Shocker: Census to only count US citizens

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

2 hours ago, AuburnNTexas said:

NolaAuTiger is correct when ever a case is presented to the Supreme court for review the Justices look at the actual wording of the Constitution, the writings of the people who penned the Constitution, previous rulings on similar subjects, that have been handed down, etc. In most cases the strict constructionists find papers supporting a strict interpretation. It is only when there is a lack of prior information from the people who penned the constitution or from Jurists that want to indirectly re-write the Constitution without going through the amendment process that the law can be changed.

He documented why Titan is correct in his interpretation. As for the accuracy of the count most illegals won't fill it out whether it asks for Citizenship or not as they don't trust government on the whole. Most illegals in the Hispanic community associate Government with La Migra (Immigration Service) and as such will avoid filling things out if possible.

 

I’ve encountered SCOTUS opinions that resemble strict construction, but I don’t think I’ve ever encountered an actual strict constructionist judge - if that makes sense. I mean, if one was a true strict constructionist, then the first amendment couldn’t be interpreted to protect written letters on parchment. Reason being, parchment paper isn’t speech (verbal) and it isn’t press, strictly speaking.

On the other hand, a textualist like myself realizes/believes that parchment paper is protected speech under Amend I. becuase it’s “expression,” ie the kind of “thing” protected. I think this is the rationale for Scalia reasoning that burning the American flag is protected under Amendment I.

What are your thoughts on the matter?

[AuburnNTexas 7,174]

2 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

I’ve encountered SCOTUS opinions that resemble strict construction, but I don’t think I’ve ever encountered an actual strict constructionist judge - if that makes sense. I mean, if one was a true strict constructionist, then the first amendment couldn’t be interpreted to protect written letters on parchment. Reason being, parchment paper isn’t speech (verbal) and it isn’t press, strictly speaking.

On the other hand, a textualist like myself realizes/believes that parchment paper is protected speech under Amend I. becuase it’s “expression,” ie the kind of “thing” protected. I think this is the rationale for Scalia reasoning that burning the American flag is protected under Amendment I.

What are your thoughts on the matter?

On a different subject in the football forum concerning the athletes being baptized on campus I basically said that Freedom of speech is one of the reasons that it was allowed as is burning a flag on campus. I understand why Scalia ruled that burning the flag was free speech and I agree with it. Because I believe burning the flag is free speech and they are allowed to do it does not mean I approve of the act or that there are not indirect consequences when a person's free speech goes against another person's belief's. 

I would have the right not to associate with that person and if I owned a business and he wanted a job with me I would not hire him.

While I am fairly well read the Law is not my forte that is one of the reasons I enjoy your comments as I can tell that you do know the law and have the communication skills to clearly and concisely express your viewpoint

[AuburnNTexas 7,174]

4 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Have you even read the Constitutional provision addressing the census?

Yes and so there is no confusion here it is:

Article 1, Section 2 of the United States Constitution:
The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.
No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. 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, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.
When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies.
The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment

 

 

 

 

 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

31 minutes ago, AuburnNTexas said:

On a different subject in the football forum concerning the athletes being baptized on campus I basically said that Freedom of speech is one of the reasons that it was allowed as is burning a flag on campus. I understand why Scalia ruled that burning the flag was free speech and I agree with it. Because I believe burning the flag is free speech and they are allowed to do it does not mean I approve of the act or that there are not indirect consequences when a person's free speech goes against another person's belief's. 

I would have the right not to associate with that person and if I owned a business and he wanted a job with me I would not hire him.

While I am fairly well read the Law is not my forte that is one of the reasons I enjoy your comments as I can tell that you do know the law and have the communication skills to clearly and concisely express your viewpoint

I appreciate that. My speciality is not constitutional law nor litigation, but I enjoy the topics pertaining thereto. I believe we see eye to eye in this discussion. There are compelling arguments that can counter my assertions though, that I am sure as I’ve encountered many. Justice Breyer for example, intelligent judge, but many times fervently disagreed with Scalia.

[homersapien 11,453]

6 hours ago, AU64 said:

By and large the OP headline is false.   The census will count everyone who fills out the form....but for a number of good reasons the government would like to know how many non-citizens are living in this country too.   That's the issue.   

As for the Constitution, don't think it was the intent of the census to figure out how many toilets are in the average household......and about a hundred other seemingly private things that the government wants us to share with them. 

Good grief, it was one example of the value of such data.   Trust me, it has enormous value both for economic ("free enterprise")  and governmental reasons

 

[AU64 10,122]

23 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Good grief, it was one example of the value of such data.   Trust me, it has enormous value both for economic ("free enterprise")  and governmental reasons

Good grief.....I know it does but when it was conceived it was to count people for establishing representation....not an economic survey or figuring how to divide the government pie.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

Good grief, it was one example of the value of such data.   Trust me, it has enormous value both for economic ("free enterprise")  and governmental reasons

 

You’ve shot your credibility in this one early. Move on...

[homersapien 11,453]

10 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

You’ve shot your credibility in this one early. Move on...

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

Love you too bud

[AuburnNTexas 7,174]

The reason for asking the question is two fold. As NolaAuTiger mentioned he does not believe that people here who are not US citizens should count towards the number of representatives that a state gets. That said he has mentioned that there are learned Jurists on both sides of the argument and he gave examples of Justice Scalia and Justice Breyer. That aspect will probably have to be addressed by the Supreme Court in the future.

The other issue is allocations to the states for Federal Programs. In most cases people who are not here legally are supposedly excluded from these programs and the amount of money allocated to the state should exclude these people. That makes asking the question legitimate so a state that harbors large numbers of people who are not here legally would not get extra funding because of that. By the way that would also hurt my state of Texas as it is one of the states that has large number of people who have not followed the law in coming to Texas. From a purely selfish viewpoint Texas would want to count these people as it would give them more representatives and a bigger piece of the governments funds but not surprisingly Texas follows the letter of the Law even when it hurts the state.

[stoic-one 1,549]

1 hour ago, AuburnNTexas said:

By the way that would also hurt my state of Texas as it is one of the states that has large number of people who have not followed the law in coming to Texas. From a purely selfish viewpoint Texas would want to count these people as it would give them more representatives and a bigger piece of the governments funds but not surprisingly Texas follows the letter of the Law even when it hurts the state.

To expound: