Trump Administration Caves: No Citizenship Question On 2020 Census

[Harpy Eagle]

One more time for the learning impaired.

The Census has ALWAYS counted everyone living in the country, not just citizens.

The number of Reps has ALWAYS been based on the total number of people living in a state, not just citizens.

This is not new and it will not change till the Constitution is amended

Post # 187 and 195 refuted this jibberish, as did other posts before them.
Ho hum.

You have refuted nothing. You have not shown one time in history when the Census did not count everyone, not just citizens and you have not shown once where the total number of people was not used for that counting of how many Reps a state has.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[protectionist]

One more time.............is this good for the country or not.

I'll add.............do you support allowing over 100,000 across the Southern Border a Month........DO YOU WANT OUR BORDERS SECURED.

He won't answer that. I'll answer it for him. NO, he does NOT want our borders secured. Like all other leftist, globalist traitors, he doesn't not want us to have any borders, period.

With controlled borders, he would have to rely on Americans to vote Democrat in numbers large enough to win elections, and he knows that can't/won't happen.

 

[eagle1462010]

14th Amendment

Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. 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 a 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 such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

 

[eagle1462010]

One more time.............is this good for the country or not.

I'll add.............do you support allowing over 100,000 across the Southern Border a Month........DO YOU WANT OUR BORDERS SECURED.

He won't answer that. I'll answer it for him. NO, he does NOT want our borders secured. Like all other leftist, globalist traitors, he doesn't not want us to have any borders, period.

With controlled borders, he would have to rely on Americans to vote Democrat in numbers large enough to win elections, and he knows that can't/won't happen.

Their purpose is transparent.............and they argue over this not for PRESERVING FREEDOM..........but for POWER..........No matter the tactic.........No matter the cost.............No matter if their actions are UNETHICAL AS HELL.............No matter that they openly DISOBEY LAWS in doing so...........

The are tyrannical asshats...........

 

[protectionist]

You have refuted nothing. You have not shown one time in history when the Census did not count everyone, not just citizens and you have not shown once where the total number of people was not used for that counting of how many Reps a state has.

I have not intended to talk about history. I'm just talking about what the Constitution says and means. I'm not commenting now either about what the Census has or hasn't done, but there are plenty of things that have been done wrong since the Constitution was written (ex. allowing Islam to exist in America). This does not make them right, or OK.

Again, the Constitution in Amendment XIV, Section 2, clarifies itself by referring to CITIZENS. ANd yes, I have refuted your stupid posts repeatedly in this thread. LOL. Your participation here is a mess.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

One more time, go back to high school, get your GED and learn what the word "but" means in a paragraph.

It is inconsequential to the topic. The Constitution refers to CITIZENS, and that is who it is concerned with. You're a bad student, and a worse con artist.

One more time for the learning impaired.

The Census has ALWAYS counted everyone living in the country, not just citizens.

The number of Reps has ALWAYS been based on the total number of people living in a state, not just citizens.

This is not new and it will not change till the Constitution is amended


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

One more time.............is this good for the country or not.

I'll add.............do you support allowing over 100,000 across the Southern Border a Month........DO YOU WANT OUR BORDERS SECURED.

Yes, following the Constitution is good for the country. It is always the right choice.

Yes, I want the borders secured. I am the one that wants the military to be allowed do their job and defend this nation.

Defense of the border should be a military function, not a police one.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Harpy Eagle]

14th Amendment

Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. 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 a 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 such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

That has been addressed 100 times. The citizen refers to who can vote, not who is counted. If that was the case then only males over 21 would have been counted...and that was not the case.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Diver Diva]

Our President is considering using an executive order to add the citizenship question to the census.

 

[protectionist]

Yes, following the Constitution is good for the country. It is always the right choice.

Yes, I want the borders secured. I am the one that wants the military to be allowed do their job and defend this nation.

Defense of the border should be a military function, not a police one.

No you don't want the borders secure. That's why you don't want illegal aliens to be counted, or found, or arrested, or deported. So you can have more VOTES for Democrats. Do you really think you're fooling anybody ?

The days of ignoring citizenship are over. With 4 more years of Trump presidency, census will include citizenship questions, citizenship proof will be required to vote in almost every state, and Democrats winning elections with illegal aliens, will be a bad memory,

illegal aliens will be mass deported in Operation Wetback II. Few will remain in the US. Better days are ahead.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Our President is considering using an executive order to add the citizenship question to the census.

An EO cannot legally ignore the SCOTUS.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Harpy Eagle]

You have refuted nothing. You have not shown one time in history when the Census did not count everyone, not just citizens and you have not shown once where the total number of people was not used for that counting of how many Reps a state has.

I have not intended to talk about history. I'm just talking about what the Constitution says and means. I'm not commenting now either about what the Census has or hasn't done, but there are plenty of things that have been done wrong since the Constitution was written (ex. allowing Islam to exist in America). This does not make them right, or OK.

Again, the Constitution in Amendment XIV, Section 2, clarifies itself by referring to CITIZENS. ANd yes, I have refuted your stupid posts repeatedly in this thread. LOL. Your participation here is a mess.

So, what you are saying is that the people that wrote the Amendment did not know what it said and were wrong to count everyone. But now you, some 150 years after the fact have it figured out.


Yeah, you run with that.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[protectionist]

That has been addressed 100 times. The citizen refers to who can vote, not who is counted. If that was the case then only males over 21 would have been counted...and that was not the case.

I doubt if anybody is paying serious attention to you at this point. You could be doing something more constructive with your time (crossword puzzle, wash car, play the guitar...……)

 

[Harpy Eagle]

That has been addressed 100 times. The citizen refers to who can vote, not who is counted. If that was the case then only males over 21 would have been counted...and that was not the case.

I doubt if anybody is paying serious attention to you at this point. You could be doing something more constructive with your time (crossword puzzle, wash car, play the guitar...……)

Yet here you are still responding to me...you are just so stupid.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[protectionist]

So, what you are saying is that the people that wrote the Amendment did not know what it said and were wrong to count everyone. But now you, some 150 years after the fact have it figured out.


Yeah, you run with that.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

I didn't say that. YOU said that.

I said >> "I'm not commenting now either about what the Census has or hasn't done,"

 

[protectionist]

Yet here you are still responding to me...you are just so stupid.

Responding and paying serious attention are not one and the same (said the teacher to the student) - but I'll be kind, and not call you stupid. LOL

 

[eagle1462010]

Saunders v. Wilkins, 152 F.2d 235 (4th Cir. 1945)

The theory of the appellant's case may be thus summarized: Virginia has abridged the right of certain inhabitants of the State, twenty-one years of age and citizens of the United States, to vote for the choice of Presidential electors and for Representatives in Congress, and hence under the terms of § 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment the basis of representation of the State should be reduced in the proportion which the number of such citizens bears to the whole number of citizens twenty-one years of age in the State. The abridgment of the right of certain citizens of Virginia to vote, to which the plaintiff refers, results from §§ 18, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24 of the State Constitution and § 22 of the State Tax Code[1] whereby certain requirements and qualifications for registration and voting are set out, including the payment of a poll tax, and the result, according to the plaintiff, is that sixty per cent of the inhabitants of the State are deprived of the right to vote. By reason of this action of the State it became the duty of Congress to make a corresponding reduction in the number of representatives allotted to Virginia, and if this had been done, Virginia would have been entitled to not more than four representatives.

Proportional Representation | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives

Current Practice
Congress has capped the number of Representatives at 435 since the Apportionment Act of 1911except for a temporary increase to 437 during the admission of Hawaii and Alaska as states in 1959. As a result, over the last century, congressional districts have more than tripled in size—from an average of roughly 212,000 inhabitants after the 1910 Census to about 710,000 inhabitants following the 2010 Census. Each state’s congressional delegation changes as a result of population shifts, with states either gaining or losing seats based on population. While the number of House Members for each state is determined according to a statistical formula in federal law, each state is then responsible for designing the shape of its districts so long as it accords with various provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which seeks to protect racial minorities’ voting and representation rights.

 

[protectionist]

An EO cannot legally ignore the SCOTUS.

The SCOTUS has only made a temporary ruling. They are not quite done, and have expressed a need for the administration to clarify its position, which will be forthcoming soon. Ho hum.

Never a good idea to celebrate too early.

 

[Diver Diva]

An EO cannot legally ignore the SCOTUS.

SCOTUS didn't make a ruling.

And since the census is administered by the Executive Branch, I would think the President has the authority to order the question be included.

 

[eagle1462010]

Frequently Asked Questions

Who is included in the apportionment population counts? back to top

The apportionment calculation is based upon the total resident population (citizens and non-citizens) of the 50 states. In the 2010 Census, the apportionment population also includes U.S. Armed Forces personnel and federal civilian employees stationed outside the United States (and their dependents living with them) that can be allocated, based on administrative records, back to a home state. This is the same procedure used in 2000.

Congressional Apportionment

 

[mikegriffith1]

This is like telling a company that it can't do a security check in its building to determine if everyone inside is authorized to be there.