Said where as it pertains to the Census?
Article I Section 2.
The actual Enumeration shall be made within three years after the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent term of ten years, in such manner as they shall by law direct. The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand, but each state shall have at least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the state of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.
Nowhere do they include those illegally present in the US.
Nowhere does it disclude either. And the requirement of citizenship is not stated as a condition of “persons” You are trying to have it both ways and it won’t work that way.
Next you will be telling everyone that they have to read into the meaning of what the founders wanted as opposed to whats actually written. I can’t wait to see this. Opens up a whole can of worms as to what can be interpreted.
And i’ll save you the trouble of you insisting what you think is the only absolute because I know thats where you are gonna go.
We don’t have to guess their intent, we have their own words at the time to rely on.
They most certainly were not intending to include anyone not here lawfully.
Does it state citizenship when counting persons?
Only citizens can vote thus only citizens are relevant.
Does it state anything about voting?
I"m not going to cut and paste the entire constitution for you.
Law.cornell.edu
And there it is. Love getting to this point where one figures out they cant give an actual answer.
You’re playing a stupid game like you always have and I’m not playing.
The constitution does not state that those illegally in the US are entitled to representation.
I always have? Ive been here for a total of what 10 posts?
Going to have to assume that was a slip up. As for the personal attacks, it would seem the game of attacking people personally when they don’t affirm your know it all psyche, well that was dealt with in another thread. Or maybe it wasn’t?
As for your last sentence, it doesn’t say anything to the opposite, specifically it says persons. Not citizen, not white folks, not anything, just persons plain and simple as you like to say we don’t have to guess the intent, its in the words. Sort of like habeas corpus works for illegals. We don’t just shoot them and ask questioned later.
1 Like
Let’s just say you’re easily recognizable due to your name and posting style.
If you can find any reference from any of the founders that shows they wanted those illegally present in the US to be counted for apportionment do so.
Yes I’m sure. As a person who knows every thing and is never wrong, I’m betting you know exactly who I am.
If you can find any reference from any of the founders that shows they didn’t wanted those illegally present in the US to be counted for apportionment do so.
1 Like
Thank you for once again proving my point.
Prove to you that you can’t every accept being wrong or that the world operates outside of your omnipotent view of it, sure why not.
2 Likes
Troll elsewhere, I’m not biting.
Wasn’t trolling. Just pointing out you make false statements not based on any written word in the Constitution, then assert certain things are in them that actually aren’t based on what you believe are stated when they aren’t.
It’s okay to say it’s what I believe, everyone has their opinion. Its a whole other thing to state something as fact that isn’t actually factual.
2 Likes
You can’t show where anything I’ve said on the subject is false.
Oh this game 
I like this one. It’s a favorite of yours.
Guess what? You can’t show where anything I’ve said on the subject is false.
2 Likes
I didn’t make the claim, you did.