Maybe he should have left it under control of the Commerce Department.
Link: https://forum.uhnd.com/forum/index.php?action=display&forumid=2&msgid=472195
(no message)
It would be easier if you just acknowledge that you voted for corruption and criminality.
Do you believe that the census process should be apolitical? That we should get the most accurate numbers per the law’s mandate?
Obama was totally acting in bad faith when he immediately pulled the census from the Dept. of Commerce into the White House. There was no non-political reason to do that.
You are so embarrassingly hypocritical and two-faced about this. Do you not realize that people see through you?
Any argument you can give for bias can be applied against you, and the only way for you to defend is to say, "I am right and you are wrong." Either side can say that with equal believability. We see through you.
And hence, the Trump Administration asked for a 6 month extension. Certainly reasonable.
But, seeing the polling data for November, Trump wants to wrap up the count early. Stop counting. Stop doing the hard work in the heavily populated urban areas.
Why do you think Trump wants to stop counting?
The same reason he wanted a citizenship question.
By the way, the citizenship question is probably the most reasonable question, certainly more reasonable than sexual identity or race. The only reason to leave it off is for political reasons. I think the census should be apolitical, unlike you.
Are you aware the “citizenship question” was rejected? Old news, Ned.
Link: https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/2020-07-24_complaint_-_new_york_immigration_coalition_v._trump_.pdf
I do know the citizenship question was rejected. You brought it up.
I was just pointing out that of all the questions asked, it should be the first, not the last. "How many people are in your household?" Stop there?...we can talk about that. But, if we go further, then citizenship is the natural next important question. The Founders obviously intended to exclude resident aliens from figuring into representation in Congress. For example, the Constitution explicitly excluded "indians not taxed."
I suppose you could ask if the person is an alien and then ask whether they filed an income tax return since coming to the United States. If not, then don't count them. Sounds like a reasonable approach to effect the intent of the Founding Fathers. (I'm not trying to summarize liberal developments in the law, which I don't care to research. I'm just stating the intent of the Founders.)
including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons." It did not say citizens. They specified Indians because they were never intended to have any status within the nation. They new the nation would have a continued influx of immigrants and wanted to encourage it and count it.
Ask yourself what the concept of citizenship and immigration was in 1787. This is a deeper issue than you may realize.
Of course, none of this matters regarding the issue at hand. Set aside whether representation in Congress should be set by the number of illegal aliens in a state. Of course, it shouldn't, but a person who wants the census to be political, like conor, would say it should, but set that aside. If they can ask about my sex, why wouldn't the national census ask a question that should be even more fundamental to my receipt of national government benefits such as "Are you a citizen?"
The Article clearly states their intent, which was to count the "whole number of free persons." Every free person living in a state was to be counted.
Then they delineated their exceptions:.
Slaves as 3/5 of a "whole" person
Indians (not taxed) because they were never intended to be part of the new nation. That is why they weren't taxed.
If they had wanted to exclude non-citizens they would have done so. You are putting your words in their pens. You are desperate to change the original intent. The country wanted to grow and prosper and all were welcome.
(no message)
That is, do you support setting California's number of Representatives in Congress (and the Electoral College) based upon the number of Mexicans they could can coax across their border illegally at census time?
counting or gerrymandering.
On the legal front, I think they have a pretty strong argument for their position.
Textualism and original intent are a two edged sword. Most days you get the bear. Occasionally the bear gets you.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)