6 ms·
That change really requires a constitutional amendment, since the relevant article talks about counting persons, not citizens.
by amanaplanacanal 10d ago
That change really requires a constitutional amendment, since the relevant article talks about counting persons, not citizens.
- anonymousiam 10d agoSo what do you make of the phrase in Amendment 14 section two; "excluding Indians not taxed."? Do you suppose maybe they were trying to limit the representation to citizens?
- hyperhello 10d agoMaybe they were but the compromise they accepted was Indians not taxed, so unless there’s some pretty surprising evidence…
- anonymousiam 10d agoWell, at the time, Indians (Native Americans) were the largest populaton of non-citizens residing in the country. That is no longer the case today. (There are 10 times more non-citizens than non-citizen Native Americans today.)
- conception 10d agoOk. So? Still need an amendment.
- vintermann 10d agoCitizens? Surely you mean taxpayers? And through some impressive legal magic perversity, illegal immigrants in the US pay plenty of taxes. "No taxation without representation", wasn't that a phrase?
- anonymousiam 9d agoThe illegal immigrants do pay plenty of taxes, but how many of them pay Federal Income Tax? It's not something that you can do without a SSN.