Kavanaugh's 1st vote: "to include citizenship question in census?"

[UsualName]

Not everyone agrees with your opinion that bringing citizenship into the census is a bad idea. I think you would be hard pressed to find a supporter to bringing back lead paint, which is why the comparison is nothing at all similar.

What we have to ask ourselves is will this question, in current political atmosphere, fulfill the constitutional mandate of the census or will it lessen the count?

Also, what is the motivation to bring back such an antiquated question?

(((These are good questions, btw.)))

 

[Tsing Tao]

What we have to ask ourselves is will this question, in current political atmosphere, fulfill the constitutional mandate of the census or will it lessen the count?

Also, what is the motivation to bring back such an antiquated question?

(((These are good questions, btw.)))

I think those are valid questions to ask.

Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution states: "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States ... according to their respective Numbers ... . The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years."

Section 2 of the 14th Amendment states: "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."

Sure sounds like the idea was designed to count citizens who pay taxes and vote, to be counted for appropriation of funds and representatives deemed to serve.

As for what the motivation to bring back the question is (I'll ignore the word "antiquated" as that is your opinion of it, and an attempt to undermine the reasoning), it was never removed. It was on the "long form" of the census, which was moved to a "short form". When the short form was created to be used, that question was one of those left out. Trump is bringing back the question on to the short form.

 

[UsualName]

I think those are valid questions to ask.

Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution states: "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States ... according to their respective Numbers ... . The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years."

Section 2 of the 14th Amendment states: "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."

Sure sounds like the idea was designed to count citizens who pay taxes and vote, to be counted for appropriation of funds and representatives deemed to serve.

As for what the motivation to bring back the question is (I'll ignore the word "antiquated" as that is your opinion of it, and an attempt to undermine the reasoning), it was never removed. It was on the "long form" of the census, which was moved to a "short form". When the short form was created to be used, that question was one of those left out. Trump is bringing back the question on to the short form.

No. The intent was to just get a head count of all residents as a base congressional apportionment. SCOTUS ruled congress can gather other “necessary and proper” statistics in like 1900 or so, I believe.

So in discrimination cases we often have to show a pattern of mistreatment. The GOP has shown a pattern in their efforts to limit the vote and skew federal apportionment.

Moving the question from the long form to the short form will result is an apportionment that does not accurately reflect the resident count of non citizens.

 

[TJustice]

1. How do you know the intent? Tsing just gave you the text. You can see in the text Tsing made a strong argument the census was to count citizens.

Just saying "no the intent was..." absent some textual or contemporaneous evidence is not a very persuasive argument.


2. How has the GOP been any more crooked about voting than the Democrats.
California does not even make people show ID at the polls.
We could have massive voter fraud.
The dems wanted more illegal votes. The republicans want fewer illegal votes.
The republican stance is far more legitimate than the Democrat stance.

No. The intent was to just get a head count of all residents as a base congressional apportionment. SCOTUS ruled congress can gather other “necessary and proper” statistics in like 1900 or so, I believe.

So in discrimination cases we often have to show a pattern of mistreatment. The GOP has shown a pattern in their efforts to limit the vote and skew federal apportionment.

Moving the question from the long form to the short form will result is an apportionment that does not accurately reflect the resident count of non citizens.

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

No. The intent was to just get a head count of all residents as a base congressional apportionment. SCOTUS ruled congress can gather other “necessary and proper” statistics in like 1900 or so, I believe.

So in discrimination cases we often have to show a pattern of mistreatment. The GOP has shown a pattern in their efforts to limit the vote and skew federal apportionment.

Moving the question from the long form to the short form will result is an apportionment that does not accurately reflect the resident count of non citizens.

Congress has authority to exclude non-citizens from a wide range of benefits and programs. Therefore, it has a valid need to understand the number of citizens versus non-citizens in allocating funds to states. Precisely the type of "necessary and proper" statistics the Court said could be gathered.

 

[UsualName]

Congress has authority to exclude non-citizens from a wide range of benefits and programs. Therefore, it has a valid need to understand the number of citizens versus non-citizens in allocating funds to states. Precisely the type of "necessary and proper" statistics the Court said could be gathered.

Maybe necessary but does it pass the “proper” threshold if it undermines an accurate count for apportionment, remembering apportionment is the original intent.

 

[UsualName]

1. How do you know the intent? Tsing just gave you the text. You can see in the text Tsing made a strong argument the census was to count citizens.

Just saying "no the intent was..." absent some textual or contemporaneous evidence is not a very persuasive argument.


2. How has the GOP been any more crooked about voting than the Democrats.
California does not even make people show ID at the polls.
We could have massive voter fraud.
The dems wanted more illegal votes. The republicans want fewer illegal votes.
The republican stance is far more legitimate than the Democrat stance.

Big down vote for you. This is garbage.

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

Maybe necessary but does it pass the “proper” threshold if it undermines an accurate count for apportionment, remembering apportionment is the original intent.

Au contraire. It enables an accurate count for apportionment.

Not all the justices will be as sure as you that the Framers wanted to make sure that we did not do anything that will scare illegals off.

 

[UsualName]

Au contraire. It enables an accurate count for apportionment.

Not all the justices will be as sure as you that the Framers wanted to make sure that we did not do anything that will scare illegals off.

True. The justices do have a way of seeing things in new and fascinating ways. If corporations are people I guess anything is possible.

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

True. The justices do have a way of seeing things in new and fascinating ways. If corporations are people I guess anything is possible.

Except that giving weight to illegals such that they can be the tail to wag the dog is the "new and fascinating way."

I dont think the Framers anticipated giving a lot of weight to people who should not be expected to be in the country, given that laws are required to be carried into effect under the Constitution.