Justice Roberts second guesses policy making decision on census, violates separation of powers

[Bush92]

Except that legislative power had nothing to do with anything here.

Uhhh. Yes. It does.

It is the Congress legislative power to determine if a census question on citizenship is legal. And POTUS's power to sign or veto it. Not the SCOTUS's.

You're kidding right?

It is scotus's job to determine constitutionality, no one else's.

Liberal district courts, especially the 9th, have to stop trying to run our country. Every single time some crybaby liberal fuck and their ACLU lawyers run to the socialist or homosexual judges on the 9th, they spew forth the biggest bullshit opinions in history.

 

[Cosmos]

Skewing the results defeats the purpose of the census. It's just another example of republicans targeting democracy itself because they think it is against them.

It defeats the goals of your evil party.

The purpose of the census is to determine representation. Illegals are not citizens and have no representation outside of the consulate of their governments.

Loon, adding the question if one is a citizen or not does not determine the legal status of non-U.S. citizens.

Try harder next time.

Retard.

The census is to determine the representation for the CITIZENS of the nation. Your flaccid non sequitur notwithstanding.

Citizens and legal residents. Indians non-taxed and slaves may not have been considered citizens but they were legal residents. Illegal aliens are just that. Illegal aliens. They are foreigners. They should not be in the country, let alone determine representation in the Congress. Faun lives with his head up his ass.

 

[IM2]

The objective of the question was clearly stated. There is no debate relative to that or to the role of the scotus in this matter.

 

[johnwk]

Skewing the results defeats the purpose of the census. It's just another example of republicans targeting democracy itself because they think it is against them.

It defeats the goals of your evil party.

The purpose of the census is to determine representation. Illegals are not citizens and have no representation outside of the consulate of their governments.

Loon, adding the question if one is a citizen or not does not determine the legal status of non-U.S. citizens.

Try harder next time.

Retard.

The census is to determine the representation for the CITIZENS of the nation. Your flaccid non sequitur notwithstanding.

Citizens and legal residents. Indians non-taxed and slaves may not have been considered citizens but they were legal residents. Illegal aliens are just that. Illegal aliens. They are foreigners. They should not be in the country, let alone determine representation in the Congress. Faun lives with his head up his ass.

It may shock American citizens to learn how many extra congressional seats sanctuary states like California have received because they have swelled their population with illegal entrants. Keep in mind these extra votes California gets in Congress cancels out the votes of the representatives of American citizens in other states.

It is estimated California may get between 2 and 3 more seats in Congress because of the massive influx of illegal entrants into this sanctuary state during the past ten years.

But to prevent this type of political motivated population swelling, which is done to receive extra votes in Congress and control our federal treasury, our wise founders also demanded that each states would also have to pay a share of our federal tax burden proportionately equal to its representation in Congress.

The two fair share formulas with respect to each state’s population size are:
.

State`s Population

_________________X House membership (435) = State`s No. of Representatives

Population of U.S.
.

State`s population

_________________ X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE`S SHARE OF TAX BURDEN

Total U.S. Population

For an example of this apportioned tax see an Act laying a direct tax for $3 million in which the rule of apportionment is applied.

And then see Section 7 of the direct tax of 1813 allowing states to pay their respective quotas and be entitled to certain deductions in meeting their payment on time.

In the Federalist Papers, Madison explains the purpose of tying representation and taxation by each state’s population, that it:

“…will have a very salutary effect.” He observes in this paper . . . “Were” the various States’ “share of representation alone to be governed by this rule, they would have an interest in exaggerating their inhabitants. Were the rule to decide their share of taxation alone, a contrary temptation would prevail. By extending the rule to both objects, the States will have opposite interests, which will control and balance each other, and produce the requisite impartiality.” See Federalist No. 54

Now, look at our communist socialist states like California who now swell their states with illegal entrants to gain more representation in Congress. Would these sanctuary states continue to do so if they had to pay a proportional share of our federal tax burden relative to their state’s population size?

Communist and socialists have been very active for generations subverting the fundamental principles written into our Constitution for good government. While they have taught our children in government schools the virtues of our Constitution protecting one man, one vote, they ignore and refuse to teach them the value of one vote, one dollar and tying both representation and taxation by population size, which would have a sobering financial effect in that each state will be held accountable for the free cheese their congressional members vote for, and will receive a bill to pay their apportioned share of the free cheese tab.

JWK
The Democrat Leadership is correct! The border crisis has been manufactured. It has been manufactured by the Democrat Leadership in Congress refusing to protect our borders against an ongoing invasion.

 

[Faun]

The implications are that all U.S. citizens eligible to vote and non-U.S. citizens other than Indians not taxes are counted. Meaning asking folks if they're a U.S. citizen doesn't actually alter the count since U.S. citizens and non-U.S. citizens are already counted.

What ever. The last sentence of section 2 refers to citizens. But you'll continue to ignore it, carry on commie.

.

No, I don't ignore it. It refers to citizens who don't count towards appropriating representation. It doesn't mean only citizens can be counted.

You'll also note the first sentence includes Indians who are taxed -- many of whom were not U.S. citizens at the time that amendment was ratified. Proving beyond any rightard shadow of doubt that non-U.S. citizens are counted.

Your lack of reading comprehension skills is showing again. Try reading the Second Section very, very slowly and especially where representation shall be reduced in proportion which the Number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such States. The math requires the count of "citizens".

JWK

.

Now you're conflating who shouldn't be counted with those who should. Whether intentional or by ignorance, you destroy your own case with such foolishness.

Case in point, just because citizenship is required to determine if some shouldn't be counted, doesn't mean only citizens should be counted. It only means one of the disqualifying factors applies only to citizens. Just like with Indians... some are counted, some are not, based on if they're taxed or not. Applying your false analogy to Indians, we'd end up with only Indians should be counted because one must be an Indian to be excluded according to the first sentence of section two.

Now watch as I hit you with another question you won't answer. And you won't answer it for th he same reason you refused to answer my last question -- because it blows up your ridiculous argument..... The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868. Until 1924, Indians born on reservations were not citizens. Some Indians are taxed and some are not. The ones who are, are enumerated. How could that have been possible during those 56 years when many of those Indians were not citizens?

It happens because there are many, many people like you who have a reading comprehension problem.

Next question?

JWK

Our Supreme Court has usurped legislative functions and set itself up as an unelected, omnipotent and unreviewable, policy making branch of government not authorized by our written Constitution.

LOL

I knew you wouldn't answer. I called that one.

 

[CowboyTed]

Republicans fucked themselves on this by using any excuse to justify the question and acting as if the idea of a deliberate under-count of the census never occurred to them. No one likes to be bullshitted to their face.

Nobody said anything never occurred to them.

The point you ignore is that it's a legitimate question.

Where in the constitution does it say the question should be asked?

It doesn't, but the constitution does state:
""counting the whole number of persons in each State..."

It appears you missed the Second Section of the 14th Amendment which requires, when apportioning, a distinction to be made between citizens and non-citizens.

JWK

It was July of 2019 when an ongoing invasion of America’s borders swelled to tens of thousands a month, the Democrat controlled House refused to pass legislation to defend the borders of the United States, and America’s domestic enemies ___ socialists, communists, and Fifth Column activists ___ continued with their obstruction against securing America’s borders which led to the downfall of a once free nation.

So you are willing to let the US Government have internment camps again...

There is also plenty reasons to know how many guns in each house from a general welfare and regulated militia reasons...

So should we have citizenship and Firearms questions on the form then?

 

[Faun]

Republicans fucked themselves on this by using any excuse to justify the question and acting as if the idea of a deliberate under-count of the census never occurred to them. No one likes to be bullshitted to their face.

Nobody said anything never occurred to them.

The point you ignore is that it's a legitimate question.

Where in the constitution does it say the question should be asked?

It doesn't, but the constitution does state:
""counting the whole number of persons in each State..."

It appears you missed the Second Section of the 14th Amendment which requires, when apportioning, a distinction to be made between citizens and non-citizens.

JWK

It was July of 2019 when an ongoing invasion of America’s borders swelled to tens of thousands a month, the Democrat controlled House refused to pass legislation to defend the borders of the United States, and America’s domestic enemies ___ socialists, communists, and Fifth Column activists ___ continued with their obstruction against securing America’s borders which led to the downfall of a once free nation.

Nope, knowing who's a citizen is not required for apportioning representation since non-citizens are to be counted according to the Constitution.

 

[Faun]

Skewing the results defeats the purpose of the census. It's just another example of republicans targeting democracy itself because they think it is against them.

It defeats the goals of your evil party.

The purpose of the census is to determine representation. Illegals are not citizens and have no representation outside of the consulate of their governments.

Loon, adding the question if one is a citizen or not does not determine the legal status of non-U.S. citizens.

Try harder next time.

Retard.

The census is to determine the representation for the CITIZENS of the nation. Your flaccid non sequitur notwithstanding.

Citizens and legal residents. Indians non-taxed and slaves may not have been considered citizens but they were legal residents. Illegal aliens are just that. Illegal aliens. They are foreigners. They should not be in the country, let alone determine representation in the Congress. Faun lives with his head up his ass.

LOLOL

You poor thing, you're truly fucking demented. I never said illegals should be entitled to representation.

 

[GreenAndBlue]

Anger is pre wired into all humans to stop liars and cheaters

The highest logics says these are democrats and the deep state. So soon liberals will all be run out of America by angry high logic people

Trumps having his supporters having the highest net worth shows he has the wise and the power

 

[Cosmos]

Skewing the results defeats the purpose of the census. It's just another example of republicans targeting democracy itself because they think it is against them.

It defeats the goals of your evil party.

The purpose of the census is to determine representation. Illegals are not citizens and have no representation outside of the consulate of their governments.

Loon, adding the question if one is a citizen or not does not determine the legal status of non-U.S. citizens.

Try harder next time.

Retard.

The census is to determine the representation for the CITIZENS of the nation. Your flaccid non sequitur notwithstanding.

Citizens and legal residents. Indians non-taxed and slaves may not have been considered citizens but they were legal residents. Illegal aliens are just that. Illegal aliens. They are foreigners. They should not be in the country, let alone determine representation in the Congress. Faun lives with his head up his ass.

LOLOL

You poor thing, you're truly fucking demented. I never said illegals should be entitled to representation.

Unfortunately, you're not the only slobbering idiot in the Democrat party. There are way too many who believe exactly that.

 

[GreenAndBlue]

It defeats the goals of your evil party.

The purpose of the census is to determine representation. Illegals are not citizens and have no representation outside of the consulate of their governments.

Loon, adding the question if one is a citizen or not does not determine the legal status of non-U.S. citizens.

Try harder next time.

Retard.

The census is to determine the representation for the CITIZENS of the nation. Your flaccid non sequitur notwithstanding.

Citizens and legal residents. Indians non-taxed and slaves may not have been considered citizens but they were legal residents. Illegal aliens are just that. Illegal aliens. They are foreigners. They should not be in the country, let alone determine representation in the Congress. Faun lives with his head up his ass.

LOLOL

You poor thing, you're truly fucking demented. I never said illegals should be entitled to representation.

Unfortunately, you're not the only slobbering idiot in the Democrat party. There are way too many who believe exactly that.

Correct. !!

 

[Faun]

It defeats the goals of your evil party.

The purpose of the census is to determine representation. Illegals are not citizens and have no representation outside of the consulate of their governments.

Loon, adding the question if one is a citizen or not does not determine the legal status of non-U.S. citizens.

Try harder next time.

Retard.

The census is to determine the representation for the CITIZENS of the nation. Your flaccid non sequitur notwithstanding.

Citizens and legal residents. Indians non-taxed and slaves may not have been considered citizens but they were legal residents. Illegal aliens are just that. Illegal aliens. They are foreigners. They should not be in the country, let alone determine representation in the Congress. Faun lives with his head up his ass.

LOLOL

You poor thing, you're truly fucking demented. I never said illegals should be entitled to representation.

Unfortunately, you're not the only slobbering idiot in the Democrat party. There are way too many who believe exactly that.

Good, then bitch to those who express the bullshit you post and leave me out of your demented rants.

 

[Cosmos]

Loon, adding the question if one is a citizen or not does not determine the legal status of non-U.S. citizens.

Try harder next time.

Retard.

The census is to determine the representation for the CITIZENS of the nation. Your flaccid non sequitur notwithstanding.

Citizens and legal residents. Indians non-taxed and slaves may not have been considered citizens but they were legal residents. Illegal aliens are just that. Illegal aliens. They are foreigners. They should not be in the country, let alone determine representation in the Congress. Faun lives with his head up his ass.

LOLOL

You poor thing, you're truly fucking demented. I never said illegals should be entitled to representation.

Unfortunately, you're not the only slobbering idiot in the Democrat party. There are way too many who believe exactly that.

Good, then bitch to those who express the bullshit you post and leave me out of your demented rants.

Gracious of you to admit that you have nothing worthwhile to say here, you worthless sniveling turd.

 

[Faun]

Retard.

The census is to determine the representation for the CITIZENS of the nation. Your flaccid non sequitur notwithstanding.

Citizens and legal residents. Indians non-taxed and slaves may not have been considered citizens but they were legal residents. Illegal aliens are just that. Illegal aliens. They are foreigners. They should not be in the country, let alone determine representation in the Congress. Faun lives with his head up his ass.

LOLOL

You poor thing, you're truly fucking demented. I never said illegals should be entitled to representation.

Unfortunately, you're not the only slobbering idiot in the Democrat party. There are way too many who believe exactly that.

Good, then bitch to those who express the bullshit you post and leave me out of your demented rants.

Gracious of you to admit that you have nothing worthwhile to say here, you worthless sniveling turd.

LOL

Sadly, your dementia continues.

 

[johnwk]

Republicans fucked themselves on this by using any excuse to justify the question and acting as if the idea of a deliberate under-count of the census never occurred to them. No one likes to be bullshitted to their face.

Nobody said anything never occurred to them.

The point you ignore is that it's a legitimate question.

Where in the constitution does it say the question should be asked?

It doesn't, but the constitution does state:
""counting the whole number of persons in each State..."

It appears you missed the Second Section of the 14th Amendment which requires, when apportioning, a distinction to be made between citizens and non-citizens.

JWK

It was July of 2019 when an ongoing invasion of America’s borders swelled to tens of thousands a month, the Democrat controlled House refused to pass legislation to defend the borders of the United States, and America’s domestic enemies ___ socialists, communists, and Fifth Column activists ___ continued with their obstruction against securing America’s borders which led to the downfall of a once free nation.

So you are willing to let the US Government have internment camps again...

There is also plenty reasons to know how many guns in each house from a general welfare and regulated militia reasons...

So should we have citizenship and Firearms questions on the form then?

What on earth are you insinuating?

JWK

The Democrat Leadership is correct! The border crisis has been manufactured. It has been manufactured by the Democrat Leadership in Congress refusing to protect our borders against an ongoing invasion.

 

[Flopper]

I guess you could take that view if you continue to ignore the implications of the 14th Amendment.

.

The implications are that all U.S. citizens eligible to vote and non-U.S. citizens other than Indians not taxes are counted. Meaning asking folks if they're a U.S. citizen doesn't actually alter the count since U.S. citizens and non-U.S. citizens are already counted.

That’s true but not answering the citizen question can subject you to fine. Answering the question yes for residents who may not be citizen can mean jail time. Answer no means the person may be illegal. The simplistic solution is just to not respond which means no one in the resident is counted.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's a poor excuse. People should know if they're a citizen or not.

Yes, the individual knows but remember the census is by residence, not by individual. The residence may contain large families or multiple families, boarders, people that are near strangers or it may be a homeless shelter, a halfway house, a migrant camp, etc. In migrant neighborhoods, you don't ask people about their immigration status and any survey that does is not likely to yield accurate results.

Democrats aren't concerned about the accuracy of the of citizenship question but whether the question will cause some residencies not to respond at all to the census, thus losing the count of everyone at that residence. Although there is a legal requirement to respond to the census, a good count depends voluntary cooperation of everyone.

Well it doesn't much matter anymore because trump the pussy grabbed himself and bailed on adding the question.

Yep. He says, he's going to get the information from data sources in goverment which means surveys of selected groups done every few years by the census bureau and customs and immigration records. In other words, we will have the same information we have now. It's not exact but we really don't need to know exactly how many non-citizens there are in the country.

 

[Flopper]

Skewing the results defeats the purpose of the census. It's just another example of republicans targeting democracy itself because they think it is against them.

It defeats the goals of your evil party.

The purpose of the census is to determine representation. Illegals are not citizens and have no representation outside of the consulate of their governments.

Loon, adding the question if one is a citizen or not does not determine the legal status of non-U.S. citizens.

Try harder next time.

Retard.

The census is to determine the representation for the CITIZENS of the nation. Your flaccid non sequitur notwithstanding.

Citizens and legal residents. Indians non-taxed and slaves may not have been considered citizens but they were legal residents. Illegal aliens are just that. Illegal aliens. They are foreigners. They should not be in the country, let alone determine representation in the Congress. Faun lives with his head up his ass.

A good case can be made for using the total number of people in a state in determining distribution of federal funds. The number of people in the state is a major cost factor of government. Regardless of the make up of the population, citizens, tourists, legal immigrants or illegal immigrants, the state costs depends on the total number of people. The state must provide law enforcement, emergency services, education, transportation, and public facilities such parks and recreation.

 

[OKTexas]

The implications are that all U.S. citizens eligible to vote and non-U.S. citizens other than Indians not taxes are counted. Meaning asking folks if they're a U.S. citizen doesn't actually alter the count since U.S. citizens and non-U.S. citizens are already counted.

That’s true but not answering the citizen question can subject you to fine. Answering the question yes for residents who may not be citizen can mean jail time. Answer no means the person may be illegal. The simplistic solution is just to not respond which means no one in the resident is counted.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's a poor excuse. People should know if they're a citizen or not.

Yes, the individual knows but remember the census is by residence, not by individual. The residence may contain large families or multiple families, boarders, people that are near strangers or it may be a homeless shelter, a halfway house, a migrant camp, etc. In migrant neighborhoods, you don't ask people about their immigration status and any survey that does is not likely to yield accurate results.

Democrats aren't concerned about the accuracy of the of citizenship question but whether the question will cause some residencies not to respond at all to the census, thus losing the count of everyone at that residence. Although there is a legal requirement to respond to the census, a good count depends voluntary cooperation of everyone.

Well it doesn't much matter anymore because trump the pussy grabbed himself and bailed on adding the question.

Yep. He says, he's going to get the information from data sources in goverment which means surveys of selected groups done every few years by the census bureau and customs and immigration records. In other words, we will have the same information we have now. It's not exact but we really don't need to know exactly how many non-citizens there are in the country.

Actually we do need to know how many non-citizens live in the country and where. Some federal programs are not available to non-citizens, legal or not, knowing aids in the allocation of resources.

.

 

[Flopper]

That’s true but not answering the citizen question can subject you to fine. Answering the question yes for residents who may not be citizen can mean jail time. Answer no means the person may be illegal. The simplistic solution is just to not respond which means no one in the resident is counted.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's a poor excuse. People should know if they're a citizen or not.

Yes, the individual knows but remember the census is by residence, not by individual. The residence may contain large families or multiple families, boarders, people that are near strangers or it may be a homeless shelter, a halfway house, a migrant camp, etc. In migrant neighborhoods, you don't ask people about their immigration status and any survey that does is not likely to yield accurate results.

Democrats aren't concerned about the accuracy of the of citizenship question but whether the question will cause some residencies not to respond at all to the census, thus losing the count of everyone at that residence. Although there is a legal requirement to respond to the census, a good count depends voluntary cooperation of everyone.

Well it doesn't much matter anymore because trump the pussy grabbed himself and bailed on adding the question.

Yep. He says, he's going to get the information from data sources in goverment which means surveys of selected groups done every few years by the census bureau and customs and immigration records. In other words, we will have the same information we have now. It's not exact but we really don't need to know exactly how many non-citizens there are in the country.

Actually we do need to know how many non-citizens live in the country and where. Some federal programs are not available to non-citizens, legal or not, knowing aids in the allocation of resources.

.

I don't see how knowing the number of non-citizens would be of much help in allocating resources for federal programs. Federal programs that exclude non-citizens are funded based on usage, not numbers in the program.

 

[OKTexas]

That's a poor excuse. People should know if they're a citizen or not.

Yes, the individual knows but remember the census is by residence, not by individual. The residence may contain large families or multiple families, boarders, people that are near strangers or it may be a homeless shelter, a halfway house, a migrant camp, etc. In migrant neighborhoods, you don't ask people about their immigration status and any survey that does is not likely to yield accurate results.

Democrats aren't concerned about the accuracy of the of citizenship question but whether the question will cause some residencies not to respond at all to the census, thus losing the count of everyone at that residence. Although there is a legal requirement to respond to the census, a good count depends voluntary cooperation of everyone.

Well it doesn't much matter anymore because trump the pussy grabbed himself and bailed on adding the question.

Yep. He says, he's going to get the information from data sources in goverment which means surveys of selected groups done every few years by the census bureau and customs and immigration records. In other words, we will have the same information we have now. It's not exact but we really don't need to know exactly how many non-citizens there are in the country.

Actually we do need to know how many non-citizens live in the country and where. Some federal programs are not available to non-citizens, legal or not, knowing aids in the allocation of resources.

.

I don't see how knowing the number of non-citizens would be of much help in allocating resources for federal programs. Federal programs that exclude non-citizens are funded based on usage, not numbers in the program.

Assuming you're correct, knowing would still help congress in the budgeting process.

.