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

Politics
125

I disagree. Roberts (and the majority) did not decide on the reasonableness, justice or fairness of the census rule. In fact they indicated the it was a permissible question. What they did decide was that the Secretary did not follow the law as written by Congress. Congress controls the census and they gave limited control to the Executive with the restrictions spelled out in the APA. The Secretary falsified the administrative record in an attempt to meet the restrictions and the court rejected that falsification. It was not even a permanent injunction. The Executive has chosen to withdraw the issue. My conclusion is that the truthful administrative record is too politically damaging to continue the case and expose the Secretary to additional discovery.

This is no different from the court’s role in every matter involving compliance to legislation.

In any event, if we reject this role of the court, the power does not default to the Executive. Congress would need to act to add the question. The suggestion that the question could stand unless Congress acts is not acceptable to me.

Thomas’s opinion is tainted by his determination that the decision was reasoned. The administrative record was falsified, therefore the court was unable to judge the soundness.

1 Like
126

So changes to the constitution are irrelevant?

127

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.

That comment is a subjective view and second guessing a policy making decision. So, you disagree with Justice Ginsburg?

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. ___ Justice Ginsburg delivering the opinion of the Court in ELDRED et al. v. ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL (2003)

128

Taken in that context I would agree that they ruled It unreasonable. But the target of the word was the factualness of the administrative record and not a subjective judgement on the validity of the given reason had it been factual.

Had the record been factual and the DOJ had been the instigator the rule would have been allowed. That is to say they did not rule that it was unreasonable to ask the question to supply the DOJ with citizenship data. Rather they determined (factually and not subjectively in my opinion) that the provided reason was pretextual. Thus the requirements of the APA were not met.

This has seen a good deal of discussion in this forum and in the news and to me the court did not second guess or create legislation. They played referee on a legislated grant of power to the executive.

I see this case similar to the court striking down the Obama era change to overtime rules. The legislature wrote a law that gave the Labor Dept. rule making athority, subject to restrictions. When the Obama administration made a rule outside those restrictions the court struck it down.

I see all three branches struggle to find clear boundaries but by and large this case does not move the needle for me. The Executive can offer up a factual administrative record or Congress can act to cut the court out. By these means the court’s decision is not a final obstacle (as it might be if they actually did rule the nature of the question unreasonable using first principles of the consecution.) Even then the power is not totally unchecked. There are processes to remove judges and also to amend the constitution. Of course these process require support of the people so the ruling would truly need to be offensive to the populace. But the point is that the Judiciary is not immune to oversite.

Out of the three branches the Executive appears to be at most risk for unchecked abuse given that they control the police apparatus and can physically constrain the other branches as well as the populace.

Let’s continue this discussion when the court makes a similar ruling with the benefiting ideologies swapped. I mentioned the overtime ruling but it is in the past and the public intensity has waned.

129

I’m not sure if we both read the same court decision.

In the ruling I read we find:

“The Secretary justifiably found the Bureau’s analysis inconclusive. Weighing that uncertainty against the value of obtaining more complete and accurate citizenship data, he determined that reinstating a citizenship question was worth the risk of a potentially lower response rate. That decision was reasonable and reasonably explained, particularly in light of the long history of the citizenship question on the census.”

And . . .

“The Secretary was required to consider the evidence and give reasons for his chosen course of action. He did so. It is not for us to ask whether his decision was “the best one possible” or even whether it was “better than the alternatives.” FERC v. Electric Power Supply Assn., 577 U. S. ___, ___ (2016) (slip op., at 30). By second guessing the Secretary’s weighing of risks and benefits and penalizing him for departing from the Bureau’s inferences and assumptions, JUSTICE BREYER—like the District Court—substitutes his judgment for that of the agency”

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, nor accountable to the people.

130

Is Trump going to have the question put in there anyhow as a separate flyer or something?

Press secretary quotes Trump; “We will not be beholden to the courts anymore.”

https://twitter.com/i/status/1149743560243208192

A statement like that should concern people of all political stripes.

2 Likes
131

Not when a court blatantly hands down an opinion in which a majority of its members has exercised legislative, executive and judicial powers. No patriotic American citizen ought to be beholden to a court when a majority of its members exercises legislative, executive and judicial powers.

When a court goes beyond its assigned duty to determine if the terms of our Constitution have been violated, and decides to evaluate the fairness, reasonableness, necessity, justice, or if a policy making decision is a “distraction” as a majority of the Court has done, it has knowingly and willingly engaged in the undermining of our democratic system and violated our Constitution’s separation of powers.

It seems quite clear we have a President Trump hating crowd, mostly made up of communists and socialists, who do not accept our Constitution’s wisdom and the necessity of defending its separations of powers. Instead, they embrace unelected judges and Justices to exercise legislative, executive and judicial powers, to which Madison stated ”The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands . . . may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” ___ Madison, Federalist Paper No. 47

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.

132

For telling Trump he can’t change the census for purposes no less than to bolster his re-election chances?

Ha!

1 Like
133

Stop trying to deflect from what this really is about!

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.

and …

State`s population

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

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

They are not “liberals” or “progressives”. The Democrat Party Leadership are communist and socialist, who delude our nation’s people with free government cheese.

134

youve poste dthis tax nonsense over and over. we get it. you dont thing tge income tax in constitutional.
an opinion shared by far right tax protestors who have been shown over and over their opinion is fantasy land.
and yet that doesnt stop them.
they live outside of teh real world

135

It’s about the census question and the census question is a vehicle for Trump to bolster his chances at re-election.

NOTHING MORE and Trump doesn’t even have the authority to ■■■■ with the census.

136

Socialism kills…

137

Did the question get added to the census yet?

138

Illegal immigration, the census, and undermining our democratic system.

In answer to your assertion about President Trump’s authority, please take note that by law, 13 U.S.C. §141(a), Congress has delegated to the Commerce secretary the authority to conduct the decennial enumeration “in such form and content as he may determine” and authorizes him “to obtain such other census information as necessary.” In fact, Congress gave President Trump’s secretary almost unlimited authority to conduct the enumeration required by the Constitution. So, at least let us not misrepresent the authority of our Executive Office and his pick for Commerce Secretary.

Aside from that, your dislike and distain towards President Trump is apparently interfering with you recognizing an attack taking place on our very system of government and its founding principles ___ an attack which has been initiated by communists and socialist a very, very long time ago, and is now reflected and clearly exhibited in our decennial census with reference to illegal immigration.

As I previously pointed out, California has been encouraging mass illegal immigration into its state for generations. In fact, it is one of the reasons California’s number of Congressional seats is so large, and this year, because of illegal immigration and the census, California is expect to gain another two or three seats in the House.

What is problematic, and undermining our democratic system is, every one of California’s seats in the House gained because of illegal immigration cancels out the vote of Representatives elected by Citizens in other States! So, while California is a self-proclaimed sanctuary State, and encourages illegal immigration which swells it population size, and is then rewarded with extra seats in the House, which are taken over by communists and socialists, the protection written into our Constitution to deal with this very type of situation ___ requiring each state to pay an apportioned share of our federal tax burden proportionately equal to its representation ___ is no longer being adhered to.

And now that the cats out of the bag, and the cause and effect of illegal immigration upon our electoral process is known, our communists and socialists are screaming bloody murder over a question being placed on our census form which will reflect citizens from non-citizens ___ an answer which may very well shock American citizens and document how their vote in Congress has been cancelled out because of illegal immigration.

JWK

They are not “liberals” or “progressives”. The Democrat Party Leadership is infested with communists and socialists who delude and addict our nations needy with free government cheese.

139

If you don’t know the answer to that question, perhaps you should be spending more time keeping up with the news.

JWK

They are not “liberals” or “progressives”. The Democrat Party Leadership is infested with communists and socialists who delude, lure and addict our nations needy with free government cheese.

140

Just to put a candle on the cake…

2 Likes
141

Your “candle” should highlight how California and New York is encouraging mass illegal immigration to increase their population size, which in turn gives both States more representation in Congress, but without having to increase their share of financing our federal tax burden as our Founders agreed to when demanding Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned.

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 and New York, who intentionally 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?

The New York Federal judge, Jesse Matthew Furman, nominated by Barack Hussein Obama, and mentioned in the article you quoted is a Fifth Column activist intentionally working to undermine the text of our Constitution and its documented legislative intent which gives context to its text. Asking “Is this person a citizen of the United States”, all agree, does not violate our Constitution.

JWK

Without a Fifth Column Media and Yellow Journalism [our MSM], and activist judges and Justices, 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.

142

Interesting argument… Did you actually read any of the filings in this case? The Trump administration never made the argument that only citizens should be counted on the census? Are you suggesting they are incompetent?

143

Well, I see you dodged responding to the gist of my post concerning how California and New York is encouraging mass illegal immigration to increase their population size, which in turn gives both States more representation in Congress, but without having to increase their share of financing our federal tax burden as our Founders agreed to when demanding Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned.

:roll_eyes:

JWK

Without a Fifth Column Media, Yellow Journalism [our MSM], and activist judges and Justices, 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.

144

Well, Blue Tex? Do you have any comments on how California and New York is encouraging mass illegal immigration to increase their population size, which in turn gives both States more representation in Congress, but without having to increase their share of financing our federal tax burden as our Founders agreed to when demanding Representatives and direct taxes shall both be apportioned?

JWK

“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