Just who is FAKE here, or did someone forget to tell Donald so he has plausible deniability.

The 2020 census will not include a citizenship question, the Justice Department said Tuesday, just days after the Supreme Court blocked a plan by the Commerce Department to add it to the census questionnaire.

Federal attorneys on Tuesday told litigants in the New York challenge to the case that it would not pursue the question. Justice Department spokeswoman Kelly Laco confirmed that the government will move ahead with printing census forms without it.

Last night this was said;
Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said that while he respected the Supreme Court’s decision, he strongly disagreed with it.

“The Census Bureau has started the process of printing the decennial questionnaires without the question,” Ross said in a statement. “My focus, and that of the Bureau and the entire Department is to conduct a complete and accurate census.

Trump tweets this morning:
Donald J. Trump
‏
Verified account

@realDonaldTrump
Follow Follow @realDonaldTrump
More
The News Reports about the Department of Commerce dropping its quest to put the Citizenship Question on the Census is incorrect or, to state it differently, FAKE! We are absolutely moving forward, as we must, because of the importance of the answer to this question.

8:06 AM - 3 Jul 2019

Someone forgot to tell you that you don’t watch television.🤡
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

How come since all citizens have Social Security numbers we need to ask this question on the census
If the goal was to have an accurate count of the number of people in the USA just do a plain unadorned census
Would it not be simple math to come up with the number of illegal immigrants
Total census count-social security card holders = undocumented residents
What’s the goal of putting a question on the census?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

How come since all citizens have Social Security numbers we need to ask this question on the census
If the goal was to have an accurate count of the number of people in the USA just do a plain unadorned census
Would it not be simple math to come up with the number of illegal immigrants
Total census count-social security card holders = undocumented residents
What’s the goal of putting a question on the census?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Since the census is used to allocate House seats, why should non-citizens be used to determine the number of seats? Why should that number be influenced by the number of aliens in a state?

Since the census is used to allocate House seats, why should non-citizens be used to determine the number of seats? Why should that number be influenced by the number of aliens in a state?
Here’s why, or do you think the courts should legislate from the bench because it suits you in this case?
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.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Since the census is used to allocate House seats, why should non-citizens be used to determine the number of seats? Why should that number be influenced by the number of aliens in a state?

because Article I, Section 2 of the United States Constitution, which states: “Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States... according to their respective Numbers... . The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years”.[a][1] Section 2 of the 14th Amendment states: “Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State...

you cant say your an originalist then add your own inteterpation on sections you disagree the world citizen or aliens doesn't appear

more stupidity...on the 4th of July no less...

because Article I, Section 2 of the United States Constitution, which states: “Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States... according to their respective Numbers... . The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years”.[a][1] Section 2 of the 14th Amendment states: “Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State...

you cant say your an originalist then add your own inteterpation on sections you disagree the world citizen or aliens doesn't appear

You didn't finish the rest of section 2 of the 14th Amendment. It included this tidbit. "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 the State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and 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 male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State."

Clearly, the apportionment was based on citizenship and the right to vote. If you did not have the right to vote, or were denied that right, then your portion of the number counted would be reduced from the total count in order to arrive at a correct number for representation. Since aliens are denied the right to vote as outlined in the Amendment, then the number used for representation shall be reduced by the amount of the aliens counted in the census.

And the 14th Amendment was written before women were granted the right to vote and the voting age was reduce to 18. So the number would include those who now have the right to vote.

And the original language in the Constitution, before the 14th Amendment superseded it, stated the number for representation was a count of the free persons in the state and three fifth's of all other persons. You are not a free person if you do not have the right to vote, and we don't do the three fifths stuff anymore.

more stupidity...on the 4th of July no less...

So for the last 241 years we've been doing the census all wrong ...but Trumps going to fix it... i see the stupity all right
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So for the last 241 years we've been doing the census all wrong ...but Trumps going to fix it... i see the stupity all right
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

See my answer to you just before this post. Changes were made since 1778. And you didn't quote the rest of Amendment 14 section two. Which originalism would require for interpretation.

democrats aren't for open borders :rotf2::rotf2::rotf2::rotf2:

See my answer to you just before this post. Changes were made since 1778. And you didn't quote the rest of Amendment 14 section two. Which originalism would require for interpretation.

He chooses to ignore the facts as they don’t support his idiocy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Trump has a new theory of jurisprudence: if you litigate all the way to the Supreme Court but lose the case you still get to do what you want.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Trump has a new theory of jurisprudence: if you litigate all the way to the Supreme Court but lose the case you still get to do what you want.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Tch, tch, you tell yet another Trump-like sarcastic lie. You just can't help it. It's as much a part of your personal fabric as it is Trump's. It's perfectly OK to be that way . . . just hypocritical when you criticize him about it.

Before you even get to the constitutionality of it how about the fact the administration lied about why they wanted the question in the first place?

Before you even get to the constitutionality of it how about the fact the administration lied about why they wanted the question in the first place?

Are you trying to rile up the base?

He has a new code red.🤡
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

See my answer to you just before this post. Changes were made since 1778. And you didn't quote the rest of Amendment 14 section two. Which originalism would require for interpretation.

Seem this simple questions is a yes or no answer. Have we been doing it wrong for the past 200 plus years. And trumps going to fix it?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Seem this simple questions is a yes or no answer. Have we been doing it wrong for the past 200 plus years. And trumps going to fix it?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


are you suggesting the census has not changed over the last 200 plus years?

1790

In 1790, assistant marshals listed the name of each head of household, and asked the following questions:

The number of free White males aged:
under 16 years
of 16 years and upward
Number of free White females
Number of other free persons
Number of slaves

For the 1870 census, enumerators recorded demographic information on the following topics, organized by column number:

Number of dwelling house, by order of visitation from enumerator
Number of family, by order of visitation from enumerator
Name
Age
Sex
Color

Enumerators could mark "W" for White, "B" for Black, "M" for Mulatto, "C" for Chinese [a category which included all east Asians], or "I" for American Indian.
Profession, occupation, or trade
Value of real estate
Value of personal estate
Place of birth

State or territory of the United States or foreign country
Was the person's father of foreign birth?
Was the person's mother of foreign birth?
If the person was born within the last year, which month?
If the person was married within the last year, which month?
Did the person attend school within the last year?
Can the person not read?
Can the person not write?
Is the person deaf and dumb, blind, insane, or idiotic?
Is the person a male citizen of the United States of 21 years or upwards?
Is the person a male citizen of the United States of 21 years or upwards whose right to vote is denied or abridged on grounds other than "rebellion or other crime?"



The 1940 census was the first to include a statistical sample. Five percent of people were asked an additional 16 questions. In order to gauge the effect of the Great Depression on the nation's housing stock, a census of occupied dwellings was coupled with the usual demographic questions. Enumerators collected the following information, organized by column number:

Population

Street the person lives on
House number
Number of household in order of visitation
Is the home owned or rented?
Value of the home, if owned, or monthly rental, if rented
Does the person's household live on a farm?
Name
Relationship with the head of household
Sex
Color or race
Age at last birthday
Marital status
Did the person attend school or college at any time in the past year?
What was the highest grade of school that the person completed?
Person's place of birth
If foreign born, is the person a citizen?
In what place did the person live on April 1, 1935?
For persons who, on April 1, 1935 was living in the same house as at present, enumerators were to enter "same house" into column 17; they were to leave the rest of the columns in this section blank. For persons who lived in a different house, enumerators were to fill out the columns with information about their 1935 residence.

City, town, or village
For villages with fewer than 2,600 residents, and all unorganized places, enumerators were to enter "R."
County
State or Territory
Was this house on a farm?
For persons 14 years and older - employment status

Was the person at work for pay or profit in private or nonemergency government work during the week of March 24 - 30?
If not, was he at work on, or assigned to, public emergency work (WPA, NYA, CCC, etc.) during the week of March 24 - 30?
If the person was neither at work or assigned public emergency work: was this person seeking work?
If not seeking work, did he have a job or business?
For persons answering "No" to questions 21, 22, 23, and 24; indicate whether engaged in home housework (H), in school (S), unable to work (U), or Other (Ot)
If the person was at work in private or non emergency government employment: how many hours did he work in the week of March 24 - 30?
If the person was seeking work or assigned to public emergency work: what was the duration, in weeks, of his unemployment?
What is the person's occupation, trade, or profession?
What is the person's industry or business?
What is the person's class of worker?
Number of weeks worked in 1939 (or equivalent of full time weeks)
Amount of money, wages, or salary received (including commissions)
Did this person receive income of more than $50 from sources other than money wages or salary?
Corresponding number on the Farm Schedule of the person's farm
Supplementary Questions
Name
Person's father's birthplace
Person's mother's birthplace
Person's mother or native tongue
Veterans
Is this person a veteran of the United States military forces; or the wife, widow, or under-18-year old child of a veteran?

If so enter "Yes"
If the person is a child of a veteran, is the veteran father dead?
War or military service
Enumerators were to mark "W" for World War I; "S" for the Spanish-American War, the Phillipine insurrection, or Boxer Rebellion; "SW" for both the Spanish-American War and World War I; "R" for peacetime service only; or "Ot" for any other war or expedition
For persons 14 years old and over

Social Security
Does this person have a federal Social Security number?
Were deductions for federal Old-Age Insurance or railroad retirement made from this person's wages in 1939?
If so, were deductions made from all, one-half or more, or less than one-half of the person's wages or salary?
What is this person's usual occupation?
What is this person's usual industry?
What class of worker is this person?
For all women who are or have been married

Has this person been married more than once?
Age at first marriage
Number of children ever born

🤷🏽#^&♂️
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Since the census is used to allocate House seats, why should non-citizens be used to determine the number of seats? Why should that number be influenced by the number of aliens in a state?

Bingo!

Poll: Majority say the census should be able to include citizenship question

Sixty-seven percent of voters said the census should be able to ask whether people living in the U.S. are citizens, going against the recent Supreme Court decision on the matter, according to a new Harvard CAPS/Harris Poll.

The poll also found that the inclusion of the question was supported among members of both parties, with 88 percent of Republicans and 52 percent of Democrats supporting its inclusion.

Sixty-three percent of independents said they supported including the question on the census.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/451398-poll-majority-say-the-census-should-be-able-to-include-citizenship

It is very strange to me, and just plain stupid, I think, that a census would not include the question...."Are you a citizen of this country"?
Why is that not a legitimate question?
Oh wait ...maybe ...cause trump is a very bad man.....wants to be a dictator.....is a racist and wants to eat immigrant children...:drool:

Spend just one day on a construction site, like I have since 73', and you would understand that we have a serious invasion of illegal immigrants going on. It has all but destroyed a once proud profession.

are you suggesting the census has not changed over the last 200 plus years?

1790

In 1790, assistant marshals listed the name of each head of household, and asked the following questions:

The number of free White males aged:
under 16 years
of 16 years and upward
Number of free White females
Number of other free persons
Number of slaves

For the 1870 census, enumerators recorded demographic information on the following topics, organized by column number:

Number of dwelling house, by order of visitation from enumerator
Number of family, by order of visitation from enumerator
Name
Age
Sex
Color

Enumerators could mark "W" for White, "B" for Black, "M" for Mulatto, "C" for Chinese [a category which included all east Asians], or "I" for American Indian.
Profession, occupation, or trade
Value of real estate
Value of personal estate
Place of birth

State or territory of the United States or foreign country
Was the person's father of foreign birth?
Was the person's mother of foreign birth?
If the person was born within the last year, which month?
If the person was married within the last year, which month?
Did the person attend school within the last year?
Can the person not read?
Can the person not write?
Is the person deaf and dumb, blind, insane, or idiotic?
Is the person a male citizen of the United States of 21 years or upwards?
Is the person a male citizen of the United States of 21 years or upwards whose right to vote is denied or abridged on grounds other than "rebellion or other crime?"



The 1940 census was the first to include a statistical sample. Five percent of people were asked an additional 16 questions. In order to gauge the effect of the Great Depression on the nation's housing stock, a census of occupied dwellings was coupled with the usual demographic questions. Enumerators collected the following information, organized by column number:

Population

Street the person lives on
House number
Number of household in order of visitation
Is the home owned or rented?
Value of the home, if owned, or monthly rental, if rented
Does the person's household live on a farm?
Name
Relationship with the head of household
Sex
Color or race
Age at last birthday
Marital status
Did the person attend school or college at any time in the past year?
What was the highest grade of school that the person completed?
Person's place of birth
If foreign born, is the person a citizen?
In what place did the person live on April 1, 1935?
For persons who, on April 1, 1935 was living in the same house as at present, enumerators were to enter "same house" into column 17; they were to leave the rest of the columns in this section blank. For persons who lived in a different house, enumerators were to fill out the columns with information about their 1935 residence.

City, town, or village
For villages with fewer than 2,600 residents, and all unorganized places, enumerators were to enter "R."
County
State or Territory
Was this house on a farm?
For persons 14 years and older - employment status

Was the person at work for pay or profit in private or nonemergency government work during the week of March 24 - 30?
If not, was he at work on, or assigned to, public emergency work (WPA, NYA, CCC, etc.) during the week of March 24 - 30?
If the person was neither at work or assigned public emergency work: was this person seeking work?
If not seeking work, did he have a job or business?
For persons answering "No" to questions 21, 22, 23, and 24; indicate whether engaged in home housework (H), in school (S), unable to work (U), or Other (Ot)
If the person was at work in private or non emergency government employment: how many hours did he work in the week of March 24 - 30?
If the person was seeking work or assigned to public emergency work: what was the duration, in weeks, of his unemployment?
What is the person's occupation, trade, or profession?
What is the person's industry or business?
What is the person's class of worker?
Number of weeks worked in 1939 (or equivalent of full time weeks)
Amount of money, wages, or salary received (including commissions)
Did this person receive income of more than $50 from sources other than money wages or salary?
Corresponding number on the Farm Schedule of the person's farm
Supplementary Questions
Name
Person's father's birthplace
Person's mother's birthplace
Person's mother or native tongue
Veterans
Is this person a veteran of the United States military forces; or the wife, widow, or under-18-year old child of a veteran?

If so enter "Yes"
If the person is a child of a veteran, is the veteran father dead?
War or military service
Enumerators were to mark "W" for World War I; "S" for the Spanish-American War, the Phillipine insurrection, or Boxer Rebellion; "SW" for both the Spanish-American War and World War I; "R" for peacetime service only; or "Ot" for any other war or expedition
For persons 14 years old and over

Social Security
Does this person have a federal Social Security number?
Were deductions for federal Old-Age Insurance or railroad retirement made from this person's wages in 1939?
If so, were deductions made from all, one-half or more, or less than one-half of the person's wages or salary?
What is this person's usual occupation?
What is this person's usual industry?
What class of worker is this person?
For all women who are or have been married

Has this person been married more than once?
Age at first marriage
Number of children ever born

Again have we been doing it wrong? For 200 years ... its a simple yes or no ... even the why he wants it his supporters cant even explaine ... the why ... and were is the provision if someone states they are a non citizen or say yes the are or leave it blank ... who is going to determine who or who not to count...... but again the right still believe illigals vote by the 10 of thousands .. so now they think they immigrants impact . Seats in Congress or federal moneys .to states again with out evidence .. but they have no issues with the lie for why it was requested .. or Trumps willingness to use executive order even after the supreme court rulling .. by anymeans necessary crowd
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It is very strange to me, and just plain stupid, I think, that a census would not include the question...."Are you a citizen of this country"?
Why is that not a legitimate question?
Oh wait ...maybe ...cause trump is a very bad man.....wants to be a dictator.....is a racist and wants to eat immigrant children...:drool:

Spend just one day on a construction site, like I have since 73', and you would understand that we have a serious invasion of illegal immigrants going on. It has all but destroyed a once proud profession.
Did i bother you in the past census that citizenship question wasnt asked
Did the construction site not change since 72 did it stay irish or italian or Portuguese? Masons carpterner roofer have been taken over by immigrants for many reasons. But thats been the industry for generations .. now its face is not of European immigrants ..the face is from south America.. and that scares some
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Again have we been doing it wrong? For 200 years ... its a simple yes or no ...

It has been done differently many times in the past 200 years. If changing how the census is done means it was done wrong before, then it would be a simple yes to your question.
If making changes is not wrong, then a simple no to your question would suffice.

even the why he wants it his supporters cant even explaine ... the why ...

It's been explained. But why should it have to be explained. You required a simple yes or no.

and were is the provision if someone states they are a non citizen or say yes the are or leave it blank ... who is going to determine who or who not to count...... but again the right still believe illigals vote by the 10 of thousands .. so now they think they immigrants impact . Seats in Congress or federal moneys .to states again with out evidence .. but they have no issues with the lie for why it was requested .. or Trumps willingness to use executive order even after the supreme court rulling .. by anymeans necessary crowd
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This remaining part of your post is simple scatterbrain fallout.

Did i bother you in the past census that citizenship question wasnt asked
Did the construction site not change since 72 did it stay irish or italian or Portuguese? Masons carpterner roofer have been taken over by immigrants for many reasons. But thats been the industry for generations .. now its face is not of European immigrants ..the face is from south America.. and that scares some
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Wolf cry goes out

Say the wrong thing and you are his new racist
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Wolf cry goes out

Say the wrong thing and you are his new racist
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Seems Historical contex is a challange for some ... the world chages. .. i am sure with each wave of new immigrants the pervious immigrants felt pushed out .... to a degree why should today be any diffrent ? Includindg the current incendiary rhetoric ... funny its always the white guys saying race has nothing to do.with it ... but for many its a reason .... and for the otherside the same response..... there is no blance.. in the far right or the far lefts response to this issue the middle is drowned out
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I appreciate you acknowledging my point.
Too bad,that for some color matters.
Again, you feel compelled to make this a right or left type of issue when it is simply a human being issue. With this rhetoric do not expect progress.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I appreciate you acknowledging my point.
Too bad,that for some color matters.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Thank god for anal bleaching
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Thank god for anal bleaching
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Does it make the leather Cheerio more palatable?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Seems Historical contex is a challange for some ...

Not for you, of course. You've got those hatches battened down pretty tight. You're a real genious when it comes to historical context.

the world chages. …

Except when it comes to doing the census. We've always done it right. Don't change a thing. Why change perfection?

i am sure with each wave of new immigrants the pervious immigrants felt pushed out ....

In some cases they were. In some cases the immigrants were welcome. In most cases, the immigrants were legal.

But, of course, all immigrants are basically the same, want the same things, think the same way as everyone else. Why should we complain, or question them if we had 10 to 30 million Nazis immigrate here, or as many Communists, or as many other types whose cultural, religious, or political philosophy was not compatible to our constitutional system? After all, nothing changes. We will still remain the grand old Republic of individual liberty with inalienable rights. Like the census, nothing has changed in the past 200 years. We've been doing it right, and always will.

We're the same nation, we've been doing it the same way that we did 200 years ago . . . right? Makes me wonder why so many are afraid of Trump. I mean, after all, nothing in the way we do things changes. Relax. We've always done it right.

to a degree why should today be any diffrent ?

Exactly . . . or . . . to a degree. When different Presidents come along, some folks feel pushed out. But it's always been done that way. And we've always done it right.

Includindg the current incendiary rhetoric ...

Excluding you and PeteF and Got Stripers . . . you guys don't do incendiary rhetoric.

funny its always the white guys saying race has nothing to do.with it

Well, OK, you're allowed a little fib every now and then . . . if it's under 10,000 of them that would be acceptable because it would be less than Trump's. Actually there are several black guys who also say race has nothing to do with it (what's "it"?). But, of course they're just "Conservative" Uncle Tom's

... but for many its a reason .... and for the otherside the same response..... there is no blance.. in the far right or the far lefts response to this issue the middle is drowned out
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Perhap's because the "middle" doesn't say that race has something to do with "it"? Or maybe the middle thinks its the middle when it isn't. Wouldn't "mainstream" be the middle? Is the mainstream press drowned out? Who is claiming to be the middle? Do Pelosi or Schumer claim to be extremists? Are they being drowned out? Do Ilhan Omar or Ocasio-Cortez, or Rashida Tlaib claim to be extremists? I thought they claim to represent the great working class regular people. Are they drowned out? Does Bernie Sanders claim to be an extremist? He claims to represent what most of the people want and need. Isn't most of the people the middle? Is he drowned out?

Are you the middle?

Anyone here pondering why the conservative SCOTUS ruled against the question if it's so freaking obvious?

Anyone here pondering why the conservative SCOTUS ruled against the question if it's so freaking obvious?

There's nothing to ponder. It was a stupid decision. Worse, it further threatens our supposed separation of powers. The question should be does the executive branch have the power to place a question on the census, and is the question somehow unconstitutional.

The Chief Justice, who ruled against the citizenship question, said that it was not substantively invalid--that is, it was not unconstitutional. But he ruled on some notion of reasonableness or conflicting motivation. When Judges take on the power of deciding whether a law is "reasonable," or is invalid because stated reasons which in themselves are not unconstitutional seem to conflict, rather than if the law is constitutional, they're assuming legislative power instead of the judicial power to determine constitutionality.

I agree with Justice Thomas in his dissent "For the first time ever, the court invalidates an agency action solely because it questions the sincerity of the agency's otherwise adequate rationale."
"This conclusion is extraordinary," he wrote. "The court engages in an unauthorized inquiry into evidence not properly before us to reach an unsupported conclusion."

The idiocy of the ruling is represented by Breyer's usual spacey, irrelevancy--"In short, the secretary's decision to add a citizenship question created a severe risk of harmful consequences, yet he did not adequately consider whether the question was necessary or whether it was an appropriate means of achieving his stated goal," Again, where is the issue of constitutionality in Breyer's opinion? He rules strictly on his personal opinion about an unsupported, conjectured, and irrelevent supposed severe risk or if, in his opinion, the question was necessary or appropriate?

Anyone here pondering why the conservative SCOTUS ruled against the question if it's so freaking obvious?


There's nothing to ponder. It was a stupid decision


schooled again by The Great Gazoo

Anyone here pondering why the conservative SCOTUS ruled against the question if it's so freaking obvious?

it's not like it was unanimous

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/27/us/politics/census-citizenship-question-supreme-court.html

Supreme Court Leaves Census Question on Citizenship in Doubt

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. filed his own partial dissent.

“To put the point bluntly,” he wrote, “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.”

it's not like it was unanimous

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/27/us/politics/census-citizenship-question-supreme-court.html

Supreme Court Leaves Census Question on Citizenship in Doubt

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. filed his own partial dissent.

“To put the point bluntly,” he wrote, “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.”
This is a silly remark from an otherwise very smart person. The Administration has the legal obligation to ensure requests like this are justified. They were caught lying about it. This isn't rocket science.

What's better is that in sending the case back down Roberts opened it up to consider the issue that not only did the Admin lie about the justification, but that the entire motive was for political manipulation of a non-political process. Of this the evidence is clear.

It's DOA.

Oh good, Jeff’s predictions are ALWAYS so fun to follow. Should we go back and review some?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There's nothing to ponder. It was a stupid decision


schooled again by The Great Gazoo

So you've been reduced to a cartoon. And, ironically, the Great Gazoo seems to be a lot smarter than you. I mean, you were adamant about giving the impression that adding the census question is somehow a rejection of how the census has been done for 241 years, even though citizenship questions were part of the census almost from the beginning, certainly in periods from 1820 to 1950 and pretty standard from 1890 to 1950, and on the long form from 1970 to 2000.

So, for you adding the citizenship Q would be a deviation that somehow destroys what the census has been until now. Yup, you're a genius of the historical context that you mentioned.

Maybe you can think of a really smart cartoon character for yourself.

This is a silly remark from an otherwise very smart person. The Administration has the legal obligation to ensure requests like this are justified. They were caught lying about it. This isn't rocket science.

What's better is that in sending the case back down Roberts opened it up to consider the issue that not only did the Admin lie about the justification, but that the entire motive was for political manipulation of a non-political process. Of this the evidence is clear.

It's DOA.

There is no legal reason that Trump cannot add the citizenship Q to the census. It is constitutional. Even this Court says so. And it has been done in many past census forms. Even the UN recommends it--much as I don't care for the UN.

The Chief Justice's objection is mainly about a possible discrepancy of motive. Which is not a question of constitutionality.

And the process IS political, contrary to what you say. To that end, the leftists' objection is mostly about the possible loss of funds and the number of congressional Representatives some states could lose if some illegals chose not to take the census. So it is very political. And why should a greater amount of federal funds be allotted because of illegals residing in states that refuse to help deport them? And why should a greater number of Representatives be allotted because of aliens--who are not here legally and are denied the right to vote for those Representatives? And even that "problem" can be avoided by the aliens honestly filling out a census with the citizenship Q. The idea that a demographic question should not be added to the census because some people might be afraid that the truth could hurt them is a politically biased protection of those who are doing legal, civil, wrong.

There seems to be an attempt, on the one hand, to hide and protect illegals and their status as such, but on the other hand, have them officially recognized as being here. Now that contains a very evident discrepancy of motive.

The arguments in dissent by Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh should be read for a fuller picture of what the Court did:

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/06/27/supreme-court-votes-5-4-block-citizenship-question-2020-census/

So you've been reduced to a cartoon. And, ironically, the Great Gazoo seems to be a lot smarter than you. I mean, you were adamant about giving the impression that adding the census question is somehow a rejection of how the census has been done for 241 years, even though citizenship questions were part of the census almost from the beginning, certainly in periods from 1820 to 1950 and pretty standard from 1890 to 1950, and on the long form from 1970 to 2000.

So, for you adding the citizenship Q would be a deviation that somehow destroys what the census has been until now. Yup, you're a genius of the historical context that you mentioned.

Maybe you can think of a really smart cartoon character for yourself.

as spence said
"They were caught lying about it. This isn't rocket science." and you dont care .... but you'll try to cover that fact up... Like anything do it in the open and legitimately... your good ..

yet you admit "it is very political." but it bad because the ball didn't bounce to your side.. where is the empirical evidence that any amount of illegal immigration has determined funding or representation I can say it hasn't but statistically very doubtful

2018 10.5 million unauthorized immigrants lived in the United States, down from a peak of 12.2 million in 2007 in a country of 329,129,348

now if all 10 million were in 1 state and all filled out the census then maybe that argument would hold water

And your historical examples were they on the census based on a Lie
very doubtful .....

Like the detention centers if indefinite detention is the Trump's administration policy .... I am good with that but His Administration must own everything that comes with that choice ... medical treatment food hygiene housing and other basic human needs ...

but Trump nor his administration or his supporters wish to own that side of the coin... and that's the issue I have ... but please feel free like most here to dumb it down to TDS or simple Hate...

as spence said
"They were caught lying about it. This isn't rocket science." and you dont care .... but you'll try to cover that fact up... Like anything do it in the open and legitimately... your good ..

Justice Roberts did not characterize it as a lie. The motivation appeared to be mixed. But none of the mix was illegitimate. Justice Thomas recognized that in his dissent. Now were going to have investigations about motivation. That can go nowhere in a definite, provable manner, but it can drag out enough to defeat the inclusion. Which is the purpose. The motivation for defeating the inclusion is AS STATED--to secure federal funding (based on number of illegals), and to secure more Representatives (based on number of illegals).

yet you admit "it is very political." but it bad because the ball didn't bounce to your side.. where is the empirical evidence that any amount of illegal immigration has determined funding or representation I can say it hasn't but statistically very doubtful

Those opposing the inclusion have specifically stated that some would be afraid to answer the question for fear of deportation and that would affect the number of Representatives allotted to a state. So the opposers don't believe you.

And your historical examples were they on the census based on a Lie
very doubtful .....

So you don't know . . . and you don't care. The reasons given for including the Q are legitimate.

Like the detention centers if indefinite detention is the Trump's administration policy .... I am good with that but His Administration must own everything that comes with that choice ... medical treatment food hygiene housing and other basic human needs ...

but Trump nor his administration or his supporters wish to own that side of the coin... and that's the issue I have ... but please feel free like most here to dumb it down to TDS or simple Hate...

Your detention center bit is spin, not on topic, another argument that should be argued in another thread.

What is your motivation for opposing the citizenship Q?

“Number one, you need it for Congress, you need it for Congress, for districting,” Trump said last week. “You need it for appropriations — where are the funds going? How many people are there? Are they citizens or are they not citizens?”

Districting and appropriations decisions are in fact based on the census's raw population numbers, not on any citizen count.

If you really want a population count, do it in the way that enables the most accurate number.
Then if the big concern is how many people reside in the US without being citizens you can easily subtract the number of people with Social Security numbers (all citizens and permitted workers) from the census.

The question is purely a political power play.

Districting and appropriations decisions are in fact based on the census's raw population numbers, not on any citizen count.

If you really want a population count, do it in the way that enables the most accurate number.
Then if the big concern is how many people reside in the US without being citizens you can easily subtract the number of people with Social Security numbers (all citizens and permitted workers) from the census.

The question is purely a political power play.

Constitutionally, both in Article 1 and the 14th Amendment, the number of Representatives allotted to each state depends either directly on citizenship or on those who have the right to vote (or will have it when they come of age) which is basically the same thing so indirectly on citizenship.

It makes sense that the number of Representatives should be based on those who vote for Representatives. I see no rationale to allotting Representatives on the basis of the number of non-citizens or those who have no right to vote.

Subtracting the number of those in the U.S. who don't have SS numbers would have to be done by state rather than in all the U.S. to be used for Representation purpose. That could be done for apportionment, but would probably be opposed by those who oppose now because they want the number of non-citizens including illegals to influence the number of Representatives since the illegals predominantly live in states that usually vote Democrat. And besides, most illegals don't have SS numbers but would be counted in the census so your plan of counting SS holders would not account for them but would nevertheless influence the number of Representatives.

Here’s the cases that refute your false argument
Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964)
Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964)
Evenwel v. Abbott, 136 S. Ct. 1120 (2016)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The first rule of litigation is Don’t piss off the Judge.
Judge Furman isn't letting DOJ lawyers out of the Census case without each lawyer filing a signed and sworn affidavit giving good reasons for withdrawing and promising to remain available to the court.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Here’s the cases that refute your false argument
Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964)
Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964)
Evenwel v. Abbott, 136 S. Ct. 1120 (2016)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

They do not refute my argument.

Reynolds v. Sims was specifically about "citizen"representation.

Westberrys v. Sanders was specifically about the dilution of the right to vote.

So the above to cases seem to support my argument.

Re Evenwel v. Abbott, the Harvard Law Review writes:

The Supreme Court long held the drawing of legislative districts within the discretionary purview of the states.

In a series of cases in the early 1960s, however, the Court began to recognize malapportionment claims under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Establishing the principle of “one person, one vote, the Court stated that “the Constitution visualizes no preferred class of voters but equality among those who meet the basic qualifications.” But in these cases, the Court “carefully left open the question what population” states must equalize to achieve that ideal.

Last Term, in Evenwel v. Abbott, a unanimous Court again declined to provide an answer, stating only that “a State may draw its legislative districts based on total population,” without reaching the question whether it must. Given this ambiguity, if a state moves to equalize both total population and voter population, then the Court will likely have to weigh nondilution of votes against other values, such as geographic regularity and continuity of communities of interest. Further, if the residential demography of noncitizen immigrants renders such a compromise unworkable, then states may increasingly face a choice between the two measures of equality — and the Court’s precedents indicate important reasons for deference to states as they assess the relevant political tradeoffs.

It ends with: If forced to address the question that Evenwel — and, as some argue, the Constitution— left open, the Court should heed that warning by deferring to states, rather than selecting a political theory to foist upon them.

This view supports the precedent that states can decide how to define their methods of apportionment. For full article see: https://harvardlawreview.org/2016/11/evenwel-v-abbott/

Your detention center bit is spin, not on topic, another argument that should be argued in another thread.

What is your motivation for opposing the citizenship Q?



It was suggested on false pretense or in everyone else's world except Trump and his supporters is called a lie , untruth , misleading ect ect

It was suggested on false pretense

like Obamacare

It was suggested on false pretense or in everyone else's world except Trump and his supporters is called a lie , untruth , misleading ect ect

The Court did not refer to the Secretary's reasoning as a lie. Nor did it say that the possible discrepancy between the stated VRA reasoning and any other pretext that was "suggested" by the Secretary's desires before the stated reason for the citizenship Q was a lie, nor that any of the possible other pretexts were lies. What Roberts said is "What was provided here was more of a distraction."

And Justice Thomas, in his dissent, totally eviscerated Roberts' opinion. What the Secretary claimed was the reason for re-instating the citizenship Q was not considered to be a lie, nor to be untrue. It was remanded to the lower Court in order to determine that--which, of course, short of an admission, cannot be proved.

It's not what Trump supporters are characterizing the Secretary's motivation to be that is unfounded, it is you TDS folks that must immediately, presumptuously, make anything that Trump says out to be a lie. You folks are not about reasonable, rational discussion, rather you prefer to simply make extreme accusations--racism, sexism, xenophobia, homophobia, lying, treason . . . and leave it at that, leave it as being the truth merely by saying so.

The Court did not refer to the Secretary's reasoning as a lie. .

yeah but it's so much easier for them to scream at the padded wall...LIE!!...regarding pretty much everything

They do not refute my argument.

Reynolds v. Sims was specifically about "citizen"representation.

Westberrys v. Sanders was specifically about the dilution of the right to vote.

So the above to cases seem to support my argument.

Re Evenwel v. Abbott, the Harvard Law Review writes:

The Supreme Court long held the drawing of legislative districts within the discretionary purview of the states.

In a series of cases in the early 1960s, however, the Court began to recognize malapportionment claims under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Establishing the principle of “one person, one vote, the Court stated that “the Constitution visualizes no preferred class of voters but equality among those who meet the basic qualifications.” But in these cases, the Court “carefully left open the question what population” states must equalize to achieve that ideal.

Last Term, in Evenwel v. Abbott, a unanimous Court again declined to provide an answer, stating only that “a State may draw its legislative districts based on total population,” without reaching the question whether it must. Given this ambiguity, if a state moves to equalize both total population and voter population, then the Court will likely have to weigh nondilution of votes against other values, such as geographic regularity and continuity of communities of interest. Further, if the residential demography of noncitizen immigrants renders such a compromise unworkable, then states may increasingly face a choice between the two measures of equality — and the Court’s precedents indicate important reasons for deference to states as they assess the relevant political tradeoffs.

It ends with: If forced to address the question that Evenwel — and, as some argue, the Constitution— left open, the Court should heed that warning by deferring to states, rather than selecting a political theory to foist upon them.

This view supports the precedent that states can decide how to define their methods of apportionment. For full article see: https://harvardlawreview.org/2016/11/evenwel-v-abbott/
The federal census counts all household residents in the USA, not citizens.
Your confusing states responsibilities with what the census is charged with doing.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What the Judge did say: "A change in counsel does not create a clean slate for a party to proceed as if prior representations made to the Court were not in fact made."
Will the new lawyers claim that the prior ones misrepresented the facts to the Court? Or will they present alternative facts? Or Giuliani’s truth isn’t truth?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The federal census counts all household residents in the USA, not citizens.

And the federal census has always had demographic questions, not just a raw count as you stated in a previous post. And most past forms had citizenship questions.

Your confusing states responsibilities with what the census is charged with doing.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I responded to your list of 3 cases which dealt with state responsibilities. Are you confused?

What the Judge did say: "A change in counsel does not create a clean slate for a party to proceed as if prior representations made to the Court were not in fact made."
Will the new lawyers claim that the prior ones misrepresented the facts to the Court? Or will they present alternative facts? Or Giuliani’s truth isn’t truth?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I've only been able to comment on what was said. Not what might be said. You seem to have a different Nostradamus-like approach, except you conjecture rather than predict, but your usual sarcastic tone (sort of Trump-like) has the air of affirmation in the form of pointed questions. Is your success rate as high as Nostradamus's is reputed to be?

Time will tell
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

like Obamacare

Oh please not the you can keep your doctor thing again. For the record i kept mine...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The Court did not refer to the Secretary's reasoning as a lie. Nor did it say that the possible discrepancy between the stated VRA reasoning and any other pretext that was "suggested" by the Secretary's desires before the stated reason for the citizenship Q was a lie, nor that any of the possible other pretexts were lies. What Roberts said is "What was provided here was more of a distraction."

And Justice Thomas, in his dissent, totally eviscerated Roberts' opinion. What the Secretary claimed was the reason for re-instating the citizenship Q was not considered to be a lie, nor to be untrue. It was remanded to the lower Court in order to determine that--which, of course, short of an admission, cannot be proved.

It's not what Trump supporters are characterizing the Secretary's motivation to be that is unfounded, it is you TDS folks that must immediately, presumptuously, make anything that Trump says out to be a lie. You folks are not about reasonable, rational discussion, rather you prefer to simply make extreme accusations--racism, sexism, xenophobia, homophobia, lying, treason . . . and leave it at that, leave it as being the truth merely by saying so.

Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross had not given an honest explanation for his decision to make a major change in the census... as i said in trump world thats not a lie.. that business as unusual
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross had not given an honest explanation for his decision to make a major change in the census... as i said in trump world thats not a lie.. that business as unusual
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You're putting words in Roberts mouth. That is not honest. He did not say that Ross had not given an honest explanation. He said “seems to have been contrived”. That is a conjecture not a declaration. What he did declare was "What was provided here was more of a distraction."

What he meant by "contrived" and "distraction" is unclear. Nor is the word "seems" a proper one to make a decision in law. Justice Thomas clarified the issue in his dissent: "For the first time ever, the court invalidates an agency action solely because it questions the sincerity of the agency's otherwise adequate rationale."
"This conclusion is extraordinary," he wrote. "The court engages in an unauthorized inquiry into evidence not properly before us to reach an unsupported conclusion."

Thomas makes a clear declaration, Roberts wiggles and squirms into conjecture. And you come to the conclusion that Ross lied. Of course you would. There is no other possibility for you.

Why some feel the need to grant Agencies or Trump powers that are not constitutional and that the same people screamed bloody murder about when attempted by Obama is comical at best.

Under the federal Administrative Procedure Act, responsible officials must, at the time a decision is made, offer a nonarbitrary, non-capricious explanation for choosing their strategy for carrying out their statutory authority. This requires at least that the proposed administrative action be a rational way of carrying out the mission Congress has assigned the executive, and that the rationale be clearly explained at the time of an agency decision. In the case of the citizenship question, the Department of Commerce failed to take this step, which is why a 2020 citizenship question is now on hold.

The executive branch now has an obvious logic problem: It must generate a non-pretextual agency explanation to justify an action to which it already committed itself without any such explanation. The Justice Department’s public flailing-about for a new rationale looks like the very definition of “arbitrary and capricious.” But whether or not such a rationale can now be found and belatedly attached to the census question, a presidential order cannot make the job easier.

For one thing, a presidential order cannot expand the secretary’s zone of legal discretion to determine the contents of the census. Just as important, an executive order cannot relieve the commerce secretary of his obligation to proceed based on a nonarbitrary rationale rooted in his statutory mission. “The president wants me to ask this question” would not be an adequate reason. Nothing in the statute empowers presidential whim.

In 1838 the Supreme Court decided:
When Congress “impose[s] upon any executive officer any duty [Congress] may think proper which is not repugnant to any rights secured and protected by the Constitution … in such cases, the duty and responsibility grow out of and are subject to the control of the law, and not to the direction of the President.”

The spectacle of the executive order fits the president’s yearning to appear the ever-muscular leader overleaping bureaucratic niceties on the way to policy triumphs. But law can trump myth. The secretary of commerce can satisfy the “arbitrary and capricious” test only with non-pretextual reasoning to support a citizenship question as a rational strategy for making the census useful. Any order purporting to relieve him of that obligation will simply expose the president’s weakness.

We lost but we won, in fact we've won bigger than before. Why didn't we just do this in the first place? Because they're taking your jobs.

Under the federal Administrative Procedure Act, responsible officials must, at the time a decision is made, offer a nonarbitrary, non-capricious explanation for choosing their strategy for carrying out their statutory authority. This requires at least that the proposed administrative action be a rational way of carrying out the mission Congress has assigned the executive, and that the rationale be clearly explained at the time of an agency decision. In the case of the citizenship question, the Department of Commerce failed to take this step, which is why a 2020 citizenship question is now on hold.



This is not true. Secretary Ross did take the step. From a March 27, 2018 Reuters article: A question about citizenship status will be included on the 2020 Census to help enforce the Voting Rights Act, federal officials said on Monday . . . Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross decided to add the question to the count after a Department of Justice request based on the desire for better enforcement of the voting law, the U.S. Department of Commerce said in a statement.
"Secretary Ross determined that obtaining complete and accurate information to meet this legitimate government purpose outweighed the limited potential adverse impacts," it said.

Regardless of what Ross may have said, or implied before, that does not make his stated rationale arbitrary or capricious. See Justice Thomas dissent.

See Justice Thomas dissent.


The minority opinion loses
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm proud to be a citizen. You're proud to be a citizen. The only people who are not proud to be citizens are the ones who are fighting us all the way about the word citizen," he said. What inspirational words from the Dear leader
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The minority opinion loses
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The dissent makes valid points. They are put on the record. And they can be used in future arguments, as they have been.

Ross gave an explanation. It was not an unconstitutional reason. It was a valid reason. Roberts admitted as much. But he claimed that it seemed to conflict with previous things Ross had said or did. Why should it have to comport with what he said or implied previously?

I'm proud to be a citizen. You're proud to be a citizen. The only people who are not proud to be citizens are the ones who are fighting us all the way about the word citizen," he said. What inspirational words from the Dear leader
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So you're not inspired. Thanks for telling us. Good to know.

Why should it have to comport with what he said or implied previously?

Because if you don't follow the rule of law, you lose.

Like when you misrepresent the facts to the Court, or present alternative facts. Or use Giuliani’s truth isn’t truth argument. Or your "client" admits that your premise was false.

Because if you don't follow the rule of law, you lose.

Like when you misrepresent the facts to the Court, or present alternative facts. Or use Giuliani’s truth isn’t truth argument. Or your "client" admits that your premise was false.

He stated a legitimate reason for including a valid, constitutional, question. Whether he had not stated this reason previously or not, or whether the DOJ request was later and more important may all "seem" inconsistent is not relevant. What was relevant is the validity and constitutionality of his reason. Roberts did not say the reason was not valid or unconstitutional. Quite the contrary.

He lost.

Roberts did not say the reason was not valid or unconstitutional. Quite the contrary.
"The evidence tells a story that does not match the explanation (Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross) gave for his decision," Roberts wrote. "The sole stated reason seems to have been contrived."

If the evidence tells a story that does not match the explanation then the reason is invalid. Full stop.

He lost.

In terms of the Court, the decision was not final. It was remanded back to the lower court for further investigation. Of course, that was one of the tactics for opposing the inclusion in court, to prolong the matter till it was too late to insert the Q.

In my opinion, and that of the minority, it was a terrible decision in terms of further disturbing the balance of power in the branches of government. As well, it was stupid in terms of past practices in both the making of a census and being contrary to the traditional Court practice of giving deference to agency decisions and reasons.

But that latter might be a silver lining--if it could help to soften the power of the federal administrative agencies. And especially if it could in some little way help to the achieve the dissolution of most of those agencies.

"The evidence tells a story that does not match the explanation (Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross) gave for his decision," Roberts wrote. "The sole stated reason seems to have been contrived."

If the evidence tells a story that does not match the explanation then the reason is invalid. Full stop.

"Seems" is not valid substantive legal evidence. I suppose that is why it was remanded to the lower court for further investigation.

Although from some of your past posts, for you, "seems" seems to be synonymous with "conclusive" or with "fact."

Has anyone noticed that the Court's decision and reasoning was not based on the Constitution? It was based on administrative law.

Does anyone see the danger of the Supreme Court deciding on administrative law rather than on the Constitution? Does anyone see the much wider scope the Court has when it does so? Does anyone see some, not negligible, erosion of the Constitution itself?

Administrative agencies, as they are designed, are unconstitutional to begin with. When Roosevelt created some new ones, that had wider scope than the old ones, even he saw the danger of agencies with executive, legislative, and judicial power all wrapped up into one. So he began the process that led to the Administrative Procedure Act. But he didn't foresee the growth of agencies from the few he created to the hundreds that now exist. There is no way that the Supreme Court could function if it had to deal with the legality of the thousands of pages of regulations that these agencies produce every year. Therefor, much deference is given to agency decision. And, therefor, much injustice has been done to thousands of Americans by agency decisions that have been allowed. It's a double whammy--unconstitutional agencies plus the plenary power of each agency.

What is particularly noxious in this current decision, beyond ruling on the administrative decision of an unconstitutional agency, is that the regulation in question was not harmful to the citizens of this country. It was a regulation that actually conforms to Constitutional purposes for the census. But the Court thought it "seemed" to violate administrative law.

So a vague administrative law (capricious and reasonable) of an unconstitutional agency, is enforced to deny what is a perfectly legitimate constitutional mandate because it had possibly, (not substantively proven) been trespassed.

I understand the partisan thinking on both sides. The Dems are all happy because it stops something Trump wants. The Repubs are dismayed because their guy "loses."

But does anyone see the continual, creeping, loss of the power of the Constitution? The creeping gain in either the growth of administrative power, or the Court's ability to decide on that administrative power rather than on the Constitution.

The Constitution is the guardian of our individual rights against government abridging them. Administrative agencies are about the governmental taking of power from individuals and transferring it to government. Administrative law is a replacement of Constitutional law.

Has anyone noticed that the Court's decision and reasoning was not based on the Constitution? It was based on administrative law.



I think that was the point that the dissenters, "minority", was making...but they don't count...they lost....the Constitution lost :kewl: don't expect the left to care

This is a silly remark from an otherwise very smart person.

.

it was a pointed dissenting comment by a very serious individual...

I think that was the point that the dissenters, "minority", was making...but they don't count...they lost....the Constitution lost :kewl: don't expect the left to care
“Nobody ever talks about Article 2. It gives me all these rights that nobody’s ever seen before. So no obstruction, no collusion. Just look at Article 2.” — Donald J. Trump, 45th president of the United States.
I find this scary, you think he’s funny, just joking or some other comment normalizing Trump and worry about anything that hinders him.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device[/size]

he's pretty amusing...you are just several.. or more steps... behind his wit...

you'd think he'd be impeached by now given all we know...I mean...all we were told...by the dummies in the press and opposition party and spencepredictions....and the endless meaningless wordage you provide:smash: keep it up..I'm sure you'll trip him up eventually

This is another part of Article 2
Article 2, Section 4:
The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

need more of this in America

AURORA, Colo. (CBS4)– Hundreds of protesters gathered in Aurora on Friday evening to march to the ICE detention facility where illegal and undocumented immigrants are being housed. They also removed the U.S. flag, replaced it with a Mexican flag, and spray painted graffiti on a Blue Lives Matter flag before it was seen flying upside down on the flag pole.