26th Amendment
The topic at hand is the censusâŚ
The 26th Amendment says diddly squat about the census, but thanks for playing.
#citizenlivesmatter
Ah- is this the game weâre playing?
Trumpers cant seem to make the connection that not everyone here legally is a citizenâŚ
Should be a slam dunk case for the administration in front of the supreme court.
Layout all the census from becoming a country until 1950. Show the judges that the quesion is NOT uncommon in the history of the country or the censes.
Then look at each judge in turn then ask them. If it was unconstitutional then, what part of the constitution has been changed by congress and the states that would make it unconstitutional now.
Sadly not far from the truth
What were the reason for those questions? Would that be pertinent information or is the question being asked on the form justification in and of itself?
Why doesnât there need to be one.
As Iâve stated, it was on previous census for quite some time.
So how would it be unconstitutional?
Well, if the purpose is to disenfranchise ethnic communities, wouldnât that run afoul of the voting rights act?
I am not saying the illegals have the constitutional right, but their purpose as stated in the letter to disenfranchise the community including US citizens.
You would also have to see why the question was asked previously. What was the purpose in the 1800s vs today? Could it be they were counting slaves back then due to the 3/5 compromise?
It has never ever been asked of every single American.
It has only ever been asked before on the long form Census (which now no longer exists, having been replaced by the annual American Community Survey), which only 17% of the population ever received.
When it was asked in previous questionnaires, it was only asked as a follow-up question if a person marked down that they were foreign-born.
So you are incorrect. This is fundamentally differentâŚand the reasons why itâs being asked will matter.
Maybe we should resort to some questions on the 1930 census 
- Personâs place of birth
- Personâs fatherâs place of birth
- Personâs motherâs place of birth
- Language spoken in home before coming to the United States
- Year of immigration into the United States
- Is the person naturalized or an alien?
- Is the person able to speak English?
numbers of questions were put in by the board software but here are the questions in 1930 (and it was based on the 1910 and 1920 questions)
By 1950 this is what it changed to:
- Race
- Sex
- How old was this person on his last birthday?
- Is this person now married, widowed, divorced, separated, or never married?
- Enumerators were to enter âMarâ for married, âWdâ for widowed, âDâ for divorced, âSepâ for separated, or âNevâ for never married
- What State or country was the person born in?
- If foreign born, is the person naturalized?
By 1970, it was off the regular census and onto the âlong formâ that went to 1 in 6 households
The following questions were asked of only a sample of respondents
- Where was this person born?
- Is this personâs origin or descentâŚ
* Mexican
* Puerto Rican
* Cuban
* Central or South American
* Other Spanish
* None of these- What country was the personâs father born in?
- What country was the personâs mother born in?
- For persons born in a foreign country- Is the person naturalized?
- WHen did the person come to the United States to stay?
- What language, other than English, was spoken in the personâs home as a child?
- Spanish
- French
- German
- Other
- None, only English
1990 was the last year of the long form to a small sample of those filling out census forms and again we have:
The following questions were asked of a sample of respondents:
- In what U.S. State or foreign country was this person born?
- Is this person a citizen of the United States?
- If this person was not born in the United States, when did this person come to the United States to stay?
- At any time since February 1, 1990, has this person attended regular
school or college?- How much school has this person completed?
- What is this personâs ancestory or ethnic origin?
- Did this person live in this house or apartment 5 years ago?
- If no, where did this person live 5 years ago?
- Does this person speak a language other than English at home?
- If yes, what is this language?
- If yes, how well does this person speak English?
Oh wait. Look â long form again in 2000
- What is this personâs ancestry or ethnic origin?
- Does this person speak a language other than English at home?
- What is this language?
- How well does this person speak English?
- What state or country was this person from?
- Is this person a citizen of the United States?
- If the person was not born in the United States, when did he come to live in the United States?
Guess the information I read that it dissappeared from the census in 1960 was only partially correct.
Maybe we should just back to a short form and a long form that goes to 1 in 6 people.
Up to 1960 it was on the questionair that all go.
It has been on the long form for 1 in 6 up until 2000.
Did you have trouble comprehending what I told you?
All you did was repeat what I said with a little more detail.
In 1960 all they asked was where was the person bornâŚthey didnât ask about citizenship.
These other forms youâre mentioning? The citizenship question was a follow-up to whether the person answered if they were born in another country.
And i said it was on the long form- which only 17% of the population got (or 1 in 6 people).
In trying to refute me, you supported what I said- the question has never been asked of every single person on the censusâŚand the reasons why itâs being added now will matter.
1 Like
Oh looky here
1820 census
- Number of foreigners not naturalized
aka number of NON CITIZENS
So basically we have from 1820 to 2010 190 years the question was asked in some form on the US census (either in the regular census or long form to a limited number).
Now tell me how in the name of all that is holly can something that was done for 190 years be unconstitutional?
Was the constitutionality of the question ever challenged, back when it was used?
If not, the federal appellate courts (most notably scotus), never had an opportunity to address the issue. That would be akin to, âweâve always had segregation, and therefore its constitutionalâ
Also, âweâve always been doing it this wayâ or âwe used to do it this wayâ is notoriously bad argument to make to SCOTUS. Typically, the reason scotus grants cert is because at least four justices donât like the way somethings always been done, and thatâs precisely why youâre standing in front of them.
1 Like
I stand corrected. If you were naturalized didnât appear in 1960, but re-appeared in 1970. on the long form, and was aksed in 1980, 1990, and 2000.
Under what part of the constitution would it be unconstitutional.
Please quote.
The part where itâs being done to change the way voting districts are drawn to disenfranchise people.
