Quote:
Originally Posted by Cimarron29414
..and yet somehow you can't point out where exactly I am wrong.
On the census which I took in 2000: "List the race of the people in your household...."
Does this affect apportionment? Nope.
Does this affect direct taxes? Nope.
All you've got is "but, but, they did it in 1820, so it must be okay."...even though you don't know WHY they did it in 1820 and if it upheld those two constitutional requirements.
There is nothing to interpret here. I am sorry it doesn't say what you want it to say so that you can justify your liberal/statist vision for America. Wait, no I'm not.
|
Sorry - I think you're wrong.
There is government funding for translation services, for equal operortunity programmes, for all manner of health and educational needs that are different depending on the race and languages of the population in an area.
Does Alaska need as much to spend on Spanish translation as New Mexico? Proboably not.
Does Montana have the same need for treatment facilities for cycle cell patients as Georgia? Unlikely.
I contend that knowing the racial make up of the population IS important for apportionment, and therefore is constitutional by your definition.