Supreme Court tosses citizenship question from 2020 census forms, a victory for Democratic sta

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States whichmay be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall bedetermined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound toService for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all otherPersons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meetingof the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, insuch Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall notexceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least oneRepresentative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshireshall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and ProvidencePlantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight,Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, andGeorgia three
Click to expand...

"Free Persons" - anyone see one of those in a while?

Looks like we're all 3/5ths.
 
Fed paper 58

There is a peculiarity in the federal Constitution which insures a watchful attention in a majority both of the people and of their representatives to a constitutional augmentation of the latter. The peculiarity lies in this, that one branch of the legislature is a representation of citizens
 
You have to prove you’re a citizen(or legal)to buy a firearm, but not for the purpose of apportionment of house reps
 
Pauls' Revere said:
I guess this means you can forget the notion of requiring I.D. to vote.
Click to expand...
It doesn't affect that, SCOTUS didn't say the question was not allowed, it quibbled about the reasons given for putting it back.
It will probably be on the 2020 census when all is said and done.
 
aGameOfThrones said:
You have to prove you’re a citizen(or legal)to buy a firearm, but not for the purpose of apportionment of house reps
Click to expand...

The Constitutions says count people- free and unfree- (except Native Americans- the law was changed on that too), not just citizens.
 
Zippyjuan said:
The Constitutions says count people- free and unfree- (except Native Americans- the law was changed on that too), not just citizens.
Click to expand...
But it never said invaders counted, invaders are not "their respective numbers".
 
Swordsmyth said:
But it never said invaders counted, invaders are not "their respective numbers".
Click to expand...

I’ve never been counted for the purpose of apportionment with regards to congressional House of Representatives... and I’m a citizen. I wouldn’t even want legal immigrants counted for that purpose, I’m not against them being counted as a Puerto Rican is counted who lives in PR, but not for congressional house seats.

Citizenship should mean something and have some value to it... I think.
 
Last edited:
aGameOfThrones said:
I’ve never been counted for the purpose of apportionment with regards to congressional House of Representatives... and I’m a citizen. I wouldn’t even want legal immigrants counted for that purpose, I’m not against them being counted as a Puerto Rican is counted who lives in PR, but not for congressional house seats.

Citizenship should mean something and have some value to it... I think.
Click to expand...
I agree but there is room for legitimate debate on Constitutional intent and historical precedent for legal immigrants, there is no excuse for illegals, its the same situation with birthright citizenship.
 
Swordsmyth said:
I agree but there is room for legitimate debate on Constitutional intent and historical precedent for legal immigrants, there is no excuse for illegals, its the same situation with birthright citizenship.
Click to expand...




I’m just amazed that people think the founders thought of counting illegal aliens for the purpose of apportionment of House Representatives. If only citizens are the only ones who should be voting—then only citizens should be the only ones counted for the purpose of apportionment of house seats.

And before someone complains, I know some citizens were excluded from voting at the start of this country.

The only difference discoverable between the two cases is, that each representative of the United States will be elected by five or six thousand citizens. Fed paper 57
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
aGameOfThrones said:
I’m just amazed that people think the founders thought of counting illegal aliens for the purpose of apportionment of House Representatives. If only citizens are the only ones who should be voting—then only citizens should be the only ones counted for the purpose of apportionment of house seats
Click to expand...
The founders had relatively open borders and so they didn't have to deal with illegals (the reasons for that and the question of whether it was a good idea are a different subject) but they gave the government power to enact immigration controls and those who violate the controls we have are no different legally than an invading barbarian horde and the law is clear that invaders would not be counted nor would their children be granted citizenship.
 
Printing process has begun. No "citizenship" question. No delay in the census as Trump threatened (another threat backed down from).

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/02/cen...itizenship-question-trump-administration.html

Trump administration says it will print census without citizenship question

The Trump administration on Tuesday said it will print the 2020 census without a question about citizenship, bringing to an apparent close a contentious legal battle over that aspect of the decennial survey.

The announcement comes after the Supreme Court effectively blocked the addition of the question on Thursday. Chief Justice John Roberts, who authored the opinion of the court, wrote that the administration’s explanation for adding the question — that it would bolster efforts to enforce the Voting Rights Act — appeared “contrived.”

But after that decision was announced, it was not clear whether government lawyers would seek to present another rationale for the question. Any attempt to do so faced a tight deadline. The Census Bureau said it had to begin printing by July 1 or additional resources would be required.

“The Supreme Court’s ruling left little opportunity for the administration to cure the defects with its decision to add a citizenship question and, most importantly, they were simply out of time given the impending deadline for printing forms,” Kristen Clarke, the executive director of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, which successfully challenged the question in federal court in California, said in a statement.

Critics of the question argued that including it would reduce the accuracy of the census and undercount minority populations, including immigrants. Census data is used to allocate billions of dollars in federal funding and allocate representation in Congress. A citizenship question has not been posed to all U.S. households in decades.

“We can confirm that the decision has been made to print the 2020 Decennial Census questionnaire without a citizenship question, and that the printer has been instructed to begin the printing process,” Kate Bailey, an attorney with the Department of Justice, wrote in an email that was sent to challengers of the citizenship question Tuesday and provided to CNBC.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Occam's Banana
Some Democrats are calling for Sotomayor to retire from SCOTUS
Replies
5
Views
690
susano
susano
ATruepatriot
Supreme Court hears arguments on 2020 census citizenship question
Replies
9
Views
498
Swordsmyth
Swordsmyth
Zippyjuan
Judge allows lawsuit against Trump's census citizenship question to proceed
Replies
5
Views
331
oyarde
O
J
Socialist state officials to sue Trump over census Citizenship Question
Replies
2
Views
493
timosman
timosman
Back
Top