The census question and the big freaken socialist/communist lie by omission

Our socialists and communists are complaining about being asked, on the census form “Is this person a citizen of the United States?”

They complain that the question would scare illegal entrants from answering the form in their state and thus reduce their apportioned share of Congressional Representatives, in addition to reducing their apportioned share of free government cheese. And this is especially true of New York, Maryland and California, which appear to be the biggest objectors to the question.

But there is another reason for having the census. In addition to determining each state’s number of Representatives, the census is also intended to determine each state’s share of our federal tax burden!

The rule of apportioning both representatives and direct taxes was part of the Great Compromise of the Convention of 1787, and the wisdom of tying representative and taxation to each state’s population size was summarized as follows by Madison in the Federalist Papers, that it “…will have a very salutary effect.” Madison observes in this paper . . . “Were” the various States’ “share of representation alone to be governed by this rule, they would have an interest in exaggerating their inhabitants. Were the rule to decide their share of taxation alone, a contrary temptation would prevail. By extending the rule to both objects, the States will have opposite interests, which will control and balance each other, and produce the requisite impartiality.” See Federalist No. 54

And in the state ratification debates we find:

“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 if there is any confusion about the rule of apportionment being intentionally designed to insure that the people of each state are to be taxed proportionately equal to their representation in Congress, 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

Our Supreme Court has, over the years, acted in concert with socialists and communists to ensure that States get their apportioned share of Representatives, while intentionally destroying the protection requiring these very states to pay an apportioned share of the federal tax burden. Keep in mind that constitutional rule requiring “direct taxes” to be apportioned has never been repealed, and has been so stated by the court:

In Eisner v. Macomber 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920), which ruled on a tax asserted by Congress to be an income tax, the tax was struck down as being a direct tax and requiring an apportionment. The Court stated:

"Thus, from every point of view we are brought irresistibly to the conclusion that neither under the Sixteenth Amendment nor otherwise has Congress power to tax without apportionment a true stock dividend made lawfully and in good faith, or the accumulated profits behind it, as income of the stockholder. **The Revenue Act of 1916, in so far as it imposes a tax upon the stockholder because of such dividend, contravenes the provisions of article 1, 2, cl. 3, and article 1, 9, cl. 4, of the Constitution, and to this extent is invalid, notwithstanding the Sixteenth Amendment."**

And in BROMLEY VS MCCAUGHN, 280 U.S. 124 (1929), the Court found the tax there to be an “excise” tax, but emphatically stated ***“As the present tax is not apportioned, it is forbidden, if direct.”***

And let us not forget that even Justice Roberts stated in the Obamacare case dealing with what is called “The shared responsibility payment”:

“The shared responsibility payment is thus not a direct tax that must be apportioned among the several States.”

The fact is, it does not matter what Congress calls a specific tax, i.e., impost, duty, excise or income tax. If the tax takes the form of a direct tax, it must be apportioned as repeatedly commanded by our Constitution and our Court.

So, and with regard to the census question, the more important task is to once again tie representation and taxation to each state’s population size, as intended by our founders.

Finally, for those who do support our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, and especially support the protection intended to be afforded by apportioning both representatives and direct taxes, is it not time to demand our Constitution be following and Representation with a proportional financial obligation be observed, which would end our socialist/communist states’ lover affair with “free” government cheese?

JWK


”If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection 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]

1 Like

This sociocommunist just scrolled through your post.

3 Likes

What does the 16th Amendment have to do with the reasons for which our founders apportioned both representatives and taxation? Is it not a fact Madison was right?

Madison in the Federalist Papers, says that apportioning both representatives and taxation “…will have a very salutary effect.” He observes in this paper . . . “Were” the various States’ “share of representation alone to be governed by this rule, they would have an interest in exaggerating their inhabitants. Were the rule to decide their share of taxation alone, a contrary temptation would prevail. By extending the rule to both objects, the States will have opposite interests, which will control and balance each other, and produce the requisite impartiality.” See Federalist No. 54

Look at our communist socialist states like California who now swell their states with illegal entrants to gain more representation in Congress. Would California do so if it had to pay a proportional share of our federal tax burden relative to its population size?

JWK

No. We don’t agree. The reason for apportioning both representation and taxation is as valid today as when Madison expressed the reasons for apportioning both.

Additionally, the 16th Amendment did not change the requirement that “direct taxes” are still required to be apportioned.

JWK

The Democrat Party Leadership has been angry, stupid and obnoxious ever since the Republican Party Leadership freed democrat owned slaves. ___ Author unknown

1 Like

The irrefutable fact is, the intentions for which the rule of apportioning both representatives and taxation, as Madison stated, have proven to be correct. Additionally, the 16th Amendment did not repeal the requirement that “direct taxes” are to be apportioned.

Our communist/socialist states like California want to swell their population size with illegal entrants so they can increase their representation in Congress. But they do not want to pay their apportioned share of the federal tax burden as intended by our founders.

The two fair share formulas for which the census is conducted are:
.

State`s Population

_________________X House membership (435) = State`s No. of Representatives

Population of U.S.
.

State`s population

_________________ X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE`S SHARE OF TAX BURDEN

Total U.S. Population

For an example of this apportioned tax see an Act laying a direct tax for $3 million in which the rule of apportionment is applied.

And then see Section 7 of the direct tax of 1813 allowing states to pay their respective quotas and be entitled to certain deductions in meeting their payment on time.

We wouldn’t have all this crap going on about the census if the rule of apportionment was once again applied to each states number of representatives and its share of our federal tax burden. Unfortunately, our communists and socialists have managed to circumvent that part of apportionment requiring their communist/socialist states to pay their apportioned share of the tab, while they swell their states with illegal entrants to increase their representation in Congress.

JWK

1 Like

Get back to me when the constitution states citizens rather than people in regards to the census. The fact that they tied in other clauses to the census means they inherently agreed that those clauses were based on the census of people, not just citizens.

What does that have to do with the validity of applying apportionment to representation and taxation?

Our communist/socialist states like California want to swell their population size with illegal entrants so they can increase their representation in Congress. But they do not want to pay their apportioned share of the federal tax burden as intended by our founders.

I think we need a discussion on enforcing the rule of apportionment and start requiring each state to pay an apportioned share of the federal tax burden based upon their allotted number of representatives. Doing so would make our communist/socialist state’s heads explode, and all those who support free government cheese.

JWK

Socialist Politicians are Traitors to their country!

A lot of words from Johnwk to deflect from what happened. Supreme Court sent case back to lower court to consider new information. S.C. did not decide on intent.

The 16th Amendment, as previously documented, did not repeal the requirement that “direct taxes” are required to be apportioned.

Additionally, the 16th Amendment does not interfere with Congress laying a direct apportioned tax which would finally get communist/socialist states to pay an apportioned share of the federal tax burden proportionately equal to their representation in Congress. Doing so would discourage California from inviting the poverty stricken populations of other countries to flood into California in order to increase California’s number of representatives in Congress ____ a current projected increase from illegal entrants is now estimated to be two or three new seats for California…

Madison was absolutely correct about the rule of apportionment being applied to representation and taxation, that it would discourage communist/socialist states from attempting to swell their population to increase their representation in Congress in order to seize control of our federal treasury.

Do you not think representation with a proportional financial obligation is a good idea, and that it would have a salutary effect on Congress’ current irresponsible spending and borrowing practices?

One thing for sure, if returned to, a direct apportioned tax to extinguish annual deficits would end the illusion in communist/socialist states that there is free government cheese,

JWK

Without a Fifth Column Media and Yellow Journalism [our MSM], the crisis at our southern border would never have grown to what now amounts to an outright invasion and threatens the general welfare of the United states.

It is already part of our Constitution!

JWK

The Democrat Party Leadership has been angry, stupid and obnoxious ever since the Republican Party Leadership freed democrat owned slaves. ___ Author unknown

And that is why President Trump needs to tell Justice Roberts, the question is being asked for the same reasons Obama asked it, whatever they may be.

JWK

The Democrat Party Leadership has been angry, stupid and obnoxious ever since the Republican Party Leadership freed democrat owned slaves. ___ Author unknown

Because updated information is necessary?

In 2015 when Obama asked in the American Community Survey, “Is this person a citizen of the United States?”, one of the reasons he gave for asking the question is, it is “used to decide where new schools, hospitals, and fire stations are needed.” So, according to Obama, it’s important to ask “Is this person a citizen of the United States?” for the above stated reasons.

JWK

The Democrat Leadership is correct! The border crisis has been manufactured. It has been manufactured by the Democrat Leadership in Congress refusing to protect our borders against an ongoing invasion.

The legal issues may not be solved by providing a reason. The courts and law (APA) are requiring the reason. The first explaination failed because it was factually inconsistent and determined to be pre-textual. The hard part now is that the forces causing them to make up a reason rather than providing the original reason(s) have not changed.

The administration appears unwilling to share the details of inception with the courts and public. That may be why an Exective Order is now under discussion. It may create the legal conditions that alleviate them from having to elaborate and document the original genesis. We have a new reason!

With reports that the question’s language matches verbatim with files from a republican redistricting/gerrymandering expert one can imagine several possible facets of the real reason that are either politically damaging or that invite additional court scrutiny.

This is actually a fascinating opportunity for us to learn more about how the Executive’s administration powers function.

With regard to the court second guessing legislative acts and policy making decisions, doing so violates the separation of powers doctrine.

Justice Stone reminds us that:

The power of courts to declare a statute unconstitutional is subject to two guiding principles of decision which ought never to be absent from judicial consciousness. One is that courts are concerned only with the power to enact statutes, not with their wisdom. The other is that while unconstitutional exercise of power by the executive and legislative branches of the government is subject to judicial restraint, the only check upon our own exercise of power is our own sense of self-restraint. For the removal of unwise laws from the statute books appeal lies, not to the courts, but to the ballot and to the processes of democratic government. U.S. v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 78-79 (1936)

Also see: Just because we [the courts] do not think the legislators have acted wisely or responsibly does not give us the right to assume their duties or to substitute our judgment for theirs. Hillis v. Department of Ecology, 131 Wash. 2d 373, 932 P.2d 139 (1997).

JWK

……we are not at liberty to second-guess congressional determinations and policy judgments of this order, however debatable or arguably unwise they may be…The wisdom of Congress’ action, however, is not within our province to second guess. _________ELDRED et al. v. ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL (2003)

Oh no, new lawyers…

The bottom line question is, why was it constitutional for Obama’s Census Bureau to ask “Is this person a citizen of the United States”, and un-constitutional for today’s Census Bureau to ask the very same question? Keep in mind that Section 2 of the 14th Amendment requires the distinction between citizens and non-citizens to be made with reference to apportionment.

It appears Justice Roberts believes he is vested with a power to strike down laws and policy making decisions that do not meet his personal sense of fairness, reasonableness and justice, which in fact is second guessing our Constitution which actually requires, by Section 2 of the 14th Amendment to make a distinction between citizens and non-citizens with reference to apportionment.

Justice Roberts, who also embraced our federal government entering the states and meddling with the people’s unalienable right to make their own medical choices and decisions, needs to be held accountable for his acts of sedition and personal war against our Constitution.

JWK

"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges’ views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." – Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968

How shall you hold a life-time appointed justice accountable for his “acts of sedition” as you put it?

As has been pointed out already, the citizenship question on the American Community Survey has been around since 1990. The ACS is not a census…

The rest of your blather is just that, blather that has no bearing in a court…

You don’t even appear to understand the Supreme Court ruling on the citizenship question… The court did not say that the question could not be part of the census, they said the reasons given by the administration for adding the question “appears to have been contrived.”

The change in legal team announced yesterday by the DOJ just underscores how legally dubious the administration is willing to go. It appears the career lawyers in DOJ are no longer willing to soil their names for the administration.

It’s irrelevant if Justice Roberts believes adding the question “appears to have been contrived.”

It is not a Justices’ job to second guess the wisdom or legitimacy of legislative acts and policy making decisions. Its only job is to decide if such acts are within the four walls of the Constitution.

In regard to this assumption of power by Justice Roberts [second guessing legislative acts and policy making decisions], Justice Stone reminds us that:

”The power of courts to declare a statute unconstitutional is subject to two guiding principles of decision which ought never to be absent from judicial consciousness. One is that courts are concerned only with the power to enact statutes, not with their wisdom. The other is that while unconstitutional exercise of power by the executive and legislative branches of the government is subject to judicial restraint, the only check upon our own exercise of power is our own sense of self-restraint. For the removal of unwise laws from the statute books appeal lies, not to the courts, but to the ballot and to the processes of democratic government.” U.S. v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 78-79 (1936)

Additionally, the court in Hillis v. Department of Ecology, 131 Wash. 2d 373, 932 P.2d 139 (1997) pointed out:

”Just because we [the courts] do not think the legislators have acted wisely or responsibly does not give us the right to assume their duties or to substitute our judgment for theirs.”

And, in ELDRED et al. v. ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL (2003) the court unmistakably confirmed:

……we are not at liberty to second-guess congressional determinations and policy judgments of this order, however debatable or arguably unwise they may be…The wisdom of Congress’ action, however, is not within our province to second guess.

And finally, Justice Black, quite eloquently addressed the issue as follows:

"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges’ views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." – Justice Hugo L. Black (U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968

The bottom line is, Justice Obamacare-Roberts has repeatedly violated the most fundamental cannons and principles of our constitutionally limited system of government and the fundamental rules of constitutional construction by interfering with a legitimate question being replaced on our census form . . . “Is this person a citizen of the United States?”

JWK

Without a Fifth Column Media and Yellow Journalism [ourMSM], the crisis at our southern border would never have grown to what now amounts to an outright invasion and threatens the general welfare of the United States.

1 Like