California AG Threatens to Sue if Trump Administration Places Citizenship Question on Census
- Thread starter Optionpro007
- Start date
UsualName
1. How the house does it is interesting. But it does not mean its method would pass a constitutional test. I just read that citizenship was a question on the test in 19th century.
2. Interesting point... I wonder if the DOJ was sabotaging Trump's position again. I remember its attorney let himself get destroyed during oral arguments for Trump's immigration ban.
1. How the house does it is interesting. But it does not mean its method would pass a constitutional test. I just read that citizenship was a question on the test in 19th century.
2. Interesting point... I wonder if the DOJ was sabotaging Trump's position again. I remember its attorney let himself get destroyed during oral arguments for Trump's immigration ban.
1. This is where the 14th Amendment comes into factor. Whether you like it or not persons on American land are constitutionally protected to be counted in the census. In the 19th century a citizenship question wasn’t a deterring factor in being counted. In today’s climate, where ICE is apprehending noncitizens at back to school night, it is a deterrent.
2. It’s the administration’s best legal strategy and it’s pathetic. They should not be pursuing it.
The conversation is meandering a bit as a result of fuzzy thinking by the lefties.
Bacerra is stating that he will fight the placement of a question about citizenship as part of the census. From there, people immediately leap to the questions of who should be included in the population count for forming congressional districts. Those two issues may related but they are nevertheless separate issues.
The constitution clearly gives congress the power to manage the census and to include all sorts of demographic questions which congress accepts as being helpful/needed to managing the country. For example, census questions have included questions about ethnicity etc but does not immediately confirm an intent to exclude certain ethnicities or races from being counted in the demographic information that congress wants and is empowered to collect since it is the designated census-master. The constitution does not state that the census is limited to just a numerical body count. The fuzzy conversation here would immediately leap to long arguments about how Hispanics (white anglos, south sea islanders etc) should or should not be counted in the body count for congressional districts. That is a separate issue.
Similar Congress can properly conclude that knowing what percentage of the population is a citizen, a permanent resident, or a non citizen resident is a valid inquiry to properly understand American demographics, but does not immediately go to the issue of who should be counted in congressional district body counts, anymore than asking age, gender and ethnicity does.
Congress probably has - or at least to date has had- a wide range of authority to ask questions about the American population and Bacerra probably has limited power to block what is put on the census. There is however an enormous power to argue what factors on that census count can be used to determine congressional apportionment. But you have to get to that point first.
Now there is the argument that asking questions about citizenship will put illegals in an uncomfortable position but that is not a basis for not asking it. We are not designing a census to meet the needs of illegals. And I do think that Bacerra has the right to make a case to congress for not including that because it is basically up to them to decide. But I don't think he has any "rights" under the law or in a legal case. If the dems were in power that would be the way to go, but they are not. And the question of "who" should be used in the body count is a legal question due to unclear definitions but that is not what Bacerra is arguing. He is arguing that the question about citizenship cannot even be put on the questionnaire when in fact congress may decide it wants to know for several other reasons too. Maybe Bacerra will be arguing next week that you cannot have "Hispanic" as a response on the ethnicity part of the census because that could be threatening too and will hold down participation.
No. The question that Bacerra presents is whether citizenship status can be asked on the questionnaire. That alone does not determine an intent to exclude non-citizens anymore than asking a persons age or age bracket indicates an intent to not count the elderly or babies so all those arguments about residents vs. citizens do not need to be resolved at this point.
Not the best time in history for dems to be out there making a major argument that there is a massive number of illegals in our country who drive many expenses so we need to make sure they get counted so that your tax dollars can go toward paying for it- but, hey, go for it.
Bacerra is stating that he will fight the placement of a question about citizenship as part of the census. From there, people immediately leap to the questions of who should be included in the population count for forming congressional districts. Those two issues may related but they are nevertheless separate issues.
The constitution clearly gives congress the power to manage the census and to include all sorts of demographic questions which congress accepts as being helpful/needed to managing the country. For example, census questions have included questions about ethnicity etc but does not immediately confirm an intent to exclude certain ethnicities or races from being counted in the demographic information that congress wants and is empowered to collect since it is the designated census-master. The constitution does not state that the census is limited to just a numerical body count. The fuzzy conversation here would immediately leap to long arguments about how Hispanics (white anglos, south sea islanders etc) should or should not be counted in the body count for congressional districts. That is a separate issue.
Similar Congress can properly conclude that knowing what percentage of the population is a citizen, a permanent resident, or a non citizen resident is a valid inquiry to properly understand American demographics, but does not immediately go to the issue of who should be counted in congressional district body counts, anymore than asking age, gender and ethnicity does.
Congress probably has - or at least to date has had- a wide range of authority to ask questions about the American population and Bacerra probably has limited power to block what is put on the census. There is however an enormous power to argue what factors on that census count can be used to determine congressional apportionment. But you have to get to that point first.
Now there is the argument that asking questions about citizenship will put illegals in an uncomfortable position but that is not a basis for not asking it. We are not designing a census to meet the needs of illegals. And I do think that Bacerra has the right to make a case to congress for not including that because it is basically up to them to decide. But I don't think he has any "rights" under the law or in a legal case. If the dems were in power that would be the way to go, but they are not. And the question of "who" should be used in the body count is a legal question due to unclear definitions but that is not what Bacerra is arguing. He is arguing that the question about citizenship cannot even be put on the questionnaire when in fact congress may decide it wants to know for several other reasons too. Maybe Bacerra will be arguing next week that you cannot have "Hispanic" as a response on the ethnicity part of the census because that could be threatening too and will hold down participation.
No. The question that Bacerra presents is whether citizenship status can be asked on the questionnaire. That alone does not determine an intent to exclude non-citizens anymore than asking a persons age or age bracket indicates an intent to not count the elderly or babies so all those arguments about residents vs. citizens do not need to be resolved at this point.
Not the best time in history for dems to be out there making a major argument that there is a massive number of illegals in our country who drive many expenses so we need to make sure they get counted so that your tax dollars can go toward paying for it- but, hey, go for it.
Not to get too far into the weeds here but the citizenship question is still being used.
The gubberment actually uses two census forms. A long form and a short form. A sixth of the forms that go out are the long form and they are sent out randomly or according to some pre-determined representative sample. The long form has a pantload more questions and is more of a sampling on some issues in addition to getting the basic short form data.
The long form has the citizenship question in it.- or the most recent one did. The short form did not. So Bacerra has that to deal with too.
Last edited:
It’s always the best time to do the right thing and Subverting the constitution is the wrong thing. This is the case here.
Congress and the executive branch can certainly enact their lawful prerogative but the argument is the administration’s intentions are illegal because they are motivated by discrimination, which they obviously are.
The idea that this president seeks to ask a citizenship question to protect minority voters is laughable. The goal of the question is to intimidate noncitizens and decrease the lawful participation of noncitizens and diminish their lawful representation in Congress. Basically, when you start with garbage, you end with garbage - “garbage in, garbage out.”
Additionally, the question is not necessary because citizenship is part of the acs and congress and the executive branch already have access to that information.
More rambling by you that express how you feel but are not a legal argument againt Bacerra's legal action or proposed action.
As discussed the census is used to capture a full range of demographic information. You may not like how some people would answer the question but that is not a basis for removing it. We have had the citizenship question included in earlier versions, the long form in some instances, on the general census in 1950 and so on. Now it is allegedly unconstitutional because the answers are not convenient.
I have agreed that if you and Bacerra don't like what is included you can lobby congress to change it. If the citizen/non-citizen issue comes up at some future point in regard to congressional apportionment then that is a separate issue that can be adjudicated then.
You or someone else, for example, may assume that census data from Puerto rico is going to be used to make a case for statehood so you want it, or someone else else may not want a census done in Puerto rico, for example, the data will be used to keep them from statehood. It is neither here nor there at that level. Congress has the authority to conduct a census there with a full range of questions related to their demographic status. How people use the data at a later point may give rise too all sorts of issues but is not an argument for keeping basic information off the census. And no, Puerto Rico has no congressional districts- because as I said- your immediate leaping to the argument that census data is just all about how to wire congressional districts- is out of order. It is used for all sorts of other things. I probably lost you on the Puerto rico analogy and that is to be expected. Others will see it.
I don't really care on some level because the lefty state AG's are going to run with their legal action and I am more than happy with the attention and conversation that it will drive. You think this is a winner for dems at the polls? It isn't. Why don't you just offer a chance to win a free TV if you complete the census form. I think that might be legal as long as it is just for returning the form and not influencing answers, and would appeal to your base so would get the return level up. You do realize that I am talkin a big-screen TV right? Gotta do this right. No cheapin out.
Last edited:
Yeah, we’ll the court has already established preclearance as suitable for barriers set forth by the government in constitutionally protected activities, such as they did in voting. The court can do exactly the same thing here. The congress nor the president has the right to construct barriers based on race, religion, NATIONAL ORIGIN, gender or disability.
And, again, this is a garbage in, garbage out justification. They already have the information they claim they need.
So, Hispanic illegals should be given the right to vote and all other rights even though they are not citizens because to do otherwise would be to discriminate against them on the basis of national origin?
Yup. This is going to be a winner at election time.
Your best bet is to make sure that Ruth Ginsberg is getting her daily shot of Tahitian Noni Juice every day to stay peppy for the long haul.