and would be relieved of this undue and unjust burden if apportionment were observed with respect to taxation.


While the people of these 13 States now pay a higher per capita tax than the socialists and communists living in California, they do not receive a proportional vote in Congress equal to the tax they pay! And this very injustice was to be protected against by the rule of apportionment which was part of the “Great Compromise” agreed to during the framing and ratification of our Constitution.


The rule of apportionment was also designed to discourage a state from swelling its population size, as California now does by encouraging illegal immigration to increase its representation in Congress, as doing so would also increase its share of federal taxation.


Unfortunately, our communists and socialists have been successful in avoiding the rule of apportionment being applied to taxation, while it is strenuously enforced with regard to representation. And now, because of this injustice which communists and socialists have successfully perpetrated upon the political system of the United States, it allows the seven votes in the House which California gets from its illegal alien and non-citizen population, to cancel out the House vote of the people of 38 other States!


And instead of acknowledging this injustice and agreeing that applying the rule of apportionment to taxation as intended by our Founders, you have the audacity to distract, distort, and obfuscate at ever turn. You, Sir, are very much part of America's problem, very much like the communists and socialists who teach our children in government operated schools.

:rolleyes:

JWK


"If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides that such protection was afforded, [the rule of apportionment], would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?"___ Justice Story




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlp-AfiCXNU

johnwk
07-30-2019, 07:44 AM
CUT FOR BREVITY

What is the point of posting that blathering video? You should at the very least make a comment relative to it.

:rolleyes:

JWK

PAF
07-30-2019, 07:48 AM
What is the point of posting that blathering video? You should at the very least make a comment relative to it.

:rolleyes:

JWK


It is a real eye opener and a lot of fun. Maybe I'll see you there in 2020.

https://www.freeyourmindconference.com/schedule/

Sonny Tufts
07-30-2019, 09:29 AM
And instead of acknowledging this injustice and agreeing that applying the rule of apportionment to taxation as intended by our Founders, you have the audacity to distract, distort, and obfuscate at ever turn. You, Sir, are very much part of America's problem, very much like the communists and socialists who teach our children in government operated schools.

It appears you are too dense to understand the legal issues involved and too wrapped up in your McCarthyesque paranoia to understand these facts:

(1) Apportionment was limited to direct taxes and was never intended to apply to other taxes.

(2) The types of taxes that are considered direct taxes have always been extremely limited, and under current law they are comprised of only capitations and property taxes. This is why Senator Warren's proposed wealth tax would be unconstitutional.

(3) Direct taxes were very unpopular at the time of the Constitution’s ratification. The fact that Congress has resorted to them only 5 times in 230 years should tell you something. (I don't count the tax on investment income that was held to be a direct tax in the Pollock case, as that was a deeply flawed decision that the Supreme Court itself later acknowledged was based on an erroneous premise.)

It’s incredibly ironic that on the one hand, you suggest that direct taxes were integral to the Founders’ tax plan yet at the same time you refer with approval to proposed constitutional amendments that would have severely limited their use. You really don’t realize how unpopular direct taxes were. Even more ironically, you wish to use direct taxes for a purpose totally unrelated to the purpose for which the amendments were proposed -- the raising of revenue in cases where the revenue raisded by indirect taxes was insufficient.

(4) Congress has no constitutional authority to impose a direct tax on the States. Any direct tax must be a capitation or a tax on property ownership.

(5) While Congress can give a State the option to assume a direct tax, it cannot force it to do so.

(6) It would be politically impossible to impose a direct tax on property, as it would result in different tax rates for similarly-situated property owners, a very unfair result. If you don't understand this, you don't understand basic arithmetic.

(7) A capitation might work, but only if it could be enforced, and it's questionable whether the enforcement mechanisms for the existing taxes would work for a capitation. But a capitation could also lead to different tax rates among the States, as there would surely be certain exemptions that might not be distributed among the States by population.

The better way to address your problem with California would be to strictly enforce the immigration laws. But if you’re convinced that all of the commies in Congress would fail to do so, what in the world makes you think they would agree to enact a direct tax?

Edit: Another solution, which is currently at issue in a case pending in federal court in Alabama, would be to exclude illegal aliens from the population to be considered for apportionment of representatives. See https://www.brennancenter.org/legal-work/alabama-v-united-states-dept-commerce Given the language of the 14th Amendment and the decision in Evenwel v. Abbott, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), it's unlikely the case will succeed.

johnwk
07-30-2019, 03:24 PM
It appears you are too dense to understand …

There you go again with irrelevant nonsense having nothing to do with why our founders adopted the rule of apportionment as explained by James Madison, and how ignoring the rule encourages California to invite illegal immigration into its state in order to gain more seats in Congress, and control over our national treasury and spending its revenue.

Instead of discussing why our founders provided the rule, and the protection it was intended to afford, you distract with another boatload of crap having nothing to do with the intended protections our founders provided by tying representation and taxation by the same metric.

Does it not cause alarm that the seven votes in the House which California now gets solely from its illegal alien and non-citizen population, cancels out the House vote of the people of 38 other States, and that the people of 13 states are now paying a higher per capita tax than the people of California, [LINK (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_tax_revenue_by_state) FISCAL YEAR 2015], when our Founder's rule of apportionment requires and equal per capita tax if the federal government ever decides to enter the states and tax the people directly?

If you are not interested in disussing the protections our founders intended by the rule of apportionment, have the decency to not post in the thread.

JWK

”If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection could be frittered away, one of the great landmarks defining the boundary between the nation and the states of which it is composed, would have disappeared, and with it one of the bulwarks of private rights and private property.”__ POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUSTCO., 157 U.S. 429 [1895]

Zippyjuan
07-30-2019, 03:54 PM
There you go again with irrelevant nonsense having nothing to do with why our founders adopted the rule of apportionment as explained by James Madison, and how ignoring the rule encourages California to invite illegal immigration into its state in order to gain more seats in Congress, and control over our national treasury and spending its revenue.

Does it not cause alarm that the seven votes in the House which California now gets solely from its illegal alien and non-citizen population, cancels out the House vote of the people of 38 other States, and that the people of 13 states are now paying a higher per capita tax than the people of California, [LINK (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_tax_revenue_by_state) [COLOR=#222222][FONT=Helvetica]FISCAL YEAR 2015], when our Founder's rule of apportionment requires and equal per capita tax if the federal government ever decides to enter the states and tax the people directly?

If you are not interested in disussing the protections our founders intended by the rule of apportionment, have the decency to not post in the thread.



California is estimated to have 5.6% of its population in the country illegally. https://www.pewhispanic.org/interactives/u-s-unauthorized-immigrants-by-state/

California has 53 seats in the House. 5.6% of that would be three seats- not seven. Twelve states have fewer than that. https://www.britannica.com/topic/United-States-House-of-Representatives-Seats-by-State-1787120

The Rule of Apportionment specifies the number of people living in each state- not just citizens.

Texas by comparison has 36 seats and 5.7% illegal. They gain two seats. Since Texas is a Red State, they almost by themselves wipe out California's gains.

johnwk
07-30-2019, 04:07 PM
Useful Links which I previously posted:

Federal per capita tax revenue by state ('https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_tax_revenue_by_state')

State demographics by citizenship status ('https://ballotpedia.org/State_demographics_by_citizenship_status')

Federal taxes paid by state per capita ('https://www.money-rates.com/research-center/federal-income-taxes-by-state.htm')

U.S. unauthorized immigrant population estimates by state, 2016 ('https://www.pewhispanic.org/interactives/u-s-unauthorized-immigrants-by-state/')

JWK

Zippyjuan
07-30-2019, 04:15 PM
Useful Links which I previously posted:

Federal per capita tax revenue by state ('https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_tax_revenue_by_state')

State demographics by citizenship status ('https://ballotpedia.org/State_demographics_by_citizenship_status')

Federal taxes paid by state per capita ('https://www.money-rates.com/research-center/federal-income-taxes-by-state.htm')

U.S. unauthorized immigrant population estimates by state, 2016 ('https://www.pewhispanic.org/interactives/u-s-unauthorized-immigrants-by-state/')

JWK

Links show California taxpayers subsidizing the rest of the country.

johnwk
07-30-2019, 04:19 PM
not seven.

Learn to read: llegal alien and non-citizen population,

johnwk
07-30-2019, 04:26 PM
Links show California taxpayers subsidizing the rest of the country.


The links confirm the people of 13 states are now paying a higher per capita tax than the people of California, [LINK (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_tax_revenue_by_state)FISCAL YEAR2015]. The rule of apportionment requires an equal per capita tax.

JWK

Swordsmyth
07-30-2019, 05:51 PM
California is estimated to have 5.6% of its population in the country illegally. https://www.pewhispanic.org/interactives/u-s-unauthorized-immigrants-by-state/

California has 53 seats in the House. 5.6% of that would be three seats- not seven. Twelve states have fewer than that. https://www.britannica.com/topic/United-States-House-of-Representatives-Seats-by-State-1787120

The Rule of Apportionment specifies the number of people living in each state- not just citizens.

Texas by comparison has 36 seats and 5.7% illegal. They gain two seats. Since Texas is a Red State, they almost by themselves wipe out California's gains.

LOL at those estimates.

And the Constitution says to count "THEIR respective numbers", invaders aren't theirs and should not be counted.

Zippyjuan
07-30-2019, 07:21 PM
The links confirm the people of 13 states are now paying a higher per capita tax than the people of California, [LINK (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_tax_revenue_by_state)FISCAL YEAR2015]. The rule of apportionment requires an equal per capita tax.

JWK

So California should have their federal taxes reduced. Nice!

Swordsmyth
07-30-2019, 07:23 PM
So California should have their federal taxes reduced. Nice!
Along with their power.

johnwk
07-31-2019, 05:30 AM
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by johnwk http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=6836016#post6836016)
The links confirm the people of 13 states are now paying a higher per capita tax than the people of California, [LINK (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_tax_revenue_by_state)FISCAL YEAR2015]. The rule of apportionment requires an equal per capita tax.

JWK



So California should have their federal taxes reduced. Nice!

You apparently have a problem understanding the protection which the rule of apportionment is designed to provide.

The people of California should start paying an equal per capita tax and not less than the people of 13 other states who now pay a higher per capita tax than the people of California, but do not receive the same representation in Congress which California now gets. Is representation with a proportional financial obligation so complicated to understand that it eludes your mental capacity, or, are you simply trying to confuse the intended protection because you disagree with the principle?

I know socialist and communists in the United States embrace one man, one vote, but recoil from one vote one dollar, which is also part of the rule of apportionment.


JWK


They are not "liberals" or "progressives". The Democrat Party Leadership is infested with communists and socialists who delude, lure and addict our nation’s needy with free government cheese.

Sonny Tufts
07-31-2019, 01:27 PM
And the Constitution says to count "THEIR respective numbers", invaders aren't theirs and should not be counted.

The Constitution (Section 2 of the 14th Amendment) says "counting the whole number of of persons in each State" with only one exception: Indians not taxed.

Sonny Tufts
07-31-2019, 02:07 PM
Instead of discussing why our founders provided the rule, and the protection it was intended to afford, you distract with another boatload of crap having nothing to do with the intended protections our founders provided by tying representation and taxation by the same metric.

You keep leaving out that pesky word "direct" when you refer to tying taxation and representation. Why is that?

The issue isn't whether California's "welcoming" illegal aliens (by offering sanctuary) and thereby gaining congressional seats is a good situation -- it obviously isn't. The issue is whether imposing direct taxes is the best way to address it. You conspicuously refuse to discuss any of the bad features of direct taxes, most notably the differing tax rates that would result from any direct tax other than a capitation with no exemptions and the fact that no State could be forced to assume the quota allocated to the taxed items within it. But maybe you think a capitation might work. Good, let's discuss that plan.


Unless a capitation tax has no exemptions, it's likely that unequal rates will exist among the States, an unfair result. Can you imagine the debates in Congress on who should be exempted? Minors? Those over 65? Those with incomes below a certain amount? The homeless? Prisoners? The mentally incompetent?

But let’s say there are no exemptions. How much will the tax be? Is it to replace the individual income tax, be a surtax in addition to the income tax, or will the income tax be partially reduced? If it’s going to completely replace the individual income tax, you’ll need to replace about $1.8 trillion, which turns out to be $5,260 per person. How is that going to be collected from a 2-year old or someone who is barely getting by on Social Security? Of course, that’s just the individual income tax. If you want to replace the payroll tax, that’s another $1.1 trillion, so now you’re up to about $9,000 per person.

Then there's the problem of enforcement. If you think the IRS is too big and intrusive now, think of how big and intrusive it would need to be to enforce a capitation. A capitation with no exemptions would reach many more people that the income tax does now. For example, in 2016 there were a little over 150 million individual tax returns filed. Of these, about 54 million were joint returns and returns by surviving spouses. Assuming that 90% of these were joint returns (that's a very conservative estimate), then the total number of people who filed tax returns was around 200 million. Total U.S. population in 2016 was 323 million. So a capitation in 2016 would have needed to cover an additional 123 million people, an increase of 61.5%. And since many of these additional taxpayers wouldn’t be receiving wages from which withholding could be taken, is the IRS going to have to go door-to-door to collect? Do you really think tax compliance is going as good or better with a capitation?

Putting aside the political improbability of ever enacting a capitation (or any other type of direct tax, for that matter), you need to address the problems that are inherent with direct taxes, something you have always avoided like the plague.

Swordsmyth
07-31-2019, 02:44 PM
The Constitution (Section 2 of the 14th Amendment) says "counting the whole number of of persons in each State" with only one exception: Indians not taxed.
After it says "their respective numbers", the invaders aren't theirs.
Only those who are part of "their respective numbers" are the persons who are to be counted.

johnwk
08-01-2019, 05:52 AM
You keep leaving out that pesky word "direct" when you refer to tying taxation and representation. Why is that?

.

Why do you keep lying about what I wrote? In the OP I wrote:

Of course, since the rule of apportionment is no longer being applied to direct taxation as intended by our Founders and commanded by our Constitution, California is free to encourage illegal immigration into its state which increases its representation in Congress without also increasing its share of our federal tax burden. And this is a communists’ and socialists’ delight ___ representation without a proportional financial obligation.


It is also important to note that under the rule of apportionment when applied to direct taxation, the tax turns out to be an equal per capita tax. For example, if a direct tax were laid today to raise a specific sum and the people of California each had to pay one dollar to meet California’s apportioned share of the total sum being raised by Congress, the people of Idaho would likewise only have to pay one dollar each if the tax were shared evenly among the people living in Idaho. And, although California’s total share of the tax would be far greater than that of Idaho because of California’s larger population, California gets a larger representation in Congress, which is also part of our Constitution’s fair share apportioning formula!


And, just recently, in post number 43 I wrote:

Does it not cause alarm that the seven votes in the House which California now gets solely from its illegal alien and non-citizen population, cancels out the House vote of the people of 38 other States, and that the people of 13 states are now paying a higher per capita tax than the people of California, [LINK FISCAL YEAR 2015], when our Founder's rule of apportionment requires an equal per capita tax if the federal government ever decides to enter the states and tax the people directly?

If you are not interested in disussing the protections our founders intended by the rule of apportionment, have the decency to not post in the thread.

JWK

”If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection could be frittered away, one of the great landmarks defining the boundary between the nation and the states of which it is composed, would have disappeared, and with it one of the bulwarks of private rights and private property.”__ POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUSTCO., 157 U.S. 429 [1895]

johnwk
08-01-2019, 06:01 AM
After it says "their respective numbers", the invaders aren't theirs.
Only those who are part of "their respective numbers" are the persons who are to be counted.

That poster, Sonny Tufts, also intentionally ignores the following command of the 14th Amendment:


But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.


So "citizens" and specifically, 'citizens" are to be counted, and there is nothing about counting invaders.

JWK

Sonny Tufts
08-01-2019, 10:04 AM
That poster, Sonny Tufts, also intentionally ignores the following command of the 14th Amendment:


But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.


So "citizens" and specifically, 'citizens" are to be counted, and there is nothing about counting invaders.

I haven’t ignored this provision; to the contrary, I brought to your attention in another thread that it applies only where the right to vote has been denied to certain people and to no other situation.

In fact, the wording of this provision undercuts your argument. Section 2 of the 14th Amendment has only two sentences, and the first sentence doesn’t refer to citizens, but to “the whole number of persons”. The use of different language in these two sentences leads to the conclusion that “person” is broader than “citizen”. This is reinforced by the use of the different terms "inhabitants" and "citizens" in the second sentence; it's clear the former is broader than the latter.

The same is true for the phrase “their respective Numbers” in I.2.3 of the Constitution. As Madison stated in Federalist 54,


It is a fundamental principle of the proposed Constitution, that as the aggregate number of representatives allotted to the several States is to be determined by a federal rule, founded on the aggregate number of inhabitants, so the right of choosing this allotted number in each State is to be exercised by such part of the inhabitants as the State itself may designate. (emphasis added)

This principle was reiterated when the 14th Amendment was approved by Congress. A proposal to have the Amendment allocate representation in accordance with voter population instead of total population was introduced by Thaddeus Stevens but was rejected. Introducing the final version of the Amendment on the Senate floor, Senator Jacob Howard explained:


[The] basis of representation is numbers . . . ; that is, the whole population except untaxed Indians and persons excluded by the State laws for rebellion or other crime. . . . The committee adopted numbers as the most just and satisfactory basis, and this is the principle upon which the Constitution itself was originally framed, that the basis of representation should depend upon numbers; and such, I think, after all, is the safest and most secure principle upon which the Government can rest. Numbers, not voters; numbers, not property; this is the theory of the Constitution.” Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 2766–2767 (1866).

Edit: See also the comments of Senator Conkling, recognizing that aliens were already included in determining representation:


It has been insisted that “citizens” and not “persons” should be the basis for representation and apportionment. These words were in the amendment as I originally drew it and introduced it, but my own judgment was that it should be “persons” and to this the committee assented.

There are several answers to this argument in favor of “citizens” rather than “persons”. The present Constitution is, and always was, opposed to this suggestion. “Persons” and not “citizens” has always constituted the basis.

Again, it would narrow the basis of taxation and cause considerable inequalities in this respect, because the number of aliens in some States is very large, and growing larger now, when emigrants reach our shores at the rate of more than a State a year.

Again, many of the large States now hold their representation in part by reason of their aliens, and the Legislatures and people of these States are to pass upon the amendment. It must be made acceptable to them. For these reasons the committee had adhered to the Constitution as it is, proposing to add to it only so much as is necessary to meet the point aimed at. Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 359 (1866)

johnwk
08-01-2019, 11:02 AM
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by johnwk http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=6836780#post6836780)
That poster, Sonny Tufts, also intentionally ignores the following command of the 14th Amendment:


But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.


So "citizens" and specifically, 'citizens" are to be counted, and there is nothing about counting invaders.



I haven’t ignored this provision




So, you agree "citizens" are to be counted, not invaders.

JWK

Sonny Tufts
08-01-2019, 11:33 AM
So, you agree "citizens" are to be counted, not invaders.

Nope. And neither did the Founders and the Congress that passed the 14th Amendment. They never intended citizens to be the measure, only inhabitants.

Conkling recognized the very situation that you're complaining about -- aliens increasing the population of a State and thereby increasing its representation in the House. Moreover, in 1866 there weren't any federal restrictions on immigration, so that theoretically a State like California could have encouraged Chinese to come to California for the purpose of increasing its representation. And yet Congress didn't restrict the basis of representation to "citizens" even when such a rule had been proposed, did it?

Invaders don't usually remain in the territory they invade without conquering it, do they? They either conquer, leave, or assimilate and become inhabitants.

Btw, I see you continue to avoid addressing the problems with direct taxation.

johnwk
08-01-2019, 03:28 PM
Nope.


So, here we have it. Sonny Tufts does not agree with what is stated, in crystal clear language, in the 14th Amendment.

JWK

johnwk
08-01-2019, 03:46 PM
Btw, I see you continue to avoid addressing the problems with direct taxation.


The subject of the thread is not about alleged problems with direct taxation. The subject of the thread is about the protections which the rule of apportionment was intended to provide, such as each state receiving a number of representatives in the House proportionately equal to any direct tax laid by Congress. The subject of the thread is about the rule of apportionment being intentionally designed to discourage a state from increasing its population size to gain extra seats in the House, as California now does by encouraging illegal immigration, as doing so would also increase its share of a federal tax.

:rolleyes:

If you are not interested in disussing the protections our founders intended by the rule of apportionment, have the decency to not post in the thread.


JWK


”If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection could be frittered away, one of the great landmarks defining the boundary between the nation and the states of which it is composed, would have disappeared, and with it one of the bulwarks of private rights and private property.”__ POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUSTCO., 157 U.S. 429 [1895]

Swordsmyth
08-01-2019, 04:13 PM
Nope. And neither did the Founders and the Congress that passed the 14th Amendment. They never intended citizens to be the measure, only inhabitants.

Conkling recognized the very situation that you're complaining about -- aliens increasing the population of a State and thereby increasing its representation in the House. Moreover, in 1866 there weren't any federal restrictions on immigration, so that theoretically a State like California could have encouraged Chinese to come to California for the purpose of increasing its representation. And yet Congress didn't restrict the basis of representation to "citizens" even when such a rule had been proposed, did it?

Invaders don't usually remain in the territory they invade without conquering it, do they? They either conquer, leave, or assimilate and become inhabitants.

Btw, I see you continue to avoid addressing the problems with direct taxation.
Today we DO have immigration restrictions and anyone here in violation of them is an invader just as surely as if they came as part of an army and they are conquering us with the complicity of those who reward them.

The founders recognized the possibility of immigration restrictions they just didn't enact any, but they most certainly would have considered anyone who violated them if they had enacted them invaders.

johnwk
08-01-2019, 05:16 PM
Today we DO have immigration restrictions and anyone here in violation of them is an invader just as surely as if they came as part of an army and they are conquering us with the complicity of those who reward them.

The founders recognized the possibility of immigration restrictions they just didn't enact any, but they most certainly would have considered anyone who violated them if they had enacted them invaders.

Let us recall what Representative BURKE says during our Nations` first debate on a RULE OF NATURALIZATION, FEB. 3RD, 1790 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=578)



Mr. BURKE thought it of importance to fill the country with useful men, such as farmers, mechanics, and manufacturers, and, therefore, would hold out every encouragement to them to emigrate to America. This class he would receive on liberal terms; and he was satisfied there would be room enough for them, and for their posterity, for five hundred years to come. There was another class of men, whom he did not think useful, and he did not care what impediments were thrown in their way; such as your European merchants, and factors of merchants, who come with a view of remaining so long as will enable them to acquire a fortune, and then they will leave the country, and carry off all their property with them. These people injure us more than they do us good, and, except in this last sentiment, I can compare them to nothing but leeches. They stick to us until they get their fill of our best blood, and then they fall off and leave us. I look upon the privilege of an American citizen to be an honorable one, and it ought not to be thrown away upon such people. There is another class also that I would interdict, that is, the convicts and criminals which they pour out of British jails. I wish sincerely some mode could be adopted to prevent the importation of such; but that, perhaps, is not in our power; the introduction of them ought to be considered as a high misdemeanor.

So, as it turns out, allowing the kind of foreigners who are now invading our borders to stay here should be considered as a "high misdemeanor" which happens to be an impeachable offense!

JWK

They are not "liberals" or "progressives". The Democrat Party Leadership is infested with communists and socialists who delude, lure and addict our nations needy with free government cheese.

Swordsmyth
08-02-2019, 01:05 AM
Let us recall what Representative BURKE says during our Nations` first debate on a RULE OF NATURALIZATION, FEB. 3RD, 1790 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=578)



Mr. BURKE thought it of importance to fill the country with useful men, such as farmers, mechanics, and manufacturers, and, therefore, would hold out every encouragement to them to emigrate to America. This class he would receive on liberal terms; and he was satisfied there would be room enough for them, and for their posterity, for five hundred years to come. There was another class of men, whom he did not think useful, and he did not care what impediments were thrown in their way; such as your European merchants, and factors of merchants, who come with a view of remaining so long as will enable them to acquire a fortune, and then they will leave the country, and carry off all their property with them. These people injure us more than they do us good, and, except in this last sentiment, I can compare them to nothing but leeches. They stick to us until they get their fill of our best blood, and then they fall off and leave us. I look upon the privilege of an American citizen to be an honorable one, and it ought not to be thrown away upon such people. There is another class also that I would interdict, that is, the convicts and criminals which they pour out of British jails. I wish sincerely some mode could be adopted to prevent the importation of such; but that, perhaps, is not in our power; the introduction of them ought to be considered as a high misdemeanor.

So, as it turns out, allowing the kind of foreigners who are now invading our borders to stay here should be considered as a "high misdemeanor" which happens to be an impeachable offense!

JWK

They are not "liberals" or "progressives". The Democrat Party Leadership is infested with communists and socialists who delude, lure and addict our nations needy with free government cheese.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark)
The 14th Amendment's citizenship clause, according to the court's majority, had to be interpreted in light of English common law tradition that had excluded from citizenship at birth only two classes of people: (1) children born to foreign diplomats and (2) children born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country's territory. The majority held that the "subject to the jurisdiction" phrase in the 14th Amendment specifically encompassed these conditions (plus a third condition, namely, that Indian tribes were not considered subject to U.S. jurisdiction[4])



Invaders are not legally here and therefore can't be treated as being here for legal purposes, they are not residents in the eyes of the law.

Sonny Tufts
08-02-2019, 07:22 AM
So, here we have it. Sonny Tufts does not agree with what is stated, in crystal clear language, in the 14th Amendment.

Of course I agree with it. It's just that I understand it, and you don't. Citizens have never been the basis for allocating representatives, which should be crystal clear when you realize that slaves, who weren't citizens until the 14th Amendment, were initially counted (on a 3/5 basis) in determining representation.

You also don't understand the purpose behind the second sentence of Section 2 of the 14th Amendment. [edit] Hint: what was the result that was sought to be avoided by this sentence?

But anyone who has a preconceived notion about what he thinks the law should be instead of what it is can't understand this.


The subject of the thread is about the rule of apportionment being intentionally designed to discourage a state from increasing its population size to gain extra seats in the House, as California now does by encouraging illegal immigration, as doing so would also increase its share of a federal tax.

Can you cite anything relating to the adoption of the Direct Tax Clause indicating the Founders had this in mind, especially since the concerpt of "illegal immigration" didn't exist at the time? Burke's screed certainly has nothing to do with representation, but is merely a statement of what he wished the state of affairs should be.


The subject of the thread is not about alleged problems with direct taxation.

You have suggested that a direct tax should be imposed in order to dissuade California and other sanctuary States from attracting illegal aliens. I have suggested that this isn't the best way to address the issue and have pointed out the various problems associated with imposing direct taxes, which apparently you can't deal with.

johnwk
08-02-2019, 03:02 PM
Can you






:rolleyes:

Sonny Tufts
08-02-2019, 05:40 PM
:rolleyes:

Apparently you can't.

And you apparently have no clue why the second sentence of Section 2 of the 14th Amendment was included.

johnwk
08-03-2019, 06:10 AM
And you ...

:rolleyes: