NO CITIZENSHIP Question on 2020 Census form.

The Dirty Donald administration has abandoned it's quest to get a citizenship question added to the 2020 U.S.Census forms.

 

WINNING!

So....where are the trumpettes that said there WOULD be a citizen question.....?

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5d1bbeaae4b07f6ca5857afe

 

Could you be more wrong?

5 justices ruled that the Trump has every right to include the question just as it has been included for most of our history, Roberts agreed with the caveat that he needed more information on why, easy enough, the Trump Administration will provide him with the information he seeks before they print up the forms.

Trump: We’re ‘absolutely moving forward’ on adding a citizenship question to the Census

 

Tallying the number of citizens in a census. What a wild and crazy idea! Who would have thunk it????

 

Especially when the amount of Congresscritters are determined by it....

 

Wild, crazy and, most importantly, useless. It would negate the purpose of the census.

 

I cannot see how this would negate the purpose of the census. Does asking gender negate the purpose? How about asking address? Race? Actually not asking questions about the individual makes it less helpful at least up to a point.

 

Less helpful for what?

And how would it make it more helpful? The purpose of the census is to enumerate people in each region for the purposes of taxation and representation. What difference does their nationality make?

It makes sense to ask sex, address and, if they identify with an "ethnic group" ("race" is nonsense, and the wording is likely to change soon), so voters can understand if they are being properly represented. There is no way to represent individual nationalities, though.

And we know immigrants are sometimes under-counted because they are suspicious of the census, and this question would make them even more suspicious, skewing the numbers further. Thereby negating the purpose of the census as described in the Constitution. So if it serves no purpose, it should not be asked.

The purpose of all of this is, of course, to trample the Constitution for political purposes. Because if it's not the 2nd A, or something that just happens to be "convenient" for them at the moment, Trump supporters couldn't care less about the Constitution. But it is still the law of the land. So counting people accurately is still the purpose of the census.

 

Administration currently working overtime to try to manufacture a better lie for justification of the citizenship question on the census form.

 

Does the Constitution give the power of the census to the President? The House? The Congress? I am not sure that the President can change the census through executive order by himself, but I am not a lawyer. Read Article I Section 2 of the Constitution. It sounds like the responsibility for the census lies with the House of Representatives.

 

Dirty Donalds administration thinks our laws are things to be ignored.And that would include his hand picked Attorney General.

 

Representation is based on only one nationality -- the United States. If one is a citizen of the US, no matter what their heritage might be, they count for representation. If one is not a citizen they DO NOT COUNT. The Constitution assumed only citizens -- which included slaves until Chief Justice Taney decided they weren't citizens -- and gave it no thought as to be second nature. No immigrants of any status have been counted in the census until recently. If non-citizens are counted then I, a citizen, is under represented.

Idiotic. The Democrats are the only ones quite openly trampling the Constitution by actively undoing a presidential election that they do not agree with, by working to get rid of the electoral college, by wanting to water down the 1st amendment, make the central government even more powerful and controlling (some Republicans join in this effort), and completely undo the 2nd amendment.

 

Asking if one were a legal citizen would have nothing to do with the total count, it only defines who is legal and who is not.
I cannot imagine why anyone would be upset if the question is on the form.
Oh ya, I forgot President Trump wants it so it' s orange man bad. I am wondering when Trump will come out in favor of leaving it off and all the malcontents will immediately demand it be re-inserted.

 

As the chief executive the President has the responsibility and authority to conduct the census. Congress can pass legislation that can set rules for conducting the census, but probably not to include non-citizens, at least for determining representation, though there could be other reasons to count non-citizens. I can't see what Article I, Section 2 has anything to do with it.

 

Who cares if the question is asked or not -- people lie -- especially those here illegally, including the terrorists.

 

I’m trying to figure out if progressives are more scared of losing funding and representation by illegals not filling out forms or the true numbers of illegals being known if they do answer truthfully. What a position to be in.

 

Representation is not based on any nationality. It's based on who pays taxes. No taxation without representation.

Nonsense!

The Constitution assumes no such thing. It explicitly states that the rights are "for the people of the United States of America". And it indicates which rights are exclusive to citizens. And there are few. The right to elect and be elected,and the right to hold most federal jobs

What nonsense! Democrats who have advocated those things have sought to do them legally. Not by ignoring the Constitution. While Republicans, as I have shown, have actively sought to circumvent the Constitution. Even this Republican Supreme Court was unable to justify the flagrant lie the Trump administration tried to use to trample the Census requirement in the Constitution.

 

Could you be more wrong.

No, the Court said it was "contrived." Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote, "Accepting contrived reasons would defeat the purpose of the enterprise." That is a scalding rebuke of the Trump administration. "Contrived" is judicial code for lying.

Trump shot himself in the foot.

Holding his usual news conference on south lawn of the White House with the usual background noise from the usual Marine One forcing everyone to shout, Trump said you need the census citizenship question “for many reasons.”

“Number one, you need it for Congress — you need it for Congress for districting,” Big Mouth said Friday. “You need it for appropriations — where are the funds going? How many people are there? Are they citizens? Are they not citizens? You need it for many reasons.”

Take note of that first one. The redistricting rationale was not used by government's case for good reason. Redistricting was the main reason the Supreme Court shot down the government's case. The plaintiffs in the case argued that this is a thinly veiled attempt by Republicans to gain a potential game-changing tool in redistricting.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote, "Accepting contrived reasons would defeat the purpose of the enterprise." "Contrived" is judicial code for lying. The true purpose was redistricting for GOP benefit, and the Trump administration lied in its brief.

Mouth admitted it at his news conference. How stupid can you get.

 

Asking if the person is a citizen of the United States would not define who is legal and who is not.

 

We have to be patient with Trump's supporters. They have severe handicap -- Trump.

 

How is it exactly you overthrow a duly elected president legally???

The rest of your post shows a marked ignorance of constitutional law and citizenship.

 

So why the opposion?

 

THE ONLY REASON Dirty Donald and the right wing WANT THE CITIZENSHIP question is they want an UNDERCOUNT in the census as they feel it will benefit them in redistricting maps of congressional districts.

 

Do you understand when you fellas talk about obeying the constitution and following the law , most folks laugh loudly? For sure those are not things lefty cares about.

 

I only know of two ways: Impeachment and the 25th Amendment.

Coming from somebody who has to ask how you remove a president legally, I guess that puts me one notch above you. Which, in this discussion, is all I need.