Someone forgot to tell Trump
 

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

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

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...

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.

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:

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

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?

Are you trying to rile up the base?

He has a new code red.🤡
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

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...de-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.

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

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

This remaining part of your post is simple scatterbrain fallout.

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

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

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?

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?

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


schooled again by The Great Gazoo

it's not like it was unanimous

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/27/u...eme-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

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.

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/2...n-2020-census/