Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel_
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.
|
Apportionment in the Constitution and dealing with the census is speaking to apportioning the seats in the House of Representatives in Congress based on the populations in defined areas. It is not referring to apportioning federal funds in entitlement programs based on need. Although, many liberals/socialists/statists believe that is what it means. Believe it or not, there weren't any federal entitlement programs at the time the Constitution was written, voted on, and ratified. Back then, people turned to their family, friends, church and community to solve individual problems. The framers would not have even conceived of giving federal funds to Fred when he lost his job at the blacksmith shop in Roanoke. Shocker.