• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. high court broadens scope of census citizenship question case

pinqy said:
“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.”

Huh. Nothing about owing allegiance to a foreign power
Click to expand...

Sounds like you need to dive into it deeper. Maybe even read the congressional discussions
 
jdog21 said:
Sounds like you need to dive into it deeper. Maybe even read the congressional discussions
Click to expand...

Diplomats and other ministers are not inhabitants of the states and so are not included, and neither are tourists. But owing allegiance has nothing to do with it.
 
pinqy said:
Diplomats and other ministers are not inhabitants of the states and so are not included, and neither are tourists. But owing allegiance has nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...

It does and thats why the Chinese were never included for 60+ years. Because the USA had a treaty with China and in the Chinese law you are a citizen of china no matter where you live in the world or where you were born. So they were excluded up until the usa and china canceled each others treaties. Then any chinese person who was born here became able to be counted
 
jdog21 said:
It does and thats why the Chinese were never included for 60+ years. Because the USA had a treaty with China and in the Chinese law you are a citizen of china no matter where you live in the world or where you were born. So they were excluded up until the usa and china canceled each others treaties. Then any chinese person who was born here became able to be counted
Click to expand...

Did you know that many other countries also consider you to be a citizen of the country, no matter where you live in the world or where you were born?

Did you know that the United States of America is one of those countries?
 
jdog21 said:
It does and thats why the Chinese were never included for 60+ years. Because the USA had a treaty with China and in the Chinese law you are a citizen of china no matter where you live in the world or where you were born. So they were excluded up until the usa and china canceled each others treaties. Then any chinese person who was born here became able to be counted
Click to expand...
I think a little more diving on your part might be in order: Burlingame Treaty of 1868; Angell Treaty of 1880. While there were limitations on naturalization, nothing in those treaties addresses the issue of this thread.
 
NWRatCon said:
With respect, I'll dissent in part and concur in part: I think it is utterly idiotic, as well as deliberately discriminatory and politically motivated. It is those latter two points, as well as the impact it would have on the Constitutional requirement that lead to the question about whether it is constitutional.

Here's the distinction between "facial" unconstitutionality, and "as applied" unconstitutionality: If something is specifically prohibited by the Constitution (say, a law that prohibits Doctors from talking to patients), that is a facial defect - and is always unconstitutional. If, however, something has an effect of doing something that affects a constitutional requirement, it may be unconstitutional "as applied" - this comes up frequently in stop and frisk situations, for example. The legal issue here is: Does asking this (legitimately stupid) question affect the accuracy of the constitutional requirement of enumeration. That is a legitimate legal and constitutional question. It may be (and probably is) unconstitutional if it inhibits the constitutional purpose of the process. [I'll state now, though, that I doubt this Supreme Court would find it so.]
Click to expand...

Liking - as well thought out and several good points - but enumeration? Stop & frisk?? :doh

It's times like this that I miss the low wattage intellect of Alito, as it was combined with a genius for common sense.

The intent of the question's re-inclusion is pure transparent idiocy, but its validity as part of the census is not.

We agree that that the Supremes will affirm its validity.

In closing, idiocy.
 
pinqy said:
“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.”

Huh. Nothing about owing allegiance to a foreign power
Click to expand...
I think the reference to those Indians does implicate allegiance.
 
pinqy said:
Let’s review: “It's like ruling on whether police should be allowed to ask a person running from a bank with a bag of money whether or not they made a legal withdrawal of same.
Your example is where the police are not allowed to do there job of enforcing the law despite blatant and obvious violation.

With the census asking about citizenship, it’s actually the opposite: their job is to count people, and asking about citizenship would make that job more difficult. Census already has enough problems getting illegal immigrants to respond, and asking citizenship would make it harder. And census data cannot be used for immigration enforcement.

The Census does ask about birthplace: U.S. or foreign, but not about citizenship.
Click to expand...

We agree in large part; asking the question is pure idiocy.

Constitutionally valid, but also pure idiocy.
 
Plus Ultra said:
I think the reference to those Indians does implicate allegiance.
Click to expand...
If it meant that it would have been broader. Reservations were considered separate from the U.S at the time the Constitution and 24th amendment were written. There have not been any “Indians not taxed” for a very long time.
 
NWRatCon said:
Let's go back to basics, shall we? The constitutional purpose of the Census is to enumerate the population for the purpose of determining representation. Period. There is no other purpose. All "persons" are counted, with the specific exclusion of non-resident aliens (which includes visa holders and diplomatic personnel). That's it.

Congress has also authorized, by law, asking demographic and other information for statistical purposes. However, these additional queries may not interfere with the constitutional purpose, enumeration. Constitution supersedes law (it's in the Constitution).

The "short form" goes to everyone, and is really just about enumeration (although it asks additional questions, it really is short). The "long form" goes to a representative sample of households to get additional[/I ]informantion Congress had deemed "useful". The short form has NOT included a citizenship question since 1950, because it is not relevant for enumeration.

That it's the context for the question before the court. There are three issues in the court case: 1) How was the citizenship question added (process), and did it violate the Administrative Procedures Act? 2) Why was it added - was it for an impermissible purpose, and/or as a pretext for an impermissible purpose? And, now, 3) does it interfere with the Constitutional purpose of enumeration (by making the count inaccurate)?
Click to expand...


I was looking for a post in which someone made the absurd claim that the only purpose of the census is to count people, but since I'm here...

You appear to be conflating use of the term enumeration.

Regardless, the question was and is valid and permissible, but as of late has become wildly impractical.

From a practical standpoint, its removal was understandable, regardless of any partisan motive.

It's re-inclusion now is utter idiocy from a practical standpoint, but completely valid constitutionally.

It's sad that the courts are forced to waste their time with such idiocy...
 
pinqy said:
If it meant that it would have been broader. Reservations were considered separate from the U.S at the time the Constitution and 24th amendment were written. There have not been any “Indians not taxed” for a very long time.
Click to expand...
The 24th Amendment (banning poll tax) was in 1964 and makes no reference to "Indians".
 
Deuce said:
There's no reason to ask about citizenship because the constitution does not require you to be a citizen to be counted for representation. Anyone looking to add questions about citizenship has an ulterior motive.
Click to expand...

This.

Why even pretend like this is about anything other than trying to hunt illegals?

The census is one of our most important information gathering tools. It's not up to the right-wing to decide who "doesn't count". If they are in our country then they are using our resources in some way and we need to know that they're here.

This is no different than people driving home from work and being stopped at checkpoints by ICE asking them to prove they're citizens before they can drive home. It's detestable.
 
3leftsdoo said:
I was looking for a post in which someone made the absurd claim that the only purpose of the census is to count people, but since I'm here...

You appear to be conflating use of the term enumeration.
Click to expand...
Two points: first, the only constitutional purpose is enumeration. Additional questions can be added, if they don't interfere with the first. Second, huh? I don't think that word means what you think it means.
 
NWRatCon said:
Two points: first, the only constitutional purpose is enumeration. Additional questions can be added, if they don't interfere with the first. Second, huh? I don't think that word means what you think it means.
Click to expand...
enumeration (Merriam Webster)
 
I think that

3leftsdoo said:
Regardless, the question was and is valid and permissible, but as of late has become wildly impractical.
Click to expand...

has become the crux of the issue - especially since the Census Bureau has already come out with essentially the same opinion.
 
NWRatCon said:
Two points: first, the only constitutional purpose is enumeration. Additional questions can be added, if they don't interfere with the first. Second, huh? I don't think that word means what you think it means.
Click to expand...

The Constitutional purpose OF the enumeration is/was for the purpose of apportioning of representatives, AND, until the 16th amendment was passed, direct Taxation of each State for its' equal and fair share of the costs of our Federal government.

The census should be a count of the permanent resident citizens of each State. I would have no problem counting tourists and/or non-citizens both legal and illegal, only if their numbers were kept separate from the citizen count of each State. Our immigration and citizenship laws are in great need of modernization.

Repeal both the 16th and 17th amendments.

Zero based budgeting, with surpluses applied to the debt and deficits applied as an equal percentage increase across the board of the tax rates.

The census count total should closely equal the total of social security numbers assigned to the living.
 
The left want illegals to vote, if they cannot vote the next best thing is counting them in the census the same as citizens and shifting the number of representative in the House and the number of electoral college votes.
 
NWRatCon said:
Two points: first, the only constitutional purpose is enumeration. Additional questions can be added, if they don't interfere with the first. Second, huh? I don't think that word means what you think it means.
Click to expand...

I don't think you understand the word's meaning in a constitutional context, nor the census, nor the Constitution.

But somehow, you've managed to make some good points, and arrived at some correct conclusions.

Considering the absence of certain basic understandings, that's really quite extraordinary. :)
 
Last edited:
Integrityrespec said:
The left want illegals to vote, if they cannot vote the next best thing is counting them in the census the same as citizens and shifting the number of representative in the House and the number of electoral college votes.
Click to expand...

I think you may mean Democrats and not "the left."
 
3leftsdoo said:
Doubling down on your misapprehension...

Extraordinary. :peace
Click to expand...

I cannot, for the life of me, understand your confusion, nor what you're trying to say. Conflating? With what? Definition of enumeration? Constitutional requirement? It's extremely straightforward.

What are you objecting to?
 
NWRatCon said:
I cannot, for the life of me, understand your confusion, nor what you're trying to say. Conflating? With what? Definition of enumeration? Constitutional requirement? It's extremely straightforward.

What are you objecting to?
Click to expand...

I'm not objecting to anything, but rather observing that your use of enumeration is confused.

Basically, I think you don't like the idea that this rather impractical but entirely legitimate question is being vetted for re-inclusion, so you're introducing a certain amount of jargon to justify that dislike.

But as we've agreed, the Supremes are likely to affirm the query's legitimacy.

This will be constitutionally correct, but practically idiotic.

As noted, the law is an ass.
 
In what way is my use of the word enumeration confused? You keep saying that like Vizzini. Yet you've never explained why you think so. I've provided the dictionary definition, the historical context and the text of the Constitution. What ya got, my friend?

When I say the Supreme Court will do that, I'm not saying it's a valid determination, BTW. The current makeup of the Court gives a majority to partisan ideologues that bastardize the law and the Constitution to achieve their political ends, rather than following precedent or sound judicial practice. It pains me greatly, as one who reveres both the law and the Constitution. Only the Chief Justice seems occasionally embarrassed by the practice. Very occasionally.
 
3leftsdoo said:
I'm not objecting to anything, but rather observing that your use of enumeration is confused.

Basically, I think you don't like the idea that this rather impractical but entirely legitimate question is being vetted for re-inclusion, so you're introducing a certain amount of jargon to justify that dislike.

But as we've agreed, the Supremes are likely to affirm the query's legitimacy.

This will be constitutionally correct, but practically idiotic.

As noted, the law is an ass.
Click to expand...

On the other hand, the Supreme Court could also BOTH recognize the "legitimacy" of the question (provided that it is asked in such a manner that it does not interfere with the primary purpose of the census - which is to COUNT EVERY resident of the country) AND prohibit its inclusion in such a manner that the inclusion would interfere with the primary purpose of the census (the onus of proving which would be upon the federal government to establish on the balance of probabilities [or such other test as the Supreme Court should decide was appropriate]).

That way EVERYONE "wins" (and hundreds of lawyers continue to make piles of money out of the associated litigation).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom