Posted on 06/27/2019 7:38:42 AM PDT by TexasGurl24
Why do we think that 30 to 40 million people that are breaking the law already would be afraid to lie on the census?
You can’t possibly believe for one minute that there will ever be a single charge leveled at these people for lying.
>WTBleep?! Who/what decides a good reason?!
Are you daft? The same branch that illegally, w/ ZERO push-back mind you, opined itself to be THE ‘final word’ on the Constitution. DUH!
I have no right to expect you to be my instructor in things pertaining to SCOTUS decisions. However, I find your “answer” (#138) to my question (#135) severly lacking.
No offense intended, just an observation.
Actually they want a "fuller" explanation rather than "better" explanation.
It won’t be long before they start referring to this crap as “Bi-Partisan” judicial rulings. Roberts needs to go.
The case is remanded (sent back) to the District Court. The agency, following the administrative procedures act, must submit an explanation as to why they want to include the census question. The “we need it to help enforce the VRA” answer that they used isn’t clear enough. (The court hints that might even be pre-textual, as in it wasn’t the real reason the agency wanted the question.)
The agency can come up with a better explanation. They take that to the District Court. The District Court then reviews it, and makes sure that it wasn’t “arbitrary and capricious.” In other words, that they were just making up a reason.
From there, it can be appealed.
HOWEVER, the Court already rejected all of the challengers reasons for fighting the Census question.
So all the agency has to do is come up with something better. What, I don’t know precisely. Perhaps something along the lines of wanting to know how illegal immigration impacts services.
Regardless, the District Court has been told: “a court may not set aside an agency’s policymaking decision solely because it might have been influenced by political considerations or prompted by an Administration’s priorities.”
I presume that Commerce, if it wants, can get back in front of the District Court by August. Any appeal could be expedited to the beginning of October if necessary.
The Census Bureau has already said they can meet a 10/31 deadline.
“The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers”....
William Shakespeare
Today’s concern for voting fraud in renegade, Democratic-controlled states that allegedly want to use the illegal votes of undocumented Democrats to overthrow the constitutional republic is nothing new.
More specifically, the congressional record shows, regarding discussion related to the drafting of the 14th Amendment, that the federal government needs to know who its citizens are in order to be able to protect and defend the Constitution’s “Uniform rule of Naturalization Clause” (1.8.4) and Section 2 of the 14th Amendment.
"Article I, Section 8, Clause 4: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;"
”14th Amendment, Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens [emphasis added] twenty-one years of age in such State."
Here are specific concerns about protecting the voting power of citizens and the Constitution.
" If the States can admit to the elective franchise those who are not citizens, thereby neutralizing the votes of citizens, not only the Federal power of naturalization becomes a nullity, but” * * * * "a minority of citizens by the aid of aliens may control the government of the States, and through the States the government of the Union [emphasis added]." —Appendix to the Congressional Globe, 1868. (See near middle of 1st column.)
" Whatever difference there may be as to what other right appertain to a citizen, all must agree that he has the right to petition and also to claim the Protection of the Government. These belong to him as a member the body politic, and the possession of them is what separates citizens of the lowest condition from aliens and slaves. To suppose that a State can make an alien a citizen or confer on him the right of voting would involve the absurdity of giving him the direct and immediate control of the action of the General Government [emphasis added], from which he can claim no protection and to which he has no right to present a petition." —Appendix to the Congressional Globe, 1868. (See bottom half of 1st column.)
Regarding PDJT's uncommon common sense argument that we don't want illegal alien criminals entering the US and harming US citizens, Justice Joseph Story had reflected this same concern decades before the civil war.
"…As the free inhabitants of each state were entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in all the other states, it followed, that a single state possessed the power of forcing into every other state, with the enjoyment of every immunity and privilege, any alien, whom it might choose to incorporate into its own society, however repugnant such admission might be to their polity, conveniencies, and even prejudices. …… There is great wisdom, therefore, in confiding to the national government the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization throughout the United States. It is of the deepest interest to the whole Union to know, who are entitled to enjoy the rights of citizens in each state, since they thereby, in effect, become entitled to the rights of citizens in all the states. If aliens might be admitted indiscriminately to enjoy all the rights of citizens at the will of a single state, the Union might itself be endangered by an influx of foreigners, hostile to its institutions, ignorant of its powers, and incapable of a due estimate of its privileges [emphases added]. …" —Justice Joseph Story, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4 (Citizenship), Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 3:§§ 1098--99, 1833.
It's not surprising that PDJT is keeping his eyes open for Democratic ballot box fraud in 2020 elections.
Patriots need to support PDJT in working with the states to allow only citizens who present valid citizenship / photo ID cards to be allowed to vote, such cards scannable and / or containing security chip to facilitate “vision-impaired” Democratic voting officials.
Patriots also need to elect a new patriot Congress in the 2020 elections that will not only promise to support PDJT's vision of MAGA, now KAG, but will also promise to uphold their oaths to protect and defend both citizens and the Constitution.
Remember in November 2020!
MAGA! Now KAG!
The better reason is that the United States is going to issue identity numbers for every person in the United States, that citizens will get a citizenship card allowing them to vote in all subsequent elections; non-citizens will be given an identity card to reflect their status in these United States and anyone determined to be taking US taxpayer funded benefits will be shown the door.
Thank you for your courtesy, time and effort.
I appreciate it.
I'm not so sure. I think the Maryland challenge is based on Equal Protection because of the emails saying the question would help non-Hispanic whites.
The SC opinion only addresses the APA arguments.
Actually the last ruling re the administrative state, while a “loss” was actually indicative of the win.. it was a decision made before Gorsuch was seated, so Alito sided with the libs, so that an opposing opinion would get published... otherwise it would have been a 4-4 and just bounced back to lower courts with no opinions.
The dissent lambastes the entire congress passing on authority to regulators... so next term, I would expect to see a huge blow to the administrative state, and a major step back to a constitutional republic.
I see two versions of this story.
“Citizenship question stays for now, but administration has to provide a better reason.”
and
“Citizenship question is allowed but can’t be asked because administration did not give a good enough reason.”
As usual, Roberts causes a complete cock-up, just like with the obozocare debacle.
Does he do this because he is being blackmailed over his illegal adoption of his kids, or is he being blackmailed for something else?
Asking for a friend.
How could an “expedited appeal” to the SC Court be ruled upon before the 2020 forms are printed, since there is—reportedly—a printing deadline of July 1, 2019?
Amen!!
The July 1 “deadline” isn’t a deadline. It’s not binding on anyone. Census has long maintained they can meet a 10/31 deadline.
I agree. My wife cautioned me from the onset of his appointment that the vetting procedure went far too smoothly. Clearly those on the left knew his appointment was a win for them.
It's actually a June 30, 2019, “go to print” deadline that's imposed by the Administration. In other words, they can change the deadline. However, we are talking about the fed gov, and we all know how efficient it is.
Who, honestly, believes that (1) The Dept Of Commerce will give an "acceptable" reply to the lower court and (2) who will then rule in favor in time for printing even sometime this fall?
What if the lower court rejects the "improved" reason by the Commerce Dept? Who believes the Administration has time to challenge that back in SCOTUS, who will then also then rule in favor of the Admin, who will then still have time to get the census printed (for those that don't/can't complete it online)?
While the court did in fact give a lifeline to the Administration (perhaps a situation only Trump could pull off), the cold hard reality is that this really does not look good for the citizenship question making it to the 2020 census due to time running out.
Because of the rapid changing demographics, any chance of a citizenship question in 2030+ is basically nil.
That’s my glass half full take as well.
The IRS is has shown that it is capable of taking in a new set of rules in January of a given year, publishing those rules by February of the same year, and still be in time for Tax day April 15th of the same year. I cant believe I am defending anything IRS in this statement, but if they can do that for an entire nation, then the census folks are quite capable of changing the print of the census to add a single question in similar fashion.
See 159
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.