Maggie's Farm

The proposed law is unconstitutional on its face, as the Fourteenth Amendment requires a count of all resident persons. Fourteenth Amendment, Section 2: "Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed." (Originally, Indians living on their own lands were excluded because they were under their own sovereignty not under the jurisdiction of the United States. However, Indians born in the United States were granted citizenship with the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, under the authority of Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the U.S. Constitution, which grants Congress the power to "establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization". The Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1 granted citizenship of the United States and of the State wherein they reside to everyone born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, including former slaves.)


If by recently, he means since 1790. all persons residing in the United States have been counted for apportionment since 1790, with slaves being counted as three-fifths of a person until passage of the Fourteenth Amendment. Originally, Madison and many of the founders wanted a direct election of the president, but slave states knew this would mean they could be outvoted. Hence, the birth of the Electoral College and the Three-Fifths Compromise, which balanced the power of the slave states and of the free states.

SK: It had nothing to do with the slave states until those states wanted to count slaves in their apportionment. . . . A little advice--if you expect to be taken seriously spend more time reading Madison

At the Philadelphia convention, when James Wilson proposed direct election of the president, James Madison said that direct election would not be acceptable to the South because (checks notes) “The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes.” But what would the 'Father of the Constitution' and slave-owner from Virginia know?

Paul in Boston: This is a replay of the 3/5ths clause by the Party of Slavery, the Democrat Party.

The Three-fifths Compromise was crafted before Jefferson and Madison formed the Democratic-Republican Party.

mudbug: So besides everything else, you’re saying that Democrats were and are lying when they deny that they were using illegal immigration to import voters.

Removing the unauthorized immigrant population from apportionment would affect Red and Blue states about equally.

Texas -1
Florida -1
Alabama +1
Ohio +1
Minnesota +1
California -1

SK: When Madison wrote that, the electoral college had already been decided upon, and for many good reasons other than simply "the slave states being outvoted" (your words).

This is your claim: "It had nothing to do with the slave states until those states wanted to count slaves in their apportionment". According to Madison (whom you reasonably referred to as an authority), it was because the slave states would be outvoted, so it had something to do with the slave states.

Nor had the Electoral College been decided upon by July 19, when Madison made that statement. The Electoral College was put forth by the Brearly Committee (the Third Committee of Eleven) on September 4 and agreed to on September 6.

SK: I called you out for ignoring the complexity of the negotiations over the electoral college and you don't like it.

Actually, you ignored the complexity by claiming “It had nothing to do with the slave states until those states wanted to count slaves in their apportionment". You might have simply said slavery was an important factor, but there were others—but you didn’t. Note that we supported our position.

SK: the electoral college was a compromise between those who didn't trust the populace to elect the executive and those who did

According to Madison, whom you suggested as an authority, direct election was politically untenable because slave states would not support it because they would be outvoted. That contradicts your latest claim that "That position is NOT supported by anything you've posted".

SK: Your fixation on one statement by Madison . . .

YOU had quite reasonably waved in the general direction of Madison. Madison is considered the father of the Constitution, and he was part of the deliberations at that time; consequently, his views are relevant.

Regardless, your original statement was categorical. You could have said that "Slavery was an important factor, but there were other factors"—but that's not what you said. Madison's statement is sufficient to undermine your categorical statement, but leaves the less categorical claim.