Whoops… Sounds like Judge Furman is getting tired of the DOJ antics…
https://twitter.com/KlasfeldReports/status/1148704975389888514
P.S. Justice Roberts is still on the bench…
Actually, I agree with you to the degree that it is unconstitutional for Congress to cede census policy to the Executive. But at least in doing so, the power is still in the hands of an elected official as opposed to those unelected who then mull over the rational of a policy making decision.
Keep in mind the court never ruled upon whether or not asking the question is constitutional. In fact the opinion indicates the question can be asked without violating the Constitution! The court stated:
We do not hold that the agency decision here was substantively invalid. But agencies must pursue their goals reasonably. Reasoned decision making under the Administrative Procedure Act calls for an explanation for agency action. What was provided here was more of a distraction.
In other words, the court disagreed with the wisdom and reasons for placing the question on the census form. It did not, even remotely, suggest placing the question on the form violated the Constitution. And the court in ruling as it did, usurps the power of the people’s elected representatives to make such policy decisions and judgements, and thus, has undermined our representative form of government. If Congress disagrees with the policy decision of the Secretary, it is their job to intervene and legislate to the contrary. The courts’ only job is to determine if the policy is within the four walls of the Constitution.
As I previously pointed out, this case can be summed up as follows:
"For the removal of unwise laws [and in this case a policy making decision] . . . 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)
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
I don’t agree with the premise that the Constitution prohibits judicial review, but if we are to take that tack we need to go all the way. An “At least” remedy would not cut it in my eyes. In for a penny in for a pound. The constitution places the formulation of the census in the legislature. That does not mean they need an act to prevent Executive alteration. It means the Executive needs and Act to alter the census.
The power is in the hands of a diffuse group of elected officials, with diffuse power, geographic representation and staggered election cycles. Substituting the singular Executive contrary to the Constitution can not be qualified as “better” than substituting the Judiciary.
I don’t see where in the Constitution violations are ranked by severity such that Executive overreach is preferable to Judicial overreach
If we are to reject the current arrangement in favor of a (hypothesized) ridged constitutional perspective the question will require an act by both houses and an executive signature (or congressional override).
I too do not agree with the premise that the Constitution prohibits judicial review. But having said that, I do believe when our courts make a ruling on the constitutionality of a policy making decision or legislative act, our courts must be bound by the text of our Constitution, and its documented legislative intent which gives context to its text. To not require our judicial officers to follow this fundamental procedure is to allow our judges and Justices to make our constitution mean whatever they wish it to mean.
In a newspaper article published in the Alexandria Gazette, July 2, 1819, Chief Justice Marshall asserted he could “cite from [the common law] the most complete evidence that the intention is the most sacred rule of interpretation.” And, our very own Constitution does acknowledge and command abiding by “the rules of the common law”.
Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution and the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.
Should we not demand our judges and Justices to follow the most fundamental rules of constitutional construction and support their written opinions within these confines?
I agree there is no difference in the effects from constitutional violations when made by those we elect as opposed to judicial overreach. My only point was that when violations are made by those we elect, we are directly responsible for putting such tyrants in office.
JWK
" I believe that there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." ___ Madison Elliot`s Debates, vol. III, page 87
I understand your perspective. Although when isolated from other actions that are Judicial overreach this case does not look egregious to me. The law requires a reason for rule making and sets up the role of the Court. I don’t think the court had to guess the mind of the Secretary. The facts of the submitted reasoning were demonstrably false. If the facts of the reason were even remotely possible I believe Roberts would have deferred to the Secretary and not guess his mind.
The Secretary gets deference under the APA, but I don’t think that deference should extend to the point that they can outright fabricate the administrative record.
With Congress out of the way (if the house is split or aligned with the Executive) the consequence of absolute rule making power could be perverse. The executive could require in-person counting and then wildly understaff regions they oppose or place reporting stations only in large cities. I agree there should be deference, but the court does have a role to play and demanding truthful testimony from the Executive is a very low bar.
The interesting thing now is the Execitive response. The court is giving them a do-over. If they submit a truthful administrative record I think the question will be permitted. The political trick will be how to abandon the first reasoning (DOJ requested the question) and minimize the role of the redistricting expert without resorting to verifiable lying.
The case may not look egregious to you, but the consequences of Roberts exercising a function intentionally entrusted to our elected representatives ___ deciding the reasonableness, justice and fairness of legislation and policy, while assigning to the courts the job of determining if such legislation and policy making decisions violate the terms of our Constitution ___ was eloquently summarized by Justice Thomas.
Justice Thomas, in his dissent, identifies the can of worms opened by Justice Roberts:
“Now that the Court has opened up this avenue of attack, opponents of executive actions have strong incentives to craft narratives that would derail them. Moreover, even if the effort to invalidate the action is ultimately unsuccessful, the Court’s decision enables partisans to use the courts to harangue executive officers through depositions, discovery, delay, and distraction. The Court’s decision could even implicate separation-of-powers concerns insofar as it enables judicial interference with the enforcement of the laws. In short, today’s decision is a departure from traditional principles of administrative law. Hopefully it comes to be understood as an aberration—a ticket good for this day and this train only. *
Because the Secretary’s decision to reinstate a citizenship question on the 2020 census was legally sound and a reasoned exercise of his broad discretion, I respectfully dissent from Part V of the opinion of the Court."
The bottom line is, the Roberts’ decision is an outright attack on our democratic system and attempts to overturn the consequences of our last election.
The proper remedy, for those who disagree with placing the question on the ballot, was to have Congress, our elected representatives, visit the issue. Placing the question on the census form, we all agree, does not violate the Constitution. And Roberts ought to have explained this to those who disagree with putting the question on the census form. Instead, he exercised a function assigned to our elected representatives.
JWK
"For the removal of unwise laws [and in this case a policy making decision] . . . 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)
deleted.
Wrong thread.
Did you miss my answer?
JWK
If you step out of the trees and look at the forest you will find the current status of citizenship is in need of a data refresh and a best we can do count.
With such disparate numbers being thrown about…Anywhere from 10 to 50 million…A study with a count is something that everyone should want.
The American Community Survey is done every year and asks about citizenship. Most people underestimate how difficult it is to accurately count millions of people.
A problem well defined is a problem 2/3 solved.
How do we get an accurate count? Is our culture too inhibited to legally require an answer from all residents?
We should be able to get a count with a margin of error of less than a million.
Congress could fund a study on getting and keeping an accurate count. Much tax spending is at stake.
Would adding the question to the census get us to the accuracy of less than a million? How long would the data be valid?
I agree with you completely. It may shock American citizens to learn how many extra congressional seats sanctuary states like California have received because they have swelled their population with illegal entrants. Keep in mind these extra votes California gets in Congress cancels out the votes of the representatives of American citizens in other states.
It is estimated California may get between 2 and 3 more seats in Congress because of the massive influx of illegal entrants into this sanctuary state during the past ten years.
But to prevent this type of political motivated population swelling, which is done to receive extra votes in Congress and control our federal treasury, our wise founders also demanded that each states would also have to pay a share of our federal tax burden proportionately equal to its representation in Congress.
The two fair share formulas with respect to each state’s population size 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.
In the Federalist Papers, Madison explains the purpose of tying representation and taxation by each state’s population, that it:
“…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
Now, look at our communist socialist states like California who now swell their states with illegal entrants to gain more representation in Congress. Would these sanctuary states continue to do so if they had to pay a proportional share of our federal tax burden relative to their state’s population size?
Communist and socialists have been very active for generations subverting the fundamental principles written into our Constitution for good government. While they have taught our children in government schools the virtues of our Constitution protecting one man, one vote, they ignore and refuse to teach them the value of one vote, one dollar and tying both representation and taxation by population size, which would have a sobering financial effect in that each state will be held accountable for the free cheese their congressional members vote for, and will receive a bill to pay their apportioned share of the free cheese tab.
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.
Not by itself.
We could create an official census model that takes in all port of entry input and outputs of humans and extrapolate this to entry not at these ports and then predict those to entry and exits missed by all records.
A high tech way to overcome poor polling responses? Maybe?
Reasonable ideas but to what end? The constitution and the supreme court have been very clear, whole persons determine apportionment, not citizenship.
Um… the sixteenth amendment removed the apportionment requirement from the constitution.
Also, I looked it up and California pays 13.2% of the share of taxes with 12.2% of the population.
1 Like
Um … so what? What does your post have to do with recalling the reasons our founders tied representation and taxation by population size? We know how communists and socialists have worked to undermine our founding principles, and have brainwashed children in government schools. Does it upset you that I work to supply information which government school teachers have withheld from their students?
JWK
Our Supreme Court has usurped legislative functions and set itself up as an unelected, omnipotent and unreviewable, policy making branch of government not authorized by our written Constitution.
And speaking of lies, Rush Limbaugh claimed on “Fox and Friends” that Obama took the citizenship question off the Census.https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/07/12/no-obama-didnt-remove-citizenship-question-census/?utm_term=.69e6e07aca80
2 Likes
Not surprised… The level of ignorance over the census both from a legal and even a methodology perspective is astounding…
1 Like
Oh, I doubt he lied out of ignorance.
1 Like
