NO CITIZENSHIP Question on 2020 Census form.

Certainly the 2nd sentence in Section 2 of the 14th amendment supports the citizenship question on the census.

 

There is no reason why this question should not be asked. At least Country of Origin and year.

Look at some of the old censuses, it gives this information and is the reason we can trace our ancestors.

It is a logical question. And I don't care how the Government uses these statisics.

 

There has been no citizenship question on the census form since 1950.

 

The AG isn't so sure they're won't be a citizenship question, which is supported by a big majority of Americans.

 

Is there any indication That they supported citizens of other countries being funded? Money would seem to be the motivation behind Sanctuary Cities thereby encouraging foreigners to reside in their areas, but is this fair to US citizens?

 

In exchange for a citizenship question on the census would you be willing to end gerrymandering, the EC and institute ranked choice voting? I mean this is all to make sure that citizens voices are not overruled, surely you would be in favor, yes?

 

The Census should ask how many U.S. citizens occupy the residence and then their ages and names. Beyond that is none of the Governments business IMO.

 

Utter nonsense. If you think the the number of representatives in the house allocated to each state included foreign aliens, legal or not, residing in the respective states, you are beyond hope.

 

As I said, none of Roberts' concern or business. He is simply exercising his self-assumed legislate from the bench prerogative.

 

Quite simply...undocumented people are not going to respond to the census because they will fear that it will be used against them.

That means that Federal dollars will not be appropriated for roads, schools, hospitals etc. accurately

 

If one thinks our government has the right to know how many citizens and non-citizens are residing in this country, then one has to be for it. If one thinks our government has no business in known how many citizens it has vs. non-citizens, then one has to be against it. Sort of big brother government as the reason why one would be against.

 

For some reason, and now I'm not sure why, I had this weird idea that you had some notion about how our legal system works. Our last discussion about the Mueller report left me some doubts, but I mentally dismissed them. Then you didn't know how a President could be removed from office liegally. And now you don't know, and refuse to acknowledge, that "persons" and "we the people" in the Constitution has been ruled consistently, since the 19th Century, to mean "everybody" ... citizen or not.... (except when specifically indicated that they are referring to "citizens"). That's too much.

So now I know....

 

That he is. But it doesn't remove the fact that he is exercising it because he was lied to.

 

Yes. Or that it makes him feel powerful and important beyond his assigned authority.

 

True true. Bush v Gore must have given him a "rush". And he just can't get enough of it since then: "Citizen's United", "Heller", "Hobby Lobby", "Rucho and Lamone" , .... It's not just Roberts....

Maybe it's time to add a couple of independent justices to the current number.

 

Then perhaps you can clarify the text of the 14th Amendment I quoted.

 

Probably so, but confirmation would be very hard.

 

But you have to admit he has very strong convictions about the things he knows nothing about.

 

Me? No! You try to make that case.. SCOTUS asked for a "less contrived" reason. Not a more contrived one.

 

If I were the next Democratic President, here's what I would do. I would ask Republicans to give me a well-reasoned list of 10 candidates that they deemed "independent", and I would select from them. Only condition is that they thoroughly and convincingly demonstrated that the candidates were truly independent.

This is how the name Merrick Garland came about. Many Republican Senators, including Orin Hatch "dared" Obama to nominate him. And, much to their surprise, he did!

 

DUPLICATE

 

As I suspected. Thank you!

 

You are welcome.

 

Victor Davis Hanson is one of the most intelligent commentators today. He says the Democrat Party has realized it’s message isn’t well received by the existing American population, so they’re desperate to change our demographics to get a population more eager to accept Democratic Party values and policies.

They want to cram down our throats as many third worlders as they can. And they want to eliminate any distinctions between illegals and Americans. According to the left, “citizenship” is an antiquated and counterproductive concept that must be eradicated.

 

Can´t be too bright if he doesn't know there is no such thing as a "Democrat" Party.