Someone forgot to tell Trump

[Pete F.]

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

[Sea Dangles]

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

[Pete F.]

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

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?

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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

[scottw]

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

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by scottw

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

[Liv2Fish]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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!

[scottw]

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

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.

[Pete F.]

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

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.

[spence]

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?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

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?

[Sea Dangles]

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

[Sea Dangles]

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

[Rmarsh]

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...

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.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Rmarsh

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...

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

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by wdmso

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

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

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

[Sea Dangles]

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

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

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

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by Nebe

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

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?

[spence]

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

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?

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by spence

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

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.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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...