NO CITIZENSHIP Question on 2020 Census form.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...n-on-2020-census-form.558130/#post-1070737514

 

I could not believe he asked that question. My God. He probably voted for Trump.

 

You guys remind me of a joke my mom used to tell. She’d wait until everyone was wound up laughing at other people’s stories and then she’d come out with “what do you call people who work in a toilet paper factory?” When someone would finally ask to be told she’d say “employees”. The ensuing bewilderment and confused expressions were comedy gold.

Sorry, but your inability to see the joke’s on you reminded me of that.

Carry on.

 

What do you think is the purpose of the census?

 

Every time he feels cornered, he becomes desperate abd tries to change the subject any way he can. And it's so easy to prove that the census question has no legal or rational basis whatsoever.

 

Trump needs the citizenship question in order to ensure State compliance with section 2 of the 14th amendment. He can't confirm compliance without a count of the CITIZENS of each State.

But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the inhabitants of such state, being citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such citizens shall bear to the whole number of citizens of voting age in such state.​

Look for an Executive Order shortly on this.

 

A census Should ask how many occupants at a residence are U.S Citizens. So when answering the question, "how many people reside at this address"( Not sure of the exact question), the answer may be, for example, cive. Then the answer to how many occupants are U.S. Citizens, may be 3. So there are 2 non residents residing there. They cannot legally vote. They are not eligible for State and Federal WelfRe and other benefits. The only way we identify non citizens is through the census. The Census should provide all information about occupants in a residence.

 

I wasn't questioning the President's authority to conduct the census. I was wondering if he could change the census. I do not feel that (legal) non citizens should count for representation. I am a bit concerned if non citizens do not factor in financial appropriations.

 

Both impeachment and 25th amendment processes have solid legal boundaries and rules, none of which are being followed in the current coup, which makes the current effort to remove a duly elected president illegal. Hell, Democrats were talking about impeaching a president before the guy was even president which proves they have no legal boundaries mitigating their activities. You can only impeach a president for essentially known egregious wrong doings. The framers were specifically very concerned about how to keep the impeachment process from being used as political blackmail. Conducting congressional investigations and hearings in order to find such wrong doings is not part of a constitutional impeachment process, and that is exactly what is going on. Bury your head from the actual practical world all you want and define a blue wagon as a red bicycle -- your prerogative.

 

The primary purpose is to determine the distribution of citizens to properly allocate House Representatives by state. A secondary purpose is to count heads to know how everyone is distributed to be used for other federal programs, including aid.

 

I agree. Though sans any legislation the president does have authority to change the census procedure including what questions to ask, the shape and type of the form, the record keeping process, etc, etc, etc. John Roberts, in a totally ludicrous ruling, said the president was legally OK asking the citizen question. He just did not like the president's thought process. His job is only to decide the law; he has no business commenting -- let alone determining rulings -- on his perception of the president's activities.

 

That's very easy to say when you don't explain what is not being followed. I find that you just throw.... things in there... as if you actually had a point to make. But it turns out, you don't. It's just the smokescreen.

I didn't say "talking about impeachemnt". I said Impeachment. "Talking" does not work.

Make a point, already. Or don't But all these smokescreens just to draw attention away from the fact that Trump's census question is counter-productive, unnecessary and just... absurd.... are not getting you very far.

It may or may not be. We won't know until after the investigations and hearings. Just like we found out (that it wasn't) in the cases of Benghazi and others. It's part of Congressional oversight. What does that have to do with the census?

 

So you think it is necessary so it should not appear. I could come with a couple of reasons it could be very useful. I will let people far smarter than either of us determine the outcome and unlike the resistors, I will açcept their decision.

 

A better question is, what do you think is the purpose of the citizenship question? To enforce the 1965 Voting Rights Act? No one is that stupid, but Trump thinks the courts are that stupid.

By one government estimate, about 6.5 million people might not have been counted if the citizenship question had appeared on census forms. Courts have found that Arizona, California, Florida, Illinois, New York and Texas might have each lost seats in the House as a result and a loss of federal funds.

“Number one, you need it for Congress — you need it for Congress for districting,” Trump said Friday. “You need it for appropriations — where are the funds going? How many people are there? Are they citizens? Are they not citizens? You need it for many reasons.” Trump's No. 1 enemy is Trump.

The real reason for the GOP strategy behind the citizenship question is provided by Thomas B. Hofeller, and the Justices know this.
Hofeller, a Republican strategist who died last summer, had written a report in 2015 saying that adding a citizenship question to the census would give Republicans a significant advantage in drawing new legislative district lines.

The 2015 report concluded that adding a citizenship question to the census would allow Republicans to draft even more extreme gerrymandered maps to stymie Democrats. Months after urging Trump’s transition team to tack the question onto the census, he wrote the key portion of a draft Justice Department letter claiming the question was needed to enforce the 1965 Voting Rights Act — the rationale the administration later used to justify its decision.

Everything else Trump and his lawyers say is pure B.S.

BTW, his lawyers are in the Department of Justice. Barr is doing a hell of a job representing the President.

 

I think you speak too soon- and foolishly. Of course there should be a citizenship question- it's fundamental to having use able data. Unless you think you can increase your congressional power by pretending it's not important to know, and counting the illegals as citizens with the power to vote- and no doubt some body will soon suggest we should give them the right to vote. There is a hidden agenda in most everything the left favors, and it's always unsavory.

 

It's not a matter of "coming up" with a reason. it's a matter of there actually being one. Turns out there isn't one. It's what the Trump administration learned when even the Republican SCOTUS ruled theirs "contrived" and rejected it.

 

So you are against knowing how many US citizens are living in this country. Dumb idea is you are running for office don't you think?

 

For or against, doesn't matter. That's not the purpose of the census, according to the Constitution. That is a "contrived" reason to include the question. So ruled SCOTUS.

 

Actually the ruling said,

"Instead, in a partly unanimous opinion (with several different splits along the way) written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Court said the Trump administration’s Department of Commerce couldn’t add the citizenship question for now. The administration’s justification for adding the question, enforcing the Voting Rights Act, was a pretext — essentially a lie offered after the fact to justify adding the question — rather than a real reason for making the decision.

But it gave the administration the opportunity to try again by offering more genuine reasons for wanting to add one."
https://www.vox.com/2019/6/27/18761016/supreme-court-census-citizenship-opinion-decision

 

Actually the ruling said,

"Instead, in a partly unanimous opinion (with several different splits along the way) written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Court said the Trump administration’s Department of Commerce couldn’t add the citizenship question for now. The administration’s justification for adding the question, enforcing the Voting Rights Act, was a pretext — essentially a lie offered after the fact to justify adding the question — rather than a real reason for making the decision.

But it gave the administration the opportunity to try again by offering more genuine reasons for wanting to add one."
https://www.vox.com/2019/6/27/18761016/supreme-court-census-citizenship-opinion-decision

 

Looks like you sent this twice. Did your keyboard get stuck? Or did you have some point you wanted to make? Looks like we are in agreement: SCOTUS ruled that the Trump administration lied. Looks like now Trump's pathological lying has been transmitted to his whole administration, as adjudicated by the Supreme Court.

 

It would seem to me that the "citizen question" would be about the only question needed on a census; and some means of verifying it a necessity as well.

 

it would only seem that way to somebody who has no clue what the purpose of the census is.

 

The word used was "overthrow", not "remove".

Overthrow implies more of a forced removal of some sort. Something like sedition, or a coup orchestrated by a deep state conspiracy of some sort, maybe using spying or other subversive activities orchestrated by an opposing political party; using slander, innuendo, abuse of congressional power; investigative abuses, unverified foreign dossiers, press leakings, things like that.

Does any of that sound familiar to you?

 

It would seem to me that the makeup of the House of Representatives, and the varying funding mechanisms associated with it, should be based upon the citizenry of this country, and not upon the citizens of foreign countries. Does this not make sense to you?