Trump mulls executive order to add citizenship question to census: report

[Hamish Howl]

Says who, the judiciary? The judiciary has no authority over executive orders.

Unless they contradict legislation.

And whom, pray tell, would enforce any ruling by the judiciary?

So you're more or less in favor of a dictatorship.

 

[haymarket]

If Trump goes against the Supreme Court and orders the citizenship question as part of the census, not only does he risk an all out constitutional crisis and greatly upsetting checks and balances in the USA... but he makes the resulting census numbers illegitimate and something to be litigated and fought over for years.

The continuing damage Trump does to the institutions and norm of our government is great indeed. It is but one reason why he will go down as the single worst US president in history.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

Unless they contradict legislation.



So you're more or less in favor of a dictatorship.

Not at all! I proudly carry the label of "Trump Hater."

I'm just facing reality. Trump is daring anyone who will listen to oppose him. The DOJ under Barr will not, under any circumstances, enforce the law when it comes to Trump. The Republicans in the Senate will not oppose Trump because they tremble in fear of his base.

The USSC know they are impotent because they cannot compel the DOJ to do anything.

So I ask you, are the American people ready to burn down the White House? Cuz I don't see anything short of that stopping Trump.

 

[johnwk]

The next step for you is to argue if an Administration can use an EO to put US citizens in detention centers.

I suggest you read the first ten amendments to our Constitution with regard to our federal government's authority over the people. There is a vast difference between a judge second guessing policy making decisions, and judging if the Constitution, by its terms, allows a policy decision made without violating the Constitution. In the case of the census, Congress delegated enormous power to the Executive Office.


JWK

 

[Stealers Wheel]

If Trump goes against the Supreme Court and orders the citizenship question as part of the census, not only does he risk an all out constitutional crisis and greatly upsetting checks and balances in the USA... but he makes the resulting census numbers illegitimate and something to be litigated and fought over for years.

The continuing damage Trump does to the institutions and norm of our government is great indeed. It is but one reason why he will go down as the single worst US president in history.

Trump has no regard for the rule of law. If he ignores the USSC ruling, who's going to stop him? Think about it. He's already told Congress to go Fxck themselves, why wouldn't he do the same thing to the USSC?

 

[BWG]

:roll:


Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution specifies that an “actual Enumeration” shall be done every 10 years “in such manner as [Congress] shall by Law direct.” By law [see 13 U.S.C. §141(a)], Congress has delegated to the Commerce secretary the authority to conduct the decennial enumeration “in such form and content as he may determine” and authorizes him “to obtain such other census information as necessary.”


The bottom line is, Congress delegated to the secretary almost unlimited authority to conduct the census required by the Constitution. Our Supreme Court, i.e., Justice freaken Obamacare Roberts is usurping policy make decision authority by second guessing the wisdom of asking the question: “Is this person a citizen of the United States?”

JWK

To the bolded. If Congress delegated to the secretary almost unlimited authority to conduct the census required by the Constitution, why does the secretary have to submit reports to the committees of Congress having legislative jurisdiction over the census? Seems to me that Congress still has legislative jurisdiction over the census.

13 U.S.C. §141 (f)

(f) With respect to each decennial and mid-decade census conducted under subsection (a) or (d) of this section, the Secretary shall submit to the committees of Congress having legislative jurisdiction over the census—
(1) not later than 3 years before the appropriate census date, a report containing the Secretary’s determination of the subjects proposed to be included, and the types of information to be compiled, in such census;
(2) not later than 2 years before the appropriate census date, a report containing the Secretary’s determination of the questions proposed to be included in such census; and
(3) after submission of a report under paragraph (1) or (2) of this subsection and before the appropriate census date, if the Secretary finds new circumstances exist which necessitate that the subjects, types of information, or questions contained in reports so submitted be modified, a report containing the Secretary’s determination of the subjects, types of information, or questions as proposed to be modified.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

I suggest you read the first ten amendments to our Constitution with regard to our federal government's authority over the people.

If Trump violates the constitutional rights of anyone, that will be determined by the courts. If Trump ignores the courts, who's going to do anything about it?

It is the DOJ that is responsible for law enforcement at the federal level. AG Barr, Trump's lapdog, is in charge of the DOJ, including the FBI. He would never enforce any law that Trump violates, and he would likewise ignore any court orders.

So I ask, if Trump wipes his ass with the Constitution, while 30% of the electorate cheers him on, who's going to do anything about it?

 

[HumblePi]

I like it. That forces the pro illegal alien forces back into court to chalked the E.O. After the Clown Car debates, it’s obvious that Trumps hand is much stronger now.

It is not that dramatic. The courts will jusy have to light a fire under their fat asses and get busy and rule on it. Co-Equal cuts both ways.

So, you're essentially saying you're anti-American and anti-democracy? This has already been ruled on by 3 separate federal judges AND the Supreme Court. There is no other court that can hear this.

 

[chuckiechan]

So, you're essentially saying you're anti-American and anti-democracy? This has already been ruled on by 3 separate federal judges AND the Supreme Court. There is no other court that can hear this.

He can E.O. with a different reason. The beef was with the connection to voting rights, rather the one citizen one vote voting rights. So he can E.O. something else. What are they going to do? Threaten to impeach him? LOL.

Whats wrong? Are you afraid you will find counties with more voters than citizens?

 

[haymarket]

Trump has no regard for the rule of law. If he ignores the USSC ruling, who's going to stop him? Think about it. He's already told Congress to go Fxck themselves, why wouldn't he do the same thing to the USSC?

I think you raise a great point and I agree completely in your assessment of Trump. Perhaps this is the bridge too far that we have been awaiting?

We can only hope.

 

[iguanaman]

He can E.O. with a different reason. The beef was with the connection to voting rights, rather the one citizen one vote voting rights. So he can E.O. something else. What are they going to do? Threaten to impeach him? LOL.

Whats wrong? Are you afraid you will find counties with more voters than citizens?

Yes he could just tell the truth and say it is to benefit Republicans and short-change blue States.

 

[HumblePi]

He can E.O. with a different reason. The beef was with the connection to voting rights, rather the one citizen one vote voting rights. So he can E.O. something else. What are they going to do? Threaten to impeach him? LOL.

Whats wrong? Are you afraid you will find counties with more voters than citizens?

Why don't you give the DOJ a ring and offer your suggestions, their deadline to come up with one is 2:00 tomorrow.

 

[Aristaeus]

Re: The census question and the big freaken socialist/communist lie by omission

Talk about getting rid of checks and balances, how about the rule of apportioning being ignored when it comes to taxation?


Our socialists and communists are complaining about being asked, on the census form “Is this person a citizen of the United States?”


They complain that the question would scare illegal entrants from answering the form in their state and thus reduce their apportioned share of Congressional Representatives, in addition to reducing their apportioned share of free government cheese. And this is especially true of New York, Maryland and California, which appear to be the biggest objectors to the question.


But there is another reason for having the census. In addition to determining each state’s number of Representatives, the census is also intended to determine each state’s share of our federal tax burden!


The rule of apportioning both representatives and direct taxes was part of the Great Compromise of the Convention of 1787, and the wisdom of tying representative and taxation to each state’s population size was summarized as follows by Madison in the Federalist Papers, that it “…will have a very salutary effect.” Madison 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


And in the state ratification debates we find:


“With regard to the general government imposing internal taxes upon us, he contended that it was absolutely necessary they should have such a power: requisitions had been in vain tried every year since the ratification of the old Confederation, and not a single state had paid the quota required of her. The general government could not abuse this power, and favor one state and oppress another, as each state was to be taxed only in proportion to its representation.” 4 Elliot‘s, S.C., 305-6


Our Supreme Court has, over the years, acted in concert with socialists and communists to ensure that States get their apportioned share of Representatives, while intentionally destroying the protection requiring these very states to pay an apportioned share of the federal tax burden. Keep in mind that constitutional rule requiring “direct taxes” to be apportioned has never been repealed, and has been so stated by the court:


In Eisner v. Macomber 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920), which ruled on a tax asserted by Congress to be an income tax, the tax was struck down as being a direct tax and requiring an apportionment. The Court stated:


"Thus, from every point of view we are brought irresistibly to the conclusion that neither under the Sixteenth Amendment nor otherwise has Congress power to tax without apportionment a true stock dividend made lawfully and in good faith, or the accumulated profits behind it, as income of the stockholder. The Revenue Act of 1916, in so far as it imposes a tax upon the stockholder because of such dividend, contravenes the provisions of article 1, 2, cl. 3, and article 1, 9, cl. 4, of the Constitution, and to this extent is invalid, notwithstanding the Sixteenth Amendment."


And in BROMLEY VS MCCAUGHN, 280 U.S. 124 (1929), the Court found the tax there to be an “excise” tax, but emphatically stated “As the present tax is not apportioned, it is forbidden, if direct.


And let us not forget that even Justice Roberts stated in the Obamacare case dealing with what is called “The shared responsibility payment”:


“The shared responsibility payment is thus not a direct tax that must be apportioned among the several States.”


The fact is, it does not matter what Congress calls a specific tax, i.e., impost, duty, excise or income tax. If the tax takes the form of a direct tax, it must be apportioned as repeatedly commanded by our Constitution and our Court.




So, for those who do support our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, and especially support the protection intended to be afforded by apportioning both representatives and direct taxes, is it not time to demand our Constitution be following and Representation with a proportional financial obligation be observed, which would end our socialist/communist states’ lover affair with “free” government cheese?


JWK

So in short, Trump should just ignore Supreme Court rulings because they're all a bunch of socialists and communists.

 

[dobieg]

So you have no problem with a President using an EO to ignore a SCOTUS ruling? Might as well get rid of checks and balances if that's the case. When a large chunk of Americans support the President in ignoring the rule of law and attempting to bypass the checks and balances that separate the three branches, just because he's 'your guy', then you have a problem in your country.

I agree.


Just imagine if a President used an EO to grant illegals amnesty.

 

[CLAX1911]

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/451668-trump-mulls-executive-order-to-add-citizenship-question-to-census

Trump mulls executive order to add citizenship question to census: report

President Trump is considering an executive order to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census, Axios reported on Thursday.

Senior administration officials told the news outlet that Trump is trying to find a workaround after a Supreme Court ruling that initially led the Department of Justice to drop the question from the census materials.
"We didn't come this far just to throw in the towel," one senior administration official told Axios.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There's a reason why every one of us, no matter which party you belong to, should sit up and take notice of this. As many are aware, just 2 days ago, the Trump administration stated that they would begin printing the 2020 census without the citizenship question after the Supreme Court last week had decided 5-4 that the Commerce Department had failed to justify its proposal. Wilbur Ross has spent the last two years fighting too add a question on citizenship. Federal court judges in New York, California and Maryland have all struck it down as illegal, unconstitutional or both. So, the Commerce Dept took it to the Supreme Court where it was also struck down.

The administration has formally surrendered yesterday and began printing the census questionnaire without the citizenship question. Then Trump tweeted an objection to the S.C. decision yesterday and stated that they're 'moving forward' because of the importance of the question. The tweet got the attention of the judge that made the decision. This judge asked the Justice Dept to explain that tweet. Trump's own lawyer in the Justice Dept that's representing him, stated he didn't know anything about the tweet or what Trump meant.

By 2 p.m. on Friday, the lawyers for the administration will have to offer the federal judge in Maryland, additional reasoning for adding the question and if they fail to prove their case, the SC ruling stands.

Trump’s administration had two defenses for the citizenship question: first, that it would help the Justice Department enforce the Voting Rights Act on behalf of minority communities, and second, that the administration was simply “reinstating” a question that had a deep “pedigree” stretching back “nearly 200 years.”The Court rejected the Voting Rights Act defense as a pretext. That was all the challengers needed legally, since the law governing federal-agency decision making requires the stated reason for an agency’s action to be the real reason.

Here's the bottom line on this issue. IF the S.C. rules and the DOJ and Trump both disagree with the ruling and Trump issues an EO to move forward with printing the 2020 census questions with the citizenship question, this would be a true and very serious Constitutional crisis. I know, we've heard the term bantered around here more times than I can count. In this case, it would be an extremely dire situation for our democracy because it would pit the Executive and Judicial branches of government in direct opposition. If the Executive branch overrides the Supreme Court decision, it will be establishing a precedent which will lead to even more powers being usurped by the Trump Executive branch. This would literally be a power grab and unconstitutional.

I find it a bit odd that the court would go against them on this. The reason there's a census is to find out how many citizens live in an area to make sure they get the proper representation. it would be important to know if the people there counting or actually citizens

 

[rocket88]

Executive orders are ONLY acceptable when issued by Barack Obama.

Trump is NOT Barack Obama, but rather New Zombie Hitler.

Do you see the error in your thinking now?

No you're right. It's only ok for Trump.

As with anything else, liberals doing anything is bad.

 

[rocket88]

It's not over till the fat lady sings!

President Trump plucking liberal nerves again! eace

There is no reason the citizenship question is not on the census! :usflag2:

Well, no reason other than courts, but who needs them?

 

[wellwisher]

Why can the census ask questions that categorizes the citizens by color and sex, but cannot categorize immigrants as legal or illegal? Other than political strategy and games, this taboo makes no sense terms of knowing the national demographics. Not knowing this data allows the Democrats to cheat the system.

Trump needs to do this in an indirect way, that is not as up front and honest, since Progressives are not sure how to deal with honesty. They work better with lies and manipulation. This is how you get it through.

The census could ask if you have a green card. The options can be yes, no, does not apply. They can ask, do you have a license to drive a car. The answer is yes or no and if yes, what is your ID number. They can then cross reference this number with state data to determine status.

You can give people the option to fill out the survey in various languages, which also tells something of citizen status. We know how many legal immigrants there are. This can be cross reference with other questions that seem innocent enough. Don't expect honest answers from people who are not honest, unless the question seems harmless and not self incriminating.

This indirect approach may not get the illegal to incriminate themselves, but it can get rough numbers, from which money and representation can then be divided.

 

[johnwk]

To the bolded. If Congress delegated to the secretary almost unlimited authority to conduct the census required by the Constitution, why does the secretary have to submit reports to the committees of Congress having legislative jurisdiction over the census? Seems to me that Congress still has legislative jurisdiction over the census.

To answer your question, the power delegated is done so with conditions and is limited to a necessary degree. It's a very complicated subject but if you are really interested in the subject see: Delegation of Legislative Power and especially note "The History of the Doctrine of Nondelegability".

JWK

 

[johnwk]

If Trump violates the constitutional rights of anyone, that will be determined by the courts. If Trump ignores the courts, who's going to do anything about it?

It is the DOJ that is responsible for law enforcement at the federal level. AG Barr, Trump's lapdog, is in charge of the DOJ, including the FBI. He would never enforce any law that Trump violates, and he would likewise ignore any court orders.

So I ask, if Trump wipes his ass with the Constitution, while 30% of the electorate cheers him on, who's going to do anything about it?

Well, instead of speaking in generalities, as you have done, which is a clever trick, how about being specific? Are you suggesting a president of the United States could actually impose Martial Law and go around locking up political opponents by him/her self in today's world and get away with it? Seems to me the president would have to have thousands of willing accomplices at the DOJ, in our courts and law enforcement agencies who have taken an oath to support and defend our Constitution. Tell me, do you think the American People would stand idle and do nothing? Do you remember the Bundy standoff? I'm really not sure what you mean by wiping his ass with the Constitution. Would you stand by idle and do nothing?

JWK

 

[johnwk]

Re: The census question and the big freaken socialist/communist lie by omission

So in short, Trump should just ignore Supreme Court rulings because they're all a bunch of socialists and communists.

:roll:

 

[johnwk]

He can E.O. with a different reason. The beef was with the connection to voting rights, rather the one citizen one vote voting rights. So he can E.O. something else. What are they going to do? Threaten to impeach him? LOL.

Whats wrong? Are you afraid you will find counties with more voters than citizens?

Hey. In some counties dead people vote, and sometimes repeatedly. It's one of the socialists/communists tricks.


JWK

 

[MTAtech]

Why can the census ask questions that categorizes the citizens by color and sex, but cannot categorize immigrants as legal or illegal? Other than political strategy and games, this taboo makes no sense terms of knowing the national demographics. Not knowing this data allows the Democrats to cheat the system.

Trump needs to do this in an indirect way, that is not as up front and honest, since Progressives are not sure how to deal with honesty. They work better with lies and manipulation. This is how you get it through.

The census could ask if you have a green card. The options can be yes, no, does not apply. They can ask, do you have a license to drive a car. The answer is yes or no and if yes, what is your ID number. They can then cross reference this number with state data to determine status.

You can give people the option to fill out the survey in various languages, which also tells something of citizen status. We know how many legal immigrants there are. This can be cross reference with other questions that seem innocent enough. Don't expect honest answers from people who are not honest, unless the question seems harmless and not self incriminating.

This indirect approach may not get the illegal to incriminate themselves, but it can get rough numbers, from which money and representation can then be divided.

First, the question didn't ask, for legal or illegal status but asked whether one is a citizen.

Second, reforming the issue as 'progressives can't deal with honesty, so Trump has to be do it sneaky,' is twisting logic into a pretzel. The court determined that the Trump Admin lied about the reason for the question. It's been proven beyond any reasonable level that the REAL reason for the question is to intentionally undercount immigrants, who are more likely to live in Blue states. This would result in lower representation in Congress and less population based federal funds. In other words, the purpose is to give Republicans more seats in Congress and more funding of Red areas.

 

[johnwk]

I find it a bit odd that the court would go against them on this. The reason there's a census is to find out how many citizens live in an area to make sure they get the proper representation. it would be important to know if the people there counting or actually citizens

Why do you think California embraces illegal entrants and encourages them to come to their sanctuary state? It will give them, and our communists and socialists, two or maybe three more congressional seats and control over our national treasury.

JWK

 

[HumblePi]

I find it a bit odd that the court would go against them on this. The reason there's a census is to find out how many citizens live in an area to make sure they get the proper representation. it would be important to know if the people there counting or actually citizens

It's not odd at all that the Supreme Court agreed with the 3 lower federal courts, based on the law. A census is not intended to count citizens. A census is a tally of the total number of people living in a country. In the US, a census is important to know what the needs are in each state so that allocations of government services and resources can be established. When scientists compute world population, they use statistics from the U.S. Census Bureau. The total number of humans on the planet is not based on how many citizens live in each country, it's how many humans live in that country.