13

Citizenship and the Census: How the Supreme Court got this one WAY wrong

Posted by  $  blarman 2 months, 1 week ago to Government
30 comments | Share | Flag

This is actually a brilliant legal strategy and to me would be a completely legal and necessary use of Executive Privilege in spite of a baffling Supreme Court decision (5-4 with Roberts on the wrong side).

We need citizenship data to properly constitute the House of Representatives. That it would severely undermine the Democrats attempts to get illegals voting is a happy byproduct.
SOURCE URL: https://www.dailywire.com/news/49234/hammer-here-legal-reason-why-trump-must-ask-about-josh-hammer


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by  $  exceller 2 months, 1 week ago
    " "the Federal Judiciary has no authority to stick its nose into the question whether it is good policy to include a citizenship question on the census or whether the reasons given by Secretary Ross for that decision were his only reasons or his real reasons."

    Thank you Blair.

    The rational that the request was "pretextual" was a travesty and Roberts proved again his true colors. In highly consequential cases he always sides with the left.

    Trump should use EP to add it to the census. He should take advantage of EP that he has done sparingly so far.

    For the love of God, isn't it normal to ask about citizenship? What is Roberts afraid of? That his lefty friends will not invite him for the Georgetown dinner parties?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by mccannon01 2 months, 1 week ago
      "What is Roberts afraid of? That his lefty friends will not invite him for the Georgetown dinner parties?" I think you may have nailed here, exceller!
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  exceller 2 months, 1 week ago
        There were also some whisperings that he is being blackmailed by the left.

        Apparently he adopted two children from Ireland which is illegal, according to Irish law.

        So that can be used against him, technically.

        Remember when Obama chastised him (and the Court) in his State of the Union address?

        Roberts has not been the same ever since. Hussein's thugs may have warned him of the consequences of being recalcitrant.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by mccannon01 2 months, 1 week ago
          I've heard some whisperings as well. Thanks for reminding me of the Obama dress down of the court at the SOTU address. When I saw that happen I got a bad feeling that something was off kilter. Then there's the "penalty is a tax" crap to get Obamacare off the ground. Yes, there must be more here than meets the eye.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by bobsprinkle 2 months, 1 week ago
          I have heard similar things about Roberts and his kids. How old are these kids now? If/when they become adults, can he retire and not endanger their status? If the commies "outed" Roberts after his retirement, would that hurt the kids status.
          I'm looking for a way to get rid of him that he might consider.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by GaryL 2 months, 1 week ago
    If the citizenship question is not on the 2020 census then the census will be meaningless and mine will go right in the trash. Representatives are determined by the numbers and NY has more than enough asshole reps already. If they insist on counting illegals then they won't be counting me and mine.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by starznbarz 2 months, 1 week ago
    The communists that are the vast majority of the dems/left have succeeded, with the willing aid of the national press, in leading us to ask the wrong question. The "citizenship question" was on the census from 1850 until 2000, the illustrious B.H.O. removed it via executive order in 2010 - to a chorus of...silence. The question is, where was the outcry by the RNC then - and where was it when they had full congressional control along with the presidency? Answer: both parties want Trump gone, a great thing to remember in 2020 when you cast your congressional votes.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by ycandrea 2 months, 1 week ago
    Illegal immigrants should not get representation and should not effect our electoral votes or funding! These things are only for US Citizens!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by jimjamesjames 2 months, 1 week ago
    if I was an illegal and asked on the census if I was a citizen, I would answer YES and forget about it. Unless the census taker can say "Prove it," its not an issue for me.....
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by RevJay4 2 months, 1 week ago
    I continue to puzzle over why Roberts continues to go against the POTUS in cases which should be slam dunks for the administration.
    What does the left have on him? The census question is necessary to determine who is an actual legal citizen and who is not. Simple.
    The left does not want it cuz it costs them seats at the government table and fed funding in their districts. That is easy for even an old guy like me to see.
    I want to see that question on the census.
    Punctum.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  allosaur 2 months, 1 week ago
    Me dino read something interesting in the first comment at the bottom of the article written by someone who called himself Crazy Narwhal.
    To wit: "Democrats want to count illegals as population to increase their seats in the House and to gain electoral votes."
    So there is more to this Jackass Party dirty pool than illegals with state driver licenses getting to personally vote.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  WilliamShipley 2 months, 1 week ago
    While you must be a citizen to vote, you do not have to be a citizen to be counted in the census for the purposes of representation. You just have to be a resident. Indians and slaves had special treatment.

    Article I, Section 2:

    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.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  2 months, 1 week ago
      Representation back in the Founding days was done based on residency rather than Citizenship because #1 there was no real way to distinguish the difference unless one was a slave and #2 the Congress was looking for as much representation as it could get to make it appear more legitimate to foreign nations. Remember, back in those days the ratio was only about one Representative per 35,000 represented - a far cry from the 1/2 million per used today. It should also be noted that even prior to the First World War, we had open borders and were happily accepting anyone from anywhere without qualification as a citizen - which laws have since changed. Now we have tens of millions of illegal squatters in the United States who do not owe their allegiance to the United States. To count them for purposes of Representation is absurd - we might as well count the nations of Guatemala, Honduras, etc. as part of our own population under such logic.

      One must be a willing and legal participant in this nation - and owe no foreign allegiance - to be counted for purposes of either Representation or Citizenship. Otherwise all we do is dilute and degrade our own citizens' powers and grant foreigners undue influence in our political process. This is precisely what the Democrats want and it will lead to the destruction of the rule of law in our nation if we allow foreigners to determine Representation in the House.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  WilliamShipley 2 months, 1 week ago
        While I might agree with you, that would take an amendment to the constitution. I'm not a big fan of a 'living constitution" which changes meaning because "times have changed".
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  2 months, 1 week ago
          I, too, am not a fan of a "living Constitution", but I think that my interpretation is not outside the original interpretation of this Clause. The key is allegiance - we do not represent those who owe their allegiance to other nations. We can not. It would violate the right of Association to them just as sure as to our own Citizens. I don't think there is any contradiction whatsoever in identifying people according to their political allegiance for purposes of Representation in Congress. (I would also note the language of the Fourteenth Amendment as explained in the article makes this same argument.)
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by RevJay4 2 months, 1 week ago
        In reply to Blarman's last paragraph: Then, the "rule of law" will revert to that experienced in the early days of this nation. The fictional wild west comes to mind.
        With all the central americans coming across the border, more than likely they will bring "there, here" with their systems of "justice".
        Feudal cartels and hired henchmen to settle disputes in some areas.
        Wanna be a 3rd world sh*thole? The left would love it.
        Just sayin'.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  2 months, 1 week ago
          The fictional "Wild West" was exactly that - fictional. The vast majority of settlements were peaceful and law-abiding because their citizens were also peaceful and law-abiding.

          As to what mentalities get brought with them by illegals, it is a huge problem, I agree. We must have one source of law (the Constitution). But that only emphasizes why the immigration process needs to be fixed so that those who immigrate take on the values of this nation. The classic example is Sharia Law - which can not coexist with the Constitution. Any who wish to immigrate here must abandon any other source of law and accept the Constitution or they should not apply for citizenship. No man may serve two masters.

          I am all for changes to our immigration system. I believe that it has been intentionally undermined for political purposes by Democrats. Part of that should be clarifying entry rules, establishing firm borders and qualifications for entry, and prosecution and extradition of those who ignore our laws, but that is for another post.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  exceller 2 months, 1 week ago
            "The classic example is Sharia Law - which can not coexist with the Constitution. Any who wish to immigrate here must abandon any other source of law and accept the Constitution or they should not apply for citizenship. No man may serve two masters."

            It is well known that Muslims will never do that, even the peaceful ones (if there is such a thing).

            Specifically addressing the issue, they repeatedly claimed allegiance to the Quran vs the Constitution, It is against their religion to do otherwise..

            Wonder if the two Muslims in Congress - Omar and Tlaib - were asked this question, and if so, how did they answer it?
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  25n56il4 2 months, 1 week ago
    Good Post! I was sure they were wrong in not wanting this left off the census. It would definitely be to the advantage of some as we would simply count heads and not realize these folks weren't even citizens. But I have some concerns about whether or not people might be penalized if they said 'no'. My grandmother was an American Indian and not recognized as a citizen until after my father (her third child) was born.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  mminnick 2 months, 1 week ago
    Just a quick observation: I don't remember there being any uproar and court cases when Obama removed the question. It had been on the form sins 1880 with no objections.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  2 months, 1 week ago
      That's precisely why this Supreme Court decision is so arbitrary. That the question had significant historical use should have been reason enough to include it - aside from the fact that I don't see anything which grants the Supreme Court jurisdiction over the Census... SCOTUS is overstepping its authority here.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by LibertyBelle 2 months, 1 week ago
    Well, that just might work. But what if it doesn't?
    It really doesn't make much sense to do the census just on the number of persons present in the country, without reference to their citizenship. It is the voters in the country who are supposed to be represented, isn't it? But do the people who fill out the census forms sign their names, or are they anonymous? I don't remember whether I had to sign my name the last time.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by bobsprinkle 2 months, 1 week ago
    If this question is not allowed on the census form before I send in my form I will use a black sharpie and write the word CITIZEN across the entire length of the form. Yea, I know they might be able to slap my wrist. But, If all of us did it we could all make a point...albeit useless.
    I have done similar things on various gov't forms. Several years ago I got a notice of jury duty. At the end of the questions on the form it asked if I was caucasian black hispanic etc. I checked other and wrote AMERICAN. I don't know what difference it made what I was. This was in Florida. I heard nothing from them.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by rbunce 2 months, 1 week ago
    Well the USSC opinion did say the citizenship question was legal and that the Administration did not complete the process they used per the Statute for that process. This would be a different process.

    On the other hand I take the view that the only Constitutional question for the Decennial Census is how many people reside at this residence. All other questions reduce the response rate and create data for gerrymandering.

    Next year I might answer the race/ethnicity questions as Hispanic African American and encourage others to do the same to make that data less useful for gerrymandering. Surprising the major parties are not asking their members to use specific race and ethnicity answers as a proxy for party preference to use VRA court rulings to require political gerrymandering and prevent future DoJ redrawing district lines.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo