17 things Biden signed on his first day

Yeah, and Wyoming shouldn’t get 40x the representation of California in the Senate, yet that’s what the constitution says so we have to abide by it. If you’re willing to change to pure proportional representation, I’m happy to count only citizens.

 

Putting aside the constitutional requirements, I think they should. Those people live and work in that state. They deserve representation in Congress, no matter their status.

There was no such distinction at that time. That didn't come until later, when white supremacists wanted to stop certain foreigners from coming here.

 

Also, good job, Biden. Glad we finally have an adult in charge again. Now, get yourself some good lawyers, Joe. The red states are ready to start litigating again.

 

Guess you either don't think we should follow what the Constitution says about the census, or you don't know what it says?

Which is it?

 

I expressed my opinion. That’s all. Why be snarky about it?

btw, why did Biden issue an executive order to do what the constitution already requires?

 

Because he reversed Trump's order to not count non-citizen immigrants.

 

Unfortunately, that was George Washington who came right before him.

 

Since you obviously have missed the irony and historical ignorance of your own posts, I’ll point it out for you. The census has counted all persons since its inception and the South used some of those who weren’t citizens, people brought here against their will and held in bondage and forced labor that really built this country, to boost their state’s political power (as well as women, who were unable to vote).

But keep glossing over history to support your discriminatory understanding of the plain text of the document that counts “persons,” not citizens, that inhabit a state.

 

Because Trump was attempting to do something that was plainly unconstitutional.

 

Why can't you respond civilly? Why does it have to be hateful? Even if someone is ignorant, is that a reason to denigrate them?

I had merely expressed an opinion on counting people who come to this country illegally. That was all. I made no statement about what is in the constitution, and surely no statement about how the census was used hundreds of years ago. It seems to me that you had a knee-jerk response based presumably on a preconceived prejudice about what you think might be my views.

Since you brought up history I'll tell you my views. The trans-Atlantic slave trade was horrific on the victims and a heinous violation of human rights. It was immoral and should have never happened. Since it did happen, those people brought here should have had the same rights as any other person. Since they were not given rights, they should not have been counted, thereby reducing the political power of the predominantly slave-holding states. Likewise, women should have had the vote from day 1.

Maybe I'm not as bad a person as you think.

 

The point is that the constitution has long used “persons” and done so because congressional representatives have not just represented citizens, but ALL PERSONS, that live in their states and districts. Suggesting that should be changed when the political power that the rule was created for no longer exist, when the language “persons” has not changed is historically myopic and legally wrong, to make an understatement.

So if you are going to spout off about the way something should be and who built the country, but fail to consider how it got where it is and why, you’re going to get the kinds of responses you did. It’s not an issue of being a “bad person.” It’s an issue of making a historically ignorant argument.

And if you can’t take an aggressive substantive response without taking it personally, you’re really not going to last long in this forum.

 

Basically these are the first steps to being America again.

 

and there ae a lot of people working and just riding it not paying rent and will walk away when moratorium is done not realizing that landlord is going to go after them and they will end up in bankruptcy. saw the same thing when the RE bubble popped. People quit paying even when they could afford to do so and squatted for 3 years in places being finally being evicted

 

The census "persons" argument is intriguing to me, specifically with the "originalism" and "textualism" the right typically uses to rule against minorities. Normally, their orthodoxy gives them cover to claim that the Constitution was not made to be able to adjust with the times, and usually a tortured justification involving considering certain words and phrases to be insanely narrow and specific is the methodology.

In this case, they'll have to go all leftie and find a way for "persons" to REALLY mean "citizens", and the only non-laughable way to do that would be to make a "living document" argument. The same argument they despise 99.9% of the time.

 

Biden kills Keystone XL permit, again - POLITICO

killing Keystone was/is wrong. That oil is going to get to market and pipeline is the safest, least amount of pollution way to get it there. It is an insult to Canada who ahs invested so much in it and indicates that investors cannot rely on permits that have been issued. Revoking a legally issued permit is not good for business regardless if youa gree with the permit or not.

Alberta leaders are not happy with Trudeau's apparent acceptance of this decision.

edit..the oil is going to be extracted, either by companies making enough of a profit to do it with little environmental impact or by wildcatters scraping by and not so inclined to think about what might happen later.

The thought process that goes into this decision making process flies directly in the face of the call to follow the science. Democrats should put aside their uninformed outrage and embrace the science just like they want others to.

for recollection..
The Obama State Department found five separate times that the pipeline would have no material impact on greenhouse gas emissions since crude would still be extracted. Shipping bitumen by rail or tanker would result in 28% to 42% higher CO2 emissions and more leaks. No matter. President Obama in 2015 rejected the permit as an oblation to the Paris Climate accords.

 

You keep reading things into my post that were not there and then going off on rabbit trails. You (and others) missed entirely my original point. I was commenting on the increase of political power through illegal means. That's all.

By the way, I've been in this forum probably a decade longer than you. Wanting people to act civilly is not a sign of "can't take it."

 

Your original point remains absurd then (beyond being historically ignorant). The constitution says “persons,” not citizens. For someone so purportedly concerned with illegal means, perhaps you should start there, with the plain language of the highest law in the land.

 

Article I Section 2 of the Constitution says: "Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."

As you and others point out, that requires counting everyone, not just citizens. The Census 2020 has this instruction: "Citizens of foreign countries who are temporarily visiting the United States on vacation or business on April 1, 2020, should not be counted." Who To Count

While that makes sense to exclude visitors, unless there have been court rulings on this, I don't see that the Constitution specifies only counting permanent residents, or exempts counting foreign visitors. You might think this is nitpicking, but it appears that the government has made determinations of who to count, outside of the language of the Constitution. If there exists a grounded explanation for this ability of the government to decide who and who not to count, and how it satisfies the Constitution, I'd like to know it.

 

Yeah, it seems like if you are going to do that you should also put a moratorium on bank foreclosures if the land owners can't make their loan payment. Same idea isn't it?