Dan Popp
The census, illegals, and the 3/5 compromise
By Dan Popp
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. – US Constitution, Article 1, Section 2
Because of the current brouhaha around President Trump's efforts to restore the citizenship question to the US Census, I've been thinking about what the Census is supposed to do. Why does it exist?
Well, it exists because the Constitution requires it. But what is its purpose? Its purpose is to determine, in our representative republic, how many legislators each State will have in the House of Representatives. (Also how taxes would be divided among the States before the 16th Amendment made that obsolete.) This is called "apportionment." Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned...according to their respective Numbers....
But there was a problem: the slaves. If a State's political power increases with mere population, then having more slaves gained your State more say in national affairs. You, Ms. Slave Stater, could literally buy yourself more clout by enslaving more people.
The "3/5 Compromise" is exactly the opposite of what many people conceive it to be. Counting a slave as a full person for the purposes of representation would provide political incentive for slave States to increase the number of slaves. Not counting a slave at all would mean that slave States could not gain power by putting more human beings in bondage.
The "5/5" position is the pro-slavery position; the "0/5" position is the anti-slavery position, no matter whether leftists can wrap their heads around that, or not.
So here we are in the 21st Century, chattel slavery having been outlawed in 1865, and the New Slavery instituted in 1935. And the question before us today is whether lawless States can grab seats in the House of Representatives by allowing more trespassers to stay within their borders. (Funny that they have borders!) Some argue that the original Census did not differentiate between citizens and non-citizens. But it did exclude "Indians not taxed," and that can only be because they were citizens of their own nation/tribe, not citizens of the US.
This goes back to an article I posted about a year ago called "Democratic Socialism" is an oxymoron. If we are a "democracy" in the sense of a nation ruled by its people, then we are obligated to figure out who are "its people" and who are not "its people." If we just want to bow to almighty socialist Godvernment, then the more people we can enslave to permanent dependence, the better. Let them all in, count them, give them all free everything. That won't last very long, but some people will feel good about themselves until the collapse, and that's what's important.
Fully counting a slave in the original Census would not have given the slave more power – he could not vote. It would give his master, and other masters, more power. His presence in the national head-count would lessen his opportunities for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Those who wanted to count slaves wanted more slaves, and more slavery.
Identically, counting "illegal immigrants" (trespassers) in the Census does not give trespassers more power – they cannot vote. It gives the power to their loony State overlords who control the limits of their lives. Those who want to count trespassers want more trespassers, to keep as permanent wards of the state.
And if we as a nation reward this lawlessness, we will get more lawlessness.
Someone might propose a 3/5 compromise. I think these poor pawns in the leftist power game are closer to "Indians not taxed." They're foreign nationals. Counting them gives more power to their oppressors who pose as their champions.
What is the Census supposed to do? Here's what it was not supposed to do: It was not supposed to undermine the Constitution by giving an incentive to politicians to break the law.
© Dan Popp
July 14, 2019
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. – US Constitution, Article 1, Section 2
Because of the current brouhaha around President Trump's efforts to restore the citizenship question to the US Census, I've been thinking about what the Census is supposed to do. Why does it exist?
Well, it exists because the Constitution requires it. But what is its purpose? Its purpose is to determine, in our representative republic, how many legislators each State will have in the House of Representatives. (Also how taxes would be divided among the States before the 16th Amendment made that obsolete.) This is called "apportionment." Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned...according to their respective Numbers....
But there was a problem: the slaves. If a State's political power increases with mere population, then having more slaves gained your State more say in national affairs. You, Ms. Slave Stater, could literally buy yourself more clout by enslaving more people.
The "3/5 Compromise" is exactly the opposite of what many people conceive it to be. Counting a slave as a full person for the purposes of representation would provide political incentive for slave States to increase the number of slaves. Not counting a slave at all would mean that slave States could not gain power by putting more human beings in bondage.
The "5/5" position is the pro-slavery position; the "0/5" position is the anti-slavery position, no matter whether leftists can wrap their heads around that, or not.
So here we are in the 21st Century, chattel slavery having been outlawed in 1865, and the New Slavery instituted in 1935. And the question before us today is whether lawless States can grab seats in the House of Representatives by allowing more trespassers to stay within their borders. (Funny that they have borders!) Some argue that the original Census did not differentiate between citizens and non-citizens. But it did exclude "Indians not taxed," and that can only be because they were citizens of their own nation/tribe, not citizens of the US.
This goes back to an article I posted about a year ago called "Democratic Socialism" is an oxymoron. If we are a "democracy" in the sense of a nation ruled by its people, then we are obligated to figure out who are "its people" and who are not "its people." If we just want to bow to almighty socialist Godvernment, then the more people we can enslave to permanent dependence, the better. Let them all in, count them, give them all free everything. That won't last very long, but some people will feel good about themselves until the collapse, and that's what's important.
Fully counting a slave in the original Census would not have given the slave more power – he could not vote. It would give his master, and other masters, more power. His presence in the national head-count would lessen his opportunities for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Those who wanted to count slaves wanted more slaves, and more slavery.
Identically, counting "illegal immigrants" (trespassers) in the Census does not give trespassers more power – they cannot vote. It gives the power to their loony State overlords who control the limits of their lives. Those who want to count trespassers want more trespassers, to keep as permanent wards of the state.
And if we as a nation reward this lawlessness, we will get more lawlessness.
Someone might propose a 3/5 compromise. I think these poor pawns in the leftist power game are closer to "Indians not taxed." They're foreign nationals. Counting them gives more power to their oppressors who pose as their champions.
What is the Census supposed to do? Here's what it was not supposed to do: It was not supposed to undermine the Constitution by giving an incentive to politicians to break the law.
© Dan Popp
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
