No products in the cart.

News

SCOTUS Decision on Counting Illegals Highlights Betrayal of Government’s Purpose

ScreenHunter_06 Apr. 05 15.23
With an 8-0 ruling that illegals count toward apportionment, does it even matter?

“A unanimous Supreme Court ruled Monday that illegal immigrants and other noncitizens can be counted when states draw their legislative districts, shooting down a challenge by Texas residents who said their own voting power was being diluted,” The Washington Times reported.

Counted? Do we use 11 million or 30?

And unanimous? So much for “originalists” on the court. So naturally, the most “progressive” of the eight left standing – the one who views the Second Amendment as “obsolete,” was the one entrusted to explain founding intent.

“As the Framers of the Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment comprehended, representatives serve all residents, not just those eligible or registered to vote,” Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote for the court. “Nonvoters have an important stake in many policy debates — children, their parents, even their grandparents, for example, have a stake in a strong public-education system — and in receiving constituent services, such as help navigating public-benefits bureaucracies.”

Welcome to the great giveaway – not just in terms of wealth transfers and utilization of infrastructure and resources, but in terms of power through apportionment.  Here’s the political danger:

As the number of US House seats is fixed at 435, reapportionment means that if a given state gains a House district, another state must lose one. If (illegal alien non-citizens are counted in the decennial Census upon which districts are apportioned, then states with larger illegal alien populations are likely to end up with more districts and therefore more representation in the House. This effectively dilutes the votes of citizens in states having relatively low populations of illegal aliens.

True, non-citizens and illegal aliens can’t (legally) vote yet, but subversives intent on the fundamental transformation of America that Obama threatened us with are working on that.

The question before the court was a distraction anyway, from government not just failing, but actively subverting the whole purpose behind its existence, and the whole reason “consent of the governed” has been presumed. The real question, and one that must be answered before the cultural terraforming is complete, is “Who should be admitted into the Republic in the first place?” The follow-up is “What criteria determine citizenship eligibility?”

Such talk is a surefire way to invite charges of being a hater, a racist, intolerant, a religious bigot and a xenophobe. Yet ignoring standards is a surefire way to invite destroyers into our midst, those who will simply leech and subvert, and those intent on more destructive goals.

How do you go about developing standards?

The Framers Ginsburg falsely name-dropped (in a pretty transparent ploy to claim legitimacy) already defined them. We know it as the preamble to the Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Every power enumerated and delegated thereafter is required to facilitate those purposes and objectives, even if feet are rarely held to the fire any more. Any act that works against them is illegitimate, even if violations and usurpation have become a way of life. So the question for those enacting, administering, enforcing and adjudicating admissions standards is, or should be: Do they enhance domestic Tranquility, strengthen common defense, advance general Welfare, and enhance Liberty, including for our Posterity?

How, specifically? Anything that can be evaluated, and readily corrected if need be? We need more than weasel words.

Do we just forget that some, now represented though apportionment deemed A-OK by SCOTUS, ignored U.S. laws to come here, and continue to ignore it by staying, many thumbing their noses, getting bolder and more aggressive in their demands? Is it really in the interests of ourselves and our Posterity to take in tens or hundreds of thousands and more “refugees” from populations harboring an existential threat, especially when government assurances of “rigorous security screenings” are demonstrably hollow and fraudulent?

Do we just shut up about it and gradually die out, until such time as pretenses no longer need to be maintained?

0

DavidC

David Codrea blogs at The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance (WarOnGuns.com), and is a field editor/columnist for GUNS Magazine. Named “Journalist of the Year” in 2011 by the Second Amendment Foundation for his groundbreaking work on the “Fast and Furious” ATF “gunwalking” scandal, he is a frequent event speaker and guest on national radio and television programs.

Oath Keepers Merchandise

38 comments

  1. Seems to me that the question of determining the number of representatives, electors, and direct taxes came up in 1787 during the debates connected with drafting OUR Constitution. The Southern states held out for “all other persons” to be counted and considered. The Northern states wanted nothing to do with that idea as they felt that including “all other persons” in the count would tilt the scales of power southward, and proposed that “all other persons” should be considered as only 3/5ths of a person.

    Amendment XIV changed all that. The Northern states were pretty well assured that the majority party would carry all the votes of the “all other persons” group and decided that it would be advantageous to allow members of that group a full count.

    Looks as it we’ve come full circle.
    [W3]

    1. Actually its All persons born or naturalized in the United States. K if you can read know your definitions then interpret. Naturalize is to give citizenship to a person born from a foreign country. We have a process here in the USA. If they came illegaly they broke our laws. Why reward them. Can all of us break the law and get rewarded then for doing something wrong. Its wrong in other countries. Are we just stupid?

        1. NO, we’re not stupid. Nearly ALL politicians are insane and parasitic with their lust for power. I may be crazy and I am getting closer to becoming a “Berserker” (look up the definition).
          This “court of nine kangaroos” is supposed to give their opinion, not make laws. The executive branch is not supposed to make laws either.
          I think I could fit in perfectly with the most “primitive” society on the planet; people with more common sense than ANY politician – wacko, WACKO, W A C K O !!!

    2. Three fifths of all other persons, not 3/5 of a person. The Southern States wanted their Slaves to be counted for representation. Slaves were property. Property cannot be counted for the purposes of representation. The Southern States were trying to have it both ways, to game the system so to speak.

      The Three Fifths compromise was agreed upon to get the Constitution adopted. The movement was already afoot to abolish the institution of slavery, so it wouldn’t matter for long anyway.

      Also note, that “Indians not taxed” were also NOT counted for apportionment. Hey! Kinda like illegal aliens!

  2. Why is it that the important facts are not pointed out about voting. I refuse to vote in a system who supports two parties of people and not all the people. These groups both have there own electors selecting the president of the United States not We THE People. We may have power to select our local servants if we do not use electronic balloting. If we were to go back to the paper ballot and box as in the Constitution we may regain control of the Corporate Government.

    1. Just read that the Electronic ballot system is again being controlled. ANY electronic data can be hacked, whether it be the individual ballot boxes OR the computer giving the final totals.

  3. The bottom line her ladies and gentlemen is that our constitution has been negated by career parasites and America and our rights under that Constitution, which so many died to protect and preserve are in serious jeopardy. I fear the lives lost and the blood shed by those Patriots who served and fought for our nation and it’s constitution have all been in vain.

  4. Upon what principles? When will Oathkeepers ever learn that the constitution(s) rests upon a foundation of self evident truths aka First Principles. Whatever the constitution means must have connection to its foundation it was expressed from. The 14th cannot mean what they are saying withstanding on such foundation. They are using an unknown foundation right under your own noses. Without knowing our foundation of government that rests on First Principles, Federalist #84 will have no meaning to you whatsoever. Too bad and quite sad.

  5. Several obvservations here…
    – Being a proponent of a ‘living, breathing Constitution’ how dare Ginsberg reference the original intent of the Framers! Sounds like a case of ‘use them with it suits my agenda’ to me!

    – The Civil War was fought for the purpose of forcing the 14th Amendment! It was the war’s true purpose. 3 years after the war was over, and all southern states were back in the Union (they had to be in order to vote for the 13th Amendment which they did), they were all ‘kicked out’ of the Union, with their statehood removed, via the Reconstruction Act! Why? Because none of them, along with 3 northern states (New Jersey, Ohio, and Oregon) supported the santimonious 14th Amendment which would serve to centralize Federal power over the states whenever needed and convenient. Then, if that wasn’t bad enough, when the 14th was sent to the remaining states for ratification, those that voted against it were allowed to change their vote to support it, but those first voting for it were not allowed to change their votes! Then, in 1877, those former southern states which were still under martial law and could not vote in the ratification process to being with, were offered a ‘deal’ – to be let back in the Union with full statehood privileges with one catch – the offer was conditional upon them agreeing to ‘ratify’ (postfacto) the 14th Amendment to clean up any lose ends!

    – The original framers had nothing to do with the 14th Amendment as it came almost 100 years later!

    – Ginsberg and her ilk won’t give a hoot what the original framers intended or comprehended when it comes time to take away all our guns!

    – Progressive teachers and professors all through the nation’s educational system treat the Founding Fathers and Framers as politically incorrect words, but they roll it out here because it suits them in this case!

  6. 13 eagles was found dead during the wkn in neighboring MD. Signs from the spiritual plane serving as an omen for today. Destruction and desolation is coming.

  7. Constitutionally, in order to be ‘apportioned’ a person MUST be a citizen. Illegals are not citizens. Ginsberg’s quoted statement refers to ‘nonvoters’ and ‘residents’. It does not state ‘illegals’ or ‘non-citizens’. Where is the statement allowing illegals to be counted/apportioned? I cannot find that specific statement anywhere. I will go to the actual SCOTUS ruling and see if I find those exact words and opinion.

  8. I previously commented there were no words from Ginsberg’s quote in the article that confirmed the court said ‘illegals’ will be counted. I also commented I would look at the actual SCOTUS opinion to confirm. I was correct.

    SCOTUS is not referring to illegals being counted. They reference ‘citizens’ and ‘residents’ throughout the entire opinion.

    The TX lawsuit was trying to get apportionment based solely on ‘voters’…meaning, children would not count (even if they are citizens) and non-voters would also not count (if they were citizens who did not/were not registered to vote). The suit said nothing per se about illegal immigrants.

    We all know illegal immigrants are not citizens.

    The Constitution only addresses ‘citizens’ which is what SCOTUS is addressing. Their ruling is that ‘citizens’ count no matter if they are voters or not.

    Now, for ‘residents’, SCOTUS then says it is left up to the individual states how they treat their ‘residents’ in apportionment. In fact, it quotes that many states exclude inmates. Others exclude people who have ‘temporary residence’ in their apportionment calculations such as non-resident military persons.

    It appears to me the MSM are spinning the truth stating illegals are to be counted. This is a false narrative and we must change the false narrative by stating the truth.

  9. Whats the point anymore. Our country has long been taken over by special interest groups who know how to play the political game. Does your vote really matter…… No, but collectively it does. However this ruling allows the illegal law breakers to have a say when they sure as hell should not. We have laws for a freggin reason. I am sick and tired of this corrupt government system and the apathetic population. Something needs to change.

  10. Should we expect any different from a Clinton-appointed liberal collectivist? Cultural Marxism doing what it does best: undermining the foundations of the Republic and the intention of the men who framed its founding principles and document. Knowledge is power, brothers. Stay strong and resist. They have not won yet.

  11. I read the story AND see immediately that the SCOTUS has been BOUGHT by NWO pushing foreign interests.
    NO REAL AMERICAN would make that choice. Every day we are seeing the march to civil war taking place by force of criminal government. That or a grand Bastille Day in America where independence from criminal government must take place.
    I do not want to have to do these things but I an seeing the necessity becoming greater and greater. HOW MUCH MORE WILL REAL AMERICANS TAKE?

    1. Well said 5WarVeteran……you nailed it dead center bulls eye……as a matter of fact, the vast majority of our entire government has been “BOUGHT”……it is obvious that real Americans are at the threshold…….I pray not, however, I see no way that civil war can be avoided. Be prepared !!

  12. Why don’t I ever get notification of response?? I know people are responding but I never get notification… WHY?

  13. I think America’s days are numbered. Maybe 1000. Maybe 2000. Not much more. Counting means only one thing! And that will be the end! We will be something else at that time! Liberal progressive fascists led by a dictator! We are almost there now, just need the right event (false flag) to take us the rest of the way.

    What constitution do the feds follow, cause it’s no longer recognizable!

  14. Just another chip knocked off citizens rights and freedoms. Apportion counts citizens, that rare virtue called common sense makes it obvious. They have chipped away for so long and in such small seemingly insignificant bits, its hardly noticed. Our ancestors would have been shooting long ago. What a bunch of sheep we have become. Even the pansy French fought revolutions for less than this. Most other countries, considering the firearms we have available to the citizens, would have assassinated the entire fed by now. GOD have mercy on our souls.

  15. Class war continues. USA citizen working-poor folks are battered by the many millions of competitors for jobs, housing and the social safety net supposedly existing only for citizens. There are ample Web sites discussing the many negatives of the illegal alien invasion so no repetition by me is needed.

    The embedded “systems” including the apex of the legal system is spitting upon the common folks… the class that fills the military ranks. I am ready to back a new set of Founders of the caliber of the originals to tear down the corrupted present systems and start anew using the Constitution as a base and formatting new systems in a manner the Founders would smile upon.

    Insert the graphic mentally: “I love my country but hate the government.” A broad, wide-sweeping statement but this is what I am forced to use in the constraints inherent with a comment section format.

    1. Take a good look at the tax brackets. The biggest jump is when they go from 15% to 25%. Guess where this happens? On all income between 75K and 150K! This is the ONLY 10% jump in all the brackets and is right square on top of the middle class!

  16. And I thought “Of the people, by the people and for the people” referred to CITIZENS not every Jose and Muhammad that wanted to sneak in.

  17. So, who thinks Justice Scala died of natural causes? There was case for abortion rights that very next week! And now this case. Maybe America should hand all the elected politicians in DC for treason! They commit it everyday and we allow it!

    1. No– feel free to add your voice to mine. Perhaps more people will persuade him not to ignore the request. Here’s what I sent as intro to your comment:

      David Codrea
      |
      To: sdinan@washingtontimes.com; Wed 2:12 PM
      From: David Codrea (dcodrea@hotmail.com)
      Sent: Wed 4/6/2016 2:12 PM

      Mr. Dinan, I cited your story in a recent post of my own. Please see the comment below. Any clarification you can provide will be appreciated.

      Thank you,

      David Codrea

  18. David,
    Thank you for answering my question. My hunch is Mr. Dinan will not address a correction to his story. And, I firmly believe his story is inaccurate as I have proven. v/r, Linda

Comments are closed.