And what about the real corruption as to why a census was put into our Constitution as explained HERE? Is that not more important than who is in charge of the taking of the census?
The very reason for a required census being put into our Constitution is : (a) to determine each state’s number of allotted representatives, and (b) to determine each State’s share of any direct tax laid by Congress.
Now, in regard to taxation, let us review some of our Founder’s thinking regarding the grant of power to lay and collect an apportioned direct tax among the states, and whether or not their thinking is “weird”…
Pinckney addressing the S.C. ratification convention states the following with the tax in question:
“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
And then there is this:
“The proportion of taxes are fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of the territory, or fertility of soil” 3 Elliot’s, 243, “Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax” ___ 3 Elliot’s, 244 ___ Mr. George Nicholas, during the ratification debates of our Constitution.
And then, Mr. Madison goes on to remark about Congress’s “general power of taxation” that, "they will be limited to fix the proportion of each State, and they must raise it in the most convenient and satisfactory manner to the public."3 Elliot, 255
And if there is any uncertainty about the rule requiring any direct tax to be apportioned, and thus ensure the people of each state are taxed proportionately equal to their representation in Congress when a direct tax is laid, Mr. PENDLETON says:
“The apportionment of representation and taxation by the same scale is just; it removes the objection, that, while Virginia paid one sixth part of the expenses of the Union, she had no more weight in public counsels than Delaware, which paid but a very small portion”3 Elliot’s 41
So, according to our Founders, the rule of apportionment boils down to a fundamental rule which may be expressed as follows: Representation with a proportional financial obligation when any direct tax is laid among the States.
And here are the two formulas regarding apportionment:
States’ population
---------------------------- X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE’S FAIR SHARE
Total U.S. Population
And . . .
State`s Pop.
------------------- X House size (435) = State`s No. of Representatives
U.S. Pop.
.
Now, Jezcoe, what is so “weird” about apportioning both representatives and any direct tax laid among the States?
JWK
If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection [apportionment] could be frittered away, one of the great landmarks defining the boundary between the nation and the states of which it is composed, would have disappeared, and with it one of the bulwarks of private rights and private property. POLLOCK v. FARMERS’ LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 (1895) JUSTICE FULLER
I can see the impeachment papers now if Trump would have tried to personally got involved in the census. Maybe he could have fired everyone and hired his own people.
You pulled up your skirt and showed off your TDS undies again.
Yes it is… And, thanks to the GOP, the President now has the cool power to use the Office to pressure a foreign government to announce a criminal investigation on a domestic political rival for his own gain.
What I posted HEREare not my ideas, nor do I agree with the notion our Founders rule of apportioning both representatives and any direct tax among the states is “weird”.
Serving a search warrant is 100% within the power of the DOJ.
There is a legal process for that to obtain a warrant. But I know what you are complaining about… the Carter Page FiSA warrant. As per the Horowitz report the initial warrant and first renewal were legal. It was the second and third renewal that invaded Page’s rights.
You are losing the narrative a little. That was done by a campaign as part of research on a political opponent. There was nothing illegal about it’s creation nor did the sitting President have anything to do with it.