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

[johnwk]

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.

We don't need to know how many non-citizens there are in the country? It sure would be nice to know how many extra congressional seats California gets because it encourages the poverty stricken populations of other countries to engage in illegal border crossing and flood into its state. Latest estimates are California will get two or three more seats in Congress because of its enormous illegal entrant population.

Of course, California would not be so willing to encourage illegal immigration if it had to pay a share of our federal tax burden proportionately equal to its representation in Congress as our founder intended under the rule of apportionment.

Unfortunately, communist and socialists in our country 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 these impressionable children the value of one vote, one dollar and the reasons why our founders tied both representation and taxation by population size, which would have a sobering financial effect in that each state would be held accountable for the free cheese their congressional members vote for, and would receive a bill to pay their apportioned share of the free cheese tab they vote for..


JWK


“The apportionment of representation and taxation by the same scale is just; it removes the objection, that, while Virginia paid one sixth part of the expenses of the Union, she had no more weight in public counsels than Delaware, which paid but a very small portion”3 Elliot’s 41

 

[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.

A good case can be made for using the total number of people in a state in determining distribution of federal funds.

You mean distributing free government cheese?

And why not use the total number of people to also determine each state's apportioned share of our federal tax burden as our Founders intended when agreeing that both representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the states?

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.


We wouldn’t have all this crap going on about the census if the rule of apportionment was once again applied to each states number of representatives and its share of our federal tax burden. Unfortunately, our communists and socialists have managed to circumvent that part of apportionment requiring their communist/socialist states to pay their apportioned share of the tab, while they swell their states with illegal entrants to increase their representation in Congress.

JWK

 

[Flopper]

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.

.

I don't see how. The president's budget that is sent to congress for almost all the social programs are in the non-discretionary section. The numbers come from last years costs adjusted according statutes. I don't see how the number of citizens in a state would make any difference.

You do realize that the government already has counts of the number of citizens from previous surveys.

 

[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.

We don't need to know how many non-citizens there are in the country? It sure would be nice to know how many extra congressional seats California gets because it encourages the poverty stricken populations of other countries to engage in illegal border crossing and flood into its state. Latest estimates are California will get two or three more seats in Congress because of its enormous illegal entrant population.

Of course, California would not be so willing to encourage illegal immigration if it had to pay a share of our federal tax burden proportionately equal to its representation in Congress as our founder intended under the rule of apportionment.

Unfortunately, communist and socialists in our country 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 these impressionable children the value of one vote, one dollar and the reasons why our founders tied both representation and taxation by population size, which would have a sobering financial effect in that each state would be held accountable for the free cheese their congressional members vote for, and would receive a bill to pay their apportioned share of the free cheese tab they vote for..


JWK


“The apportionment of representation and taxation by the same scale is just; it removes the objection, that, while Virginia paid one sixth part of the expenses of the Union, she had no more weight in public counsels than Delaware, which paid but a very small portion”3 Elliot’s 41

We don't do surveys because it would be nice to know. A complete survey such as a census cost about 16 billion dollars. Even thou the census questions and procedures are tested to yield the highest accuracy, the count can be off by many thousands. The 2010 census is believed to be the most accurate census in many decades. The correction was for an over count of 36,000 out of a population 324 million.

 

[busybee01]

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.

Wrong. You didn't get the point of the OP. It doesn't matter what their motives are. It's not the Court's job to judge motives or wisdom behind any act of government.

It is the Court's job to prevent the corruption of the Constitution. This was a attempt to corrupt the census. They are well within their rights to do so you corrupt bastard.

"fighting corruption" appears nowhere in the SC's job description.

They have every right to ensure the Constitution is not corrupted. Tell me where it says they don't.

 

[busybee01]

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.

No it isn't. It's designed to skew the results. The mission of the census is to be as accurate as possible and totally non-partisan. There is no way the question would yield an accurate result so why have it? The answer is obvious. Republicans want an under-count in immigrant communities for when districts are redrawn and when federal money gets spent.

Why would there be an under count? Oh yea, if you're illegal you won't answer and be counted. smh

The Republican consultant's purpose in getting the question on the census was to produce a undercount. That is enough to not ask the question.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Wrong. You didn't get the point of the OP. It doesn't matter what their motives are. It's not the Court's job to judge motives or wisdom behind any act of government.

It is the Court's job to prevent the corruption of the Constitution. This was a attempt to corrupt the census. They are well within their rights to do so you corrupt bastard.

"fighting corruption" appears nowhere in the SC's job description.

They have every right to ensure the Constitution is not corrupted. Tell me where it says they don't.

That doesn't even make any sense. Their job is to determine whether laws comply with the Constitution. That's it.

 

[busybee01]

That is not true. Deduction of state taxes has nothing to do with what you pay in federal taxes. Even Mark Levin has called that argument ridiculous. One reason that red states pay more in federal taxes is because they generally have higher incomes than red states.

Oh really retard?

Now why would someone deduct state and local taxes if it "has nothing to do with what you pay in federal taxes?"

Well, because you're just flat out lying - Communist!

The SALT deduction directly lowers federal tax burden. This is why the leftists in the coastal states threw such a fit over tax reform, the massive welfare they got from the Red States was vanishing, no more can New York State taxes be shifted onto the backs of people in Idaho.

The fact is whatever a person deducts from their taxes for state and local taxes does not affect what another person in another state pays in terms of federal taxes. Please give us the applicable law.

 

[busybee01]

We need to use existing technology (facial recognition) to take important decisions out of idiots hands. Roberts and the Dems obviously don't want fairness and security. We could use facial recognition for airport safety, border security, voting eligibility, job eligibility and eligibility for all government assistance. That would makes things fair and help the taxpayer at the same time.

Facial recognition is a violation of a person's privacy rights. We do not need the government using this to spy on us.

 

[bripat9643]

That is not true. Deduction of state taxes has nothing to do with what you pay in federal taxes. Even Mark Levin has called that argument ridiculous. One reason that red states pay more in federal taxes is because they generally have higher incomes than red states.

Oh really retard?

Now why would someone deduct state and local taxes if it "has nothing to do with what you pay in federal taxes?"

Well, because you're just flat out lying - Communist!

The SALT deduction directly lowers federal tax burden. This is why the leftists in the coastal states threw such a fit over tax reform, the massive welfare they got from the Red States was vanishing, no more can New York State taxes be shifted onto the backs of people in Idaho.

The fact is whatever a person deducts from their taxes for state and local taxes does not affect what another person in another state pays in terms of federal taxes. Please give us the applicable law.

Why have taxes at all, if that's the case?

 

[busybee01]

It appears with all the noise about the question “Is this person a citizen of the United States?” we are overlooking Justice Roberts has usurped legislative power by second guessing a legitimate policy making decision.

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

Except for the power of House Democrats and their communist media puppets to obstruct, delay, make false claims and straw man arguments to mislead public.

We have the garbage of Trump and the Republican party and their propagandists who seek to ignore the Constitutional restraints on a President, make false claims and straw man arguments to mislead the public. Except the public is not as stupid as you are and that is why they disapprove of Trump's policies.

 

[busybee01]

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.

Wrong. You didn't get the point of the OP. It doesn't matter what their motives are. It's not the Court's job to judge motives or wisdom behind any act of government.

It is the Court's job to prevent the corruption of the Constitution. This was a attempt to corrupt the census. They are well within their rights to do so you corrupt bastard.

"fighting corruption" appears nowhere in the SC's job description.

They have every right to ensure the Constitution is not corrupted. Tell me where it says they don't.

That doesn't even make any sense. Their job is to determine whether laws comply with the Constitution. That's it.

You are the one who NEVER makes any sense. The reason is because you are a Trump supporter.

 

[busybee01]

That is not true. Deduction of state taxes has nothing to do with what you pay in federal taxes. Even Mark Levin has called that argument ridiculous. One reason that red states pay more in federal taxes is because they generally have higher incomes than red states.

Oh really retard?

Now why would someone deduct state and local taxes if it "has nothing to do with what you pay in federal taxes?"

Well, because you're just flat out lying - Communist!

The SALT deduction directly lowers federal tax burden. This is why the leftists in the coastal states threw such a fit over tax reform, the massive welfare they got from the Red States was vanishing, no more can New York State taxes be shifted onto the backs of people in Idaho.

The fact is whatever a person deducts from their taxes for state and local taxes does not affect what another person in another state pays in terms of federal taxes. Please give us the applicable law.

Why have taxes at all, if that's the case?

What law requires a person in Alabama to pay higher taxes because someone in New Jersey deducts their state and local taxes. This was Trump deciding to get even with blue states.

 

[bripat9643]

It appears with all the noise about the question “Is this person a citizen of the United States?” we are overlooking Justice Roberts has usurped legislative power by second guessing a legitimate policy making decision.

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

Except for the power of House Democrats and their communist media puppets to obstruct, delay, make false claims and straw man arguments to mislead public.

We have the garbage of Trump and the Republican party and their propagandists who seek to ignore the Constitutional restraints on a President, make false claims and straw man arguments to mislead the public. Except the public is not as stupid as you are and that is why they disapprove of Trump's policies.

What "constitutional constraints" seeking to ignore?

 

[bripat9643]

That is not true. Deduction of state taxes has nothing to do with what you pay in federal taxes. Even Mark Levin has called that argument ridiculous. One reason that red states pay more in federal taxes is because they generally have higher incomes than red states.

Oh really retard?

Now why would someone deduct state and local taxes if it "has nothing to do with what you pay in federal taxes?"

Well, because you're just flat out lying - Communist!

The SALT deduction directly lowers federal tax burden. This is why the leftists in the coastal states threw such a fit over tax reform, the massive welfare they got from the Red States was vanishing, no more can New York State taxes be shifted onto the backs of people in Idaho.

The fact is whatever a person deducts from their taxes for state and local taxes does not affect what another person in another state pays in terms of federal taxes. Please give us the applicable law.

Why have taxes at all, if that's the case?

What law requires a person in Alabama to pay higher taxes because someone in New Jersey deducts their state and local taxes. This was Trump deciding to get even with blue states.

Why shouldn't the taxpayers in New Jersey pay the taxes they voted to pay?

 

[busybee01]

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.

It is the so-called conservatives on the court who are extremists. They are ruining the country.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

It is the so-called conservatives on the court who are extremists. They are ruining the country.

What are they "extreme" about, respecting the Constitution?

 

[busybee01]

That is not true. Deduction of state taxes has nothing to do with what you pay in federal taxes. Even Mark Levin has called that argument ridiculous. One reason that red states pay more in federal taxes is because they generally have higher incomes than red states.

Oh really retard?

Now why would someone deduct state and local taxes if it "has nothing to do with what you pay in federal taxes?"

Well, because you're just flat out lying - Communist!

The SALT deduction directly lowers federal tax burden. This is why the leftists in the coastal states threw such a fit over tax reform, the massive welfare they got from the Red States was vanishing, no more can New York State taxes be shifted onto the backs of people in Idaho.

The fact is whatever a person deducts from their taxes for state and local taxes does not affect what another person in another state pays in terms of federal taxes. Please give us the applicable law.

Why have taxes at all, if that's the case?

What law requires a person in Alabama to pay higher taxes because someone in New Jersey deducts their state and local taxes. This was Trump deciding to get even with blue states.

Why shouldn't the taxpayers in New Jersey pay the taxes they voted to pay?

Because we traditionally have decided that federal taxes should not be paid on money paid to state and local taxes.

 

[bripat9643]

Oh really retard?

Now why would someone deduct state and local taxes if it "has nothing to do with what you pay in federal taxes?"

Well, because you're just flat out lying - Communist!

The SALT deduction directly lowers federal tax burden. This is why the leftists in the coastal states threw such a fit over tax reform, the massive welfare they got from the Red States was vanishing, no more can New York State taxes be shifted onto the backs of people in Idaho.

The fact is whatever a person deducts from their taxes for state and local taxes does not affect what another person in another state pays in terms of federal taxes. Please give us the applicable law.

Why have taxes at all, if that's the case?

What law requires a person in Alabama to pay higher taxes because someone in New Jersey deducts their state and local taxes. This was Trump deciding to get even with blue states.

Why shouldn't the taxpayers in New Jersey pay the taxes they voted to pay?

Because we traditionally have decided that federal taxes should not be paid on money paid to state and local taxes.

So you're standing on tradition? Really? We traditionally have decided that marriage is between a man and a women. Where do you stand on that tradition?

 

[busybee01]

It appears with all the noise about the question “Is this person a citizen of the United States?” we are overlooking Justice Roberts has usurped legislative power by second guessing a legitimate policy making decision.

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

Except for the power of House Democrats and their communist media puppets to obstruct, delay, make false claims and straw man arguments to mislead public.

We have the garbage of Trump and the Republican party and their propagandists who seek to ignore the Constitutional restraints on a President, make false claims and straw man arguments to mislead the public. Except the public is not as stupid as you are and that is why they disapprove of Trump's policies.

What "constitutional constraints" seeking to ignore?

The Constitution gives Congress the power of the purse. Congress has every right to provide oversight over the Executive Branch which includes the President. The Congress has to authorize military action by the President.