Jump to content

52% of Democrats favor the citizenship question in the census


japantiger

Recommended Posts

On ‎7‎/‎13‎/‎2019 at 9:51 AM, japantiger said:

We've had a question on citizenship for over 200 years

Wasn't it Obama that removed the question? Hmm wonder why he would do that? It couldn't be to help the demo rats could it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites





theatlantic.com

Trump’s Malarkey Only Goes So Far

Peter M. Shane

13-16 minutes

Even in defeat, the administration can’t stop trying to snow the public about a proposed citizenship question.

Kevin Lamarque / Reuters

The shortest way of describing what happened with Donald Trump’s census fiasco is that mendacity met the rule of law and, for now, the rule of law won. Trump tried to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census, but the Supreme Court stopped him because the rationale his administration offered for the change was demonstrably false. The fallback plan he hinted at—of adding the question via executive order—never materialized because the president has no such authority. On Thursday, Trump gave up, though he pretended otherwise.

Unfortunately, his appearance Thursday—alongside Attorney General William Barr and a silent Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross—strongly suggests that the president and his enablers will keep trying to snow the public on this issue. Armed with an executive order mandating nothing that could not have been done from the get-go, Trump and Barr sought to camouflage their defeat with the mixture of partisan bile, self-contradiction, and half-truth from which the administration’s census policy has been concocted all along.

The “new option” touted by the president “to ensure a complete and timely count of the noncitizen population” was available to the administration from day one. Not only does the Census Act authorize the secretary of commerce to seek information from other government establishments, but it expresses Congress’s preference for such data acquisition over “direct inquiries,” where possible. The secretary concluded, however, that reliance on administrative records would be inadequate to determine the actual size and location of the U.S. noncitizen population. Now Trump insists that the data project will yield results “far more accurate” than the direct questioning he and Ross championed. In other words, the president is blithely saying the exact opposite of what his administration previously asserted.

The most revealing half-truth uttered by both Trump and Barr is that the Supreme Court’s decision amounts to no more than a requirement for a “better record.” According to Trump, “The Supreme Court ultimately affirmed our right to ask the citizenship question,” but “ruled that we must provide further explanation.” Not quite. The problem the Court identified was that the secretary of commerce had lied. As the court put it, Ross had presented “an explanation for agency action that is incongruent with what the record reveals about the agency’s priorities and decision making process.” The secretary, in other words, had exceeded the legal system’s tolerance for untruthfulness.

The making of public policy, the late judge Patricia Wald maintained, is not just “a rarified technocratic process.” It is universally understood that when government officials pursue their authorized purposes, they are typically animated by multiple motives, some more nakedly political than others. Perfect candor is not required.

The problem is that, if law is to function, lying must have some limits. If every benign incantation of government reasoning allows unspoken, irrational, and even illicit purposes to be pursued without check, the very notion of a government of laws evaporates. That’s what was at stake regarding the census. In a famous passage from one of his most important decisions, Chief Justice John Marshall wrote: “Should Congress, under the pretext of executing its powers, pass laws for the accomplishment of objects not entrusted to the government; it would become the painful duty of this tribunal, should a case requiring such a decision come before it, to say that such an act was not the law of the land.” John Roberts’s Court was called upon to review the action of the Department of Commerce, not Congress, but the point is the same: The law requires at least some measure of good faith. It’s no wonder Trump lost.

Barr said Thursday that Trump had ordered him to try to find a path forward, and Barr believed that he “could plainly provide rationales” for inquiring about citizenship “that would satisfy the Supreme Court.” Barr was perhaps fortified in his confidence by Trump v. Hawaii, in which a different five-justice majority, again speaking through Roberts, was willing to uphold Trump’s travel-ban proclamation. The majority there overlooked the president’s anti-Muslim rhetoric and accepted the government’s official claim that the proclamation’s purpose was the protection of national security.

But Trump v. Hawaii was a radically different case. It involved a statute that explicitly authorized the president, not any other official, to restrict the entry of foreign citizens into the United States. He could act based on his personal determination that their entry “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.” In Roberts’s judgment, a challenge to the travel ban based on impermissible presidential motive could “‘inhibit the flexibility’ of the President to respond to changing world conditions.” He determined that the Court’s “inquiry into matters of entry and national security [should be] highly constrained.”

However, the census—and most domestic public administration—involves no such considerations. There is no lurking threat to national security for census takers to police. Neither the Constitution nor Congress gives the president any administrative role in deciding the questions to be asked. The case involves routine questions of administrative law.

The president’s foremost constitutional charge is “to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” Whatever uncertainty surrounds the meaning of faithful execution, honesty, at least, must be involved. To hasten Supreme Court involvement, the Trump administration insisted that it needed a resolution of the matter by June 30—an assertion it would have had to abandon if it continued its fight. For some reason, the lawyers who argued the administration’s case in two courts were not ready for the task. The Justice Department jettisoned its original legal team to bring in lawyers from the Office of Immigration Litigation, the civil-frauds division, and the consumer-protection branch, none of which has any obvious expertise regarding the census. It never explained why the original lawyers were removed.

Events have revealed that the Trump administration’s handling of the census question and the ensuing litigation has reeked from the beginning of prevarication and contempt for law and orderly process. In case anyone missed it, both the president and Barr—whose eager embrace of his role as a Trump partisan further degrades his office with each passing day—underscored the political aim underlying the citizenship-question campaign: to permit experiments in legislative redistricting that would lower the representation of heavily Democratic cities and increase the strength of rural Republican strongholds. In his remarks in the Rose Garden on Thursday, Trump actually invited states to undertake such gerrymandering, because the Supreme Court “said it would not review certain types of districting decisions.”

Trump’s appeal to partisanship was a rare moment of candor amid a speech otherwise full of malarkey. But if the president’s handling of the census case is any indication, neither he nor his enablers have any inclination to close the ever present gap between what Trump says and what is actually happening. Whether the federal judiciary will demand some measure of good faith from Trump in future disputes remains to be seen, but his contrivances will surely create other occasions to test the courts’ resolve.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.

Peter M. Shane is the Jacob E. Davis and Jacob E. Davis II chair in law at the Ohio State University's Moritz College of Law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, kd4au said:

Wasn't it Obama that removed the question? Hmm wonder why he would do that? It couldn't be to help the demo rats could it?

The most revealing half-truth uttered by both Trump and Barr is that the Supreme Court’s decision amounts to no more than a requirement for a “better record.” According to Trump, “The Supreme Court ultimately affirmed our right to ask the citizenship question,” but “ruled that we must provide further explanation.” Not quite. The problem the Court identified was that the secretary of commerce had lied. As the court put it, Ross had presented “an explanation for agency action that is incongruent with what the record reveals about the agency’s priorities and decision making process.” The secretary, in other words, had exceeded the legal system’s tolerance for untruthfulness.

 

yep.......they lied and you people could care  less. or maybe y'all are just taht ignorant. and since you have problems grasping thing malarky is a polite way of saying bullshh*t.................

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, homersapien said:

You obviously don't understand or respect the role of the Supreme Court in our system. I suggest you find a "Civics" elementary book and cover it again.

Thank God there's not enough of you people to actually negate our constitution and destroy our democracy. 

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha ... Homey wants to invoke the Constitution...when has a radical leftist ever cared what the Constitution actually said?  Man, you should really do standup for a living...are you always this funny or only on here?

Ignoring the court when it's none of the courts business is respecting the Constitution, dumbass.  Just because the court wants to weigh in doesn't mean another branch has to or should tolerate it's unconstitutional intrusion.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, japantiger said:

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha ... Homey wants to invoke the Constitution...when has a radical leftist ever cared what the Constitution actually said?  Man, you should really do standup for a living...are you always this funny or only on here?

Ignoring the court when it's none of the courts business is respecting the Constitution, dumbass.  Just because the court wants to weigh in doesn't mean another branch has to or should tolerate it's unconstitutional intrusion.  

Who exactly has the  prerogative to determine the court's involvement in a given question is unconstitutional, under the constitution?   I missed that part.

(Try to respond without the lame, sophomoric insults,  if you can.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, kd4au said:

Wasn't it Obama that removed the question? Hmm wonder why he would do that? It couldn't be to help the demo rats could it?

He had logical reasons for removing it.  (Pretty much the same reasons opponents are citing against restoring it.)

And those reasons have less to do with "helping demo rats" than providing for a more accurate account of district representation, which better comports with the constitutional intent of the census in the first place.

Any more questions I can help you with?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, japantiger said:

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha ... Homey wants to invoke the Constitution...when has a radical leftist ever cared what the Constitution actually said?  Man, you should really do standup for a living...are you always this funny or only on here?

Ignoring the court when it's none of the courts business is respecting the Constitution, dumbass.  Just because the court wants to weigh in doesn't mean another branch has to or should tolerate it's unconstitutional intrusion.  

you are such an idiot. i have often assumed you are in the military {marines i believe}and if so you swore an oath to protect and uphold the constitution , period. but even if you are not and you are as patriotic as you seem to be or claim to you should honor the constitution. and here is the thing. if you swore on your word and yet are not doing it then you lose all credibility. period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, homersapien said:

He had logical reasons for removing it

Lets just say your and obama's logic and mine are not the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/14/2019 at 1:52 PM, aubiefifty said:

you are such an idiot. i have often assumed you are in the military {marines i believe}and if so you swore an oath to protect and uphold the constitution , period. but even if you are not and you are as patriotic as you seem to be or claim to you should honor the constitution. and here is the thing. if you swore on your word and yet are not doing it then you lose all credibility. period.

I would recommend you have someone read the constitution to you.  If the Court rules on everything and their "power" is final; then they are a superior branch.  The constitution does not provide for a superior branch; it says there are three co-equal branches.  The only way that is possible is if a branch asserts it's rights against potential intrusion and over reach by another.   The exec branch has the option of simply not abiding by a court ruling when the court steps beyond it's scope.  Lincoln, Jackson, FDR and others thwarted the Courts pretty effectively.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, japantiger said:

I would recommend you have someone read the constitution to you.  If the Court rules on everything and their "power" is final; then they are a superior branch.  The constitution does not provide for a superior branch; it says there are three co-equal branches.  The only way that is possible is if a branch asserts it's rights against potential intrusion and over reach by another.   The exec branch has the option of simply not abiding by a court ruling when the court steps beyond it's scope.  Lincoln, Jackson, FDR and others thwarted the Courts pretty effectively.   

now you are talking sideways as usual with your" tbs "crap going on. you swore to defend and uphold the constitution period. you bring nothing but pettiness and made up facts.and you are good about name calling when your made up facts abandon you. i enjoyed your struggle with the truth with your convo with titan. he is right and i agree. maybe you should post less. the difference between us is i have some honor. when i am proven wrong with no doubt i admit it. if needed i might apologize. but i never ever just get on here and lie out my ass like so many of you do. then instead of admitting the truth when you have been proven wrong you people get mad at the light bearers. here is the thing i think you miss. once you are labeled a liar you lose all credibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, aubiefifty said:

now you are talking sideways as usual with your" tbs "crap going on. you swore to defend and uphold the constitution period. you bring nothing but pettiness and made up facts.and you are good about name calling when your made up facts abandon you. i enjoyed your struggle with the truth with your convo with titan. he is right and i agree. maybe you should post less. the difference between us is i have some honor. when i am proven wrong with no doubt i admit it. if needed i might apologize. but i never ever just get on here and lie out my ass like so many of you do. then instead of admitting the truth when you have been proven wrong you people get mad at the light bearers. here is the thing i think you miss. once you are labeled a liar you lose all credibility.

Please point out the error in my assessment of the constitution and the role of the court vs the other branches.  Please, go there.  

Let me help you and save all of us a lot of time.  You can't and you won't.  Your view of everything is "Orange man bad.  If you agree with Orange Man policies, you bad".  You should have been a Hillary speechwriter.  Maybe you were.  Her assessment of over half the country as "deplorable" seems to be your level of intellect. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, japantiger said:

Please point out the error in my assessment of the constitution and the role of the court vs the other branches.  Please, go there.  

Let me help you and save all of us a lot of time.  You can't and you won't.  Your view of everything is "Orange man bad.  If you agree with Orange Man policies, you bad".  You should have been a Hillary speechwriter.  Maybe you were.  Her assessment of over half the country as "deplorable" seems to be your level of intellect. 

get some meds for that tbs dude. you are not allowed to make any kind of political posts on base or on government time. you get no say in the constitution other than to uphold and defend the constitution as it stands as long as you serve. but you are supposed to know all this. jesus i hope you do not have people working for you if you are this big of an idiot offline.. now you tell me how you i am wrong. better yet quit wasting my time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/16/2019 at 1:17 PM, aubiefifty said:

get some meds for that tbs dude. you are not allowed to make any kind of political posts on base or on government time. you get no say in the constitution other than to uphold and defend the constitution as it stands as long as you serve. but you are supposed to know all this. jesus i hope you do not have people working for you if you are this big of an idiot offline.. now you tell me how you i am wrong. better yet quit wasting my time.

I'm not going to tell you your wrong.  It would obviously be a waste of time.  These two videos might be a little over your head; but I'm sure if you watch them enough, some of the concepts of separate but equal branches will start to sink in...I'm available to help answer any of your questions. 

 

 

"A mind, it's a terrible thing to waste".

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/14/2019 at 12:50 PM, homersapien said:

Who exactly has the  prerogative to determine the court's involvement in a given question is unconstitutional, under the constitution?   I missed that part.

(Try to respond without the lame, sophomoric insults,  if you can.)

If the court inserts itself into a decision that the exec justifiably thinks is over-reach, the exec branch has the prerogative of not enforcing the ruling.  This is a check on the power of the court just like appointing judges, pardons, etc..  At that point, it is up to the court to either negotiate with the Exec branch or convince Congress it needs to take action to constrain the exec.  Checks and Balances; just like it says.  Simple.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, japantiger said:

If the court inserts itself into a decision that the exec justifiably thinks is over-reach, the exec branch has the prerogative of not enforcing the ruling.  This is a check on the power of the court just like appointing judges, pardons, etc..  At that point, it is up to the court to either negotiate with the Exec branch or convince Congress it needs to take action to constrain the exec.  Checks and Balances; just like it says.  Simple.   

While the executive branch can ignore a court ruling - thus exposing himself to impeachment - that in no way means the executive is establishing constitutionality on the issue.  That is the function of the court alone.

Simply defying the courts is not a part of checks and balances as provided for in the constitution any more than the executive defying Congress  in the impeachment process would be. 

It is, by definition, unlawful. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

While the executive branch can ignore a court ruling - thus exposing himself to impeachment - that in no way means the executive is establishing constitutionality on the issue.  That is the function of the court alone.

Simply defying the courts is not a part of checks and balances as provided for in the constitution any more than the executive defying Congress  in the impeachment process would be. 

It is, by definition, unlawful. 

 

Funny, everything with you is about impeachment.  Actually, it's about negotiating like the Founders intended to get the best answer for the country.  If the Court is unsuccessful and goes to the Congress, the most prescribed remedy by Congress is to assert their legislative authority and simply pass a law to that effect; and if necessary over-ride a presidential veto if the executive veto's it.   See how easy this checks and balances thing is.  

The executive "simply defying" the court is not unlawful.  It is inherent in having "separate but equal" branches.  Otherwise, one branch is superior which is the opposite of "separate but equal".  It may be unwise; that does not make it unlawful...especially in areas that are grey areas on what is  a matter prescribed to the court vs not.  Federalist 78 is a good place to read.   Hamilton stated that the judgments of the judiciary must be legally sound and the courts entire judicial power rests on the acceptance of it's judgments; having no "sword" or "purse" or "force" to enforce rulings.   The courts reliance on the executive arm was to safeguard the people of the impropriety of a rouge court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, japantiger said:

Funny, everything with you is about impeachment.  Actually, it's about negotiating like the Founders intended to get the best answer for the country.  If the Court is unsuccessful and goes to the Congress, the most prescribed remedy by Congress is to assert their legislative authority and simply pass a law to that effect; and if necessary over-ride a presidential veto if the executive veto's it.   See how easy this checks and balances thing is.  

The executive "simply defying" the court is not unlawful.  It is inherent in having "separate but equal" branches.  Otherwise, one branch is superior which is the opposite of "separate but equal".  It may be unwise; that does not make it unlawful...especially in areas that are grey areas on what is  a matter prescribed to the court vs not.  Federalist 78 is a good place to read.   Hamilton stated that the judgments of the judiciary must be legally sound and the courts entire judicial power rests on the acceptance of it's judgments; having no "sword" or "purse" or "force" to enforce rulings.   The courts reliance on the executive arm was to safeguard the people of the impropriety of a rouge court.

No, it's just that impeachment is the only recourse if the POTUS defies a court ruling.  That's not to say impeachment will necessarily happen - for example Andrew Jackson defied a court ruling against relocating the Cherokees (the "trail of tears").

Regardless, it was unconstitutional act on the part of the president.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, homersapien said:

No, it's just that impeachment is the only recourse if the POTUS defies a court ruling.  That's not to say impeachment will necessarily happen - for example Andrew Jackson defied a court ruling against relocating the Cherokees (the "trail of tears").

Regardless, it was unconstitutional act on the part of the president.

Gee, I'll call Hamilton and let him know he made an error in Federalist 78....I'm sure he'll be glad to know that.  

You're such a dumbass ... just take the L dude.  You were better off just not responding and slipping away without embarrassing yourself.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

titan shames jappers on here just about every single day. and jappers never says anything worthwhile. he justs struts aorund like a peacock..........truth

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/18/2019 at 3:22 PM, japantiger said:

Funny, everything with you is about impeachment.  Actually, it's about negotiating like the Founders intended to get the best answer for the country.  If the Court is unsuccessful and goes to the Congress, the most prescribed remedy by Congress is to assert their legislative authority and simply pass a law to that effect; and if necessary over-ride a presidential veto if the executive veto's it.   See how easy this checks and balances thing is.  

The executive "simply defying" the court is not unlawful.  It is inherent in having "separate but equal" branches.  Otherwise, one branch is superior which is the opposite of "separate but equal".  It may be unwise; that does not make it unlawful...especially in areas that are grey areas on what is  a matter prescribed to the court vs not.  Federalist 78 is a good place to read.   Hamilton stated that the judgments of the judiciary must be legally sound and the courts entire judicial power rests on the acceptance of it's judgments; having no "sword" or "purse" or "force" to enforce rulings.   The courts reliance on the executive arm was to safeguard the people of the impropriety of a rouge court.

Yeah, as if a "rogue court" consisting of 9 justices is a greater danger than a president with authoritarian intent. :-\

The president has no constitutional right to defy the court. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/17/2019 at 11:05 PM, japantiger said:

If the court inserts itself into a decision that the exec justifiably thinks is over-reach, the exec branch has the prerogative of not enforcing the ruling.  This is a check on the power of the court just like appointing judges, pardons, etc..  At that point, it is up to the court to either negotiate with the Exec branch or convince Congress it needs to take action to constrain the exec.  Checks and Balances; just like it says.  Simple.   

Who exactly defines "justifiably".  It's not the president.  It's ultimately the people - via Congress with it's power of impeachment to remove the president.

Why do you suppose Trump hasn't been simply defying all of the court injunctions against his actions?  Why hasn't Trump simply declared the courts irrelevant?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, homersapien said:

Yeah, as if a "rogue court" consisting of 9 justices is a greater danger than a president with authoritarian intent. :-\

The president has no constitutional right to defy the court. 

Hamilton's words (rouge court) and the term used during the Constitutional convention.  Double Dumbass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/20/2019 at 11:27 PM, japantiger said:

Hamilton's words (rouge court) and the term used during the Constitutional convention.  Double Dumbass.

There were plenty of "words" said during the Constitutional convention.  That doesn't mean they all made it into the Constitution.  Provisions allowing for the POTUS to defy the constitution is a good example.  It's unconstitutional for the President to defy SCOTUS. 

(And try to grow up and lose the insults, they don't help your case.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/11/2019 at 12:55 PM, aubiefifty said:

let me keep it real simple. i agree with the supreme court on this and roberts agreed and is very conservative. but of course you or someone will come in and bash roberts. i want elections to be fair. you guys could care less as long as you win period.

It wasn’t the question he had problems with, it was the reasoning behind putting it on the census. The administration could go back to the courts and it would be allowed, but not in time for the current one. Nothing unconstitutional about it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/22/2019 at 10:17 AM, homersapien said:

There were plenty of "words" said during the Constitutional convention.  That doesn't mean they all made it into the Constitution.  Provisions allowing for the POTUS to defy the constitution is a good example.  It's unconstitutional for the President to defy SCOTUS. 

(And try to grow up and lose the insults, they don't help your case.)

oh the insults are a double standard on here monie. if i do it i am unhinged. if the other side does it they give their side a pass. just like trump. but in the end i laugh because trump uses his base like toilet paper. and trump can get as nasty as he wants and no one blinks an eye on the christian right. or non christian right. so i give it right back to the morons. i quit being nice long ago. we are past that now.when they rediscover their honor i will quit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...