Justice Roberts second guesses policy making decision on census, violates separation of powers

Republicans fucked themselves on this by using any excuse to justify the question and acting as if the idea of a deliberate under-count of the census never occurred to them. No one likes to be bullshitted to their face.
Wrong. You didn't get the point of the OP. It doesn't matter what their motives are. It's not the Court's job to judge motives or wisdom behind any act of government.
The president is required under oath, to execute the laws derived from the constitution in GOOD FAITH... so it does matter that he has intentionally fabricated a story and lied... and when he has not executed laws and actions, in good faith.

maybe that was part of Roberts decision
 
Republicans fucked themselves on this by using any excuse to justify the question and acting as if the idea of a deliberate under-count of the census never occurred to them. No one likes to be bullshitted to their face.
Wrong. You didn't get the point of the OP. It doesn't matter what their motives are. It's not the Court's job to judge motives or wisdom behind any act of government.
The president is required under oath, to execute the laws derived from the constitution in GOOD FAITH... so it does matter that he has intentionally fabricated a story and lied... and when he has not executed laws and actions, in good faith.

maybe that was part of Roberts decision
No, it actually doesn't matter, so long as he is following what the law actually says.
 
It distinguishes citizens from non-citizens as required by the Second Section of the 14th Amendment.

Why was it constitutional for Obama’s Census Bureau to ask “Is this person a citizen of the United States”, and un-constitutional for today’s Census Bureau to ask the very same question? Keep in mind that Section 2 of the 14th Amendment requires the distinction between citizens and non-citizens to be made with reference to apportionment.

It appears Justice Roberts believes he is vested with a power to strike down laws and policy making decisions that do not meet his personal sense of fairness, reasonableness and justice, which in fact is second guessing our Constitution which actually requires, by Section 2 of the 14th Amendment to make a distinction between citizens and non-citizens with reference to apportionment.

Justice Roberts, who also embraced our federal government entering the states and meddling with the people’s unalienable right to make their own medical choices and decisions, needs to be held accountable for his acts of sedition and personal war against our Constitution.

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
That doesn't answer the question since non-U.S. citizens are counted towards apportioning representatives.


Oh, but it does answer the question. Our Constitution requires the question to be asked.


A Justices’ job is not to second guess the wisdom or legitimacy of legislative acts and policy making decisions which are within the four walls of the Constitution. Its only job is to decide if such acts are within the four walls of the Constitution. And with respect to asking the question "Is this person a citizen of the United States", the fact is, the Second Section of the 14th Amendment requires the distinction to be made between citizens and non-citizens with respect to apportionment, which is why we have a census and requires the question to be asked.

JWK
It doesn't answer the question.

Pointing to the part of the second section which states disenfranchised voters (i.e., citizens) shout not be counted; cannot be ascertained by simply asking if they're U.S. citizens. Therefore, there is no point in asking that if the goal is to determine how many citizens should not be counted because they're disenfranchised.

Go read the Second Section of the 14th Amendment "... 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 twenty-one years of age in such State." which requires a distinction between citizens and non-citizens with regard to apportionment.

Are you a victim of a government school education? Your lack of reading comprehension skills seems to indicate you are.

JWK

”Just because we [the courts] do not think the legislators have acted wisely or responsibly does not give us the right to assume their duties or to substitute our judgment for theirs.” Hillis v. Department of Ecology, 131 Wash. 2d 373, 932 P.2d 139 (1997)
Holyfuckingshit :eusa_doh:

Let's say they add the question of citizenship to the census.... being a citizen, respondents check that off. Now you tell me how the government knows which of them have been disenfranchised, which would result in reducing representation in accordance with the section of the Constitution to which you referred.....

Irrelevant and nothing more than a deflection.

Does asking the question "Is this person a citizen of the United States", violate the terms of our Constitution?

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
 
Where did I mention the citizenship question in the post you replied to?

.
When you said, "but the primary purpose of the census is to determine the allocation of representatives throughout the US," which is the topic of this thread. If you don't want to answer, I have no problem accepting that as acknowledgement you agree the citizenship question does not impact the appropriation of representation.


I guess you could take that view if you continue to ignore the implications of the 14th Amendment.

.
The implications are that all U.S. citizens eligible to vote and non-U.S. citizens other than Indians not taxes are counted. Meaning asking folks if they're a U.S. citizen doesn't actually alter the count since U.S. citizens and non-U.S. citizens are already counted.


What ever. The last sentence of section 2 refers to citizens. But you'll continue to ignore it, carry on commie.

.
No, I don't ignore it. It refers to citizens who don't count towards appropriating representation. It doesn't mean only citizens can be counted.

You'll also note the first sentence includes Indians who are taxed -- many of whom were not U.S. citizens at the time that amendment was ratified. Proving beyond any rightard shadow of doubt that non-U.S. citizens are counted.

Your lack of reading comprehension skills is showing again. Try reading the Second Section very, very slowly and especially where representation shall be reduced in proportion which the Number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such States. The math requires the count of "citizens".

JWK

.
 
That doesn't answer the question since non-U.S. citizens are counted towards apportioning representatives.


Oh, but it does answer the question. Our Constitution requires the question to be asked.


A Justices’ job is not to second guess the wisdom or legitimacy of legislative acts and policy making decisions which are within the four walls of the Constitution. Its only job is to decide if such acts are within the four walls of the Constitution. And with respect to asking the question "Is this person a citizen of the United States", the fact is, the Second Section of the 14th Amendment requires the distinction to be made between citizens and non-citizens with respect to apportionment, which is why we have a census and requires the question to be asked.

JWK
It doesn't answer the question.

Pointing to the part of the second section which states disenfranchised voters (i.e., citizens) shout not be counted; cannot be ascertained by simply asking if they're U.S. citizens. Therefore, there is no point in asking that if the goal is to determine how many citizens should not be counted because they're disenfranchised.

Go read the Second Section of the 14th Amendment "... 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 twenty-one years of age in such State." which requires a distinction between citizens and non-citizens with regard to apportionment.

Are you a victim of a government school education? Your lack of reading comprehension skills seems to indicate you are.

JWK

”Just because we [the courts] do not think the legislators have acted wisely or responsibly does not give us the right to assume their duties or to substitute our judgment for theirs.” Hillis v. Department of Ecology, 131 Wash. 2d 373, 932 P.2d 139 (1997)
Holyfuckingshit :eusa_doh:

Let's say they add the question of citizenship to the census.... being a citizen, respondents check that off. Now you tell me how the government knows which of them have been disenfranchised, which would result in reducing representation in accordance with the section of the Constitution to which you referred.....

Irrelevant and nothing more than a deflection.

Does asking the question "Is this person a citizen of the United States", violate the terms of our Constitution?

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
Yeah, prolly a good idea for you to carelessly dismiss that as deflection as an excuse to run from it.

Asking the question may not be unconstitutional depending on why it's asked. You'd know that had you been paying attention to the Supreme Court ruling. Now how does asking that determine if a citizen shouldn't be counted due to disenfranchisement mentioned in the second sentence of section two?

The answer is it doesn't. It's not that it's irrelevant nor is it that you can't answer. The truth is you won't answer since the answer utterly decimates the idiocies you're spouting.
 
When you said, "but the primary purpose of the census is to determine the allocation of representatives throughout the US," which is the topic of this thread. If you don't want to answer, I have no problem accepting that as acknowledgement you agree the citizenship question does not impact the appropriation of representation.


I guess you could take that view if you continue to ignore the implications of the 14th Amendment.

.
The implications are that all U.S. citizens eligible to vote and non-U.S. citizens other than Indians not taxes are counted. Meaning asking folks if they're a U.S. citizen doesn't actually alter the count since U.S. citizens and non-U.S. citizens are already counted.


What ever. The last sentence of section 2 refers to citizens. But you'll continue to ignore it, carry on commie.

.
No, I don't ignore it. It refers to citizens who don't count towards appropriating representation. It doesn't mean only citizens can be counted.

You'll also note the first sentence includes Indians who are taxed -- many of whom were not U.S. citizens at the time that amendment was ratified. Proving beyond any rightard shadow of doubt that non-U.S. citizens are counted.

Your lack of reading comprehension skills is showing again. Try reading the Second Section very, very slowly and especially where representation shall be reduced in proportion which the Number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such States. The math requires the count of "citizens".

JWK

.
Now you're conflating who shouldn't be counted with those who should. Whether intentional or by ignorance, you destroy your own case with such foolishness.

Case in point, just because citizenship is required to determine if some shouldn't be counted, doesn't mean only citizens should be counted. It only means one of the disqualifying factors applies only to citizens. Just like with Indians... some are counted, some are not, based on if they're taxed or not. Applying your false analogy to Indians, we'd end up with only Indians should be counted because one must be an Indian to be excluded according to the first sentence of section two.

Now watch as I hit you with another question you won't answer. And you won't answer it for th he same reason you refused to answer my last question -- because it blows up your ridiculous argument..... The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868. Until 1924, Indians born on reservations were not citizens. Some Indians are taxed and some are not. The ones who are, are enumerated. How could that have been possible during those 56 years when many of those Indians were not citizens?
 
What
Is it not you, who is pimping for the 'right Trumpers' without no cause or purpose?

the Census question does not identify documented immigrants from undocumented immigrants from those on Refugee status....

So, ONCE AGAIN:

What is the purpose?

We already know what the purpose to do such was from the Republican operativer. Hofeller, who planned the question to be put on to the census... Hofeller's partner in crime friend went to work for and did work for Secretary Wilbur Ross as an advisor. The exact wording used by Ross to justify the question was in Hofeller's 2017 notes on his computer that his daughter found after he died, and she turned them over to shed light on them.

Court records show that Mr. Neuman, a decades-long friend of Mr. Hofeller’s, later became an informal adviser on census issues to Mr. Ross, the commerce secretary. By that summer, a top aide to Mr. Ross was pressing the Justice Department to say that it required detailed data from a census citizenship question to better enforce the Voting Rights Act.

It was to primarily disenfranchise the citizen Hispanic voter, (in Texas to start) thru computerized data gerrymandering drawn from the census...that would be used in the new redistricting maps that are to be drawn from the 2020 census.

History of Hofeller: Dead Republican operative’s electronic records at the core of two major legal battles




Opponents of the Trump administration's plan to include a citizenship question on the 2020 U.S. census say records found on a hard drive in Hofeller's home unmask partisan intent, including language nearly identical to the Justice Department's stated justification for the question: aiding enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the rationale seemed contrived and sent the case back to a lower court in New York.




Hofeller's records also prompted a new court filing in North Carolina’s redistricting litigation, suggesting that Republicans lied about how long drawing new maps would take.



In Republican political circles, Hofeller earned near-legendary status as a behind-the-scenes number cruncher who used voter and election data to draw maps he believed would comply with ever-changing redistricting rules over the decades — and help his party.



Through the Republican National Committee, the National Republican Congressional Committee and later a consulting firm, Hofeller said he had analyzed and drafted district plans in more than half the states. His resume included a role in more than 30 redistricting lawsuits, where he was usually defending a map that favored Republicans or finding fault with one that boosted Democrats.



In the late 2000s, he was involved in the so-called RedMap project, a full-throttled effort to win as many state legislative seats for the GOP in 2010 as possible. That class of lawmakers would control the formulation of new district boundaries for state and federal legislative seats, cementing GOP power for a decade.



The plan worked. As the tea party helped the GOP take control of the U.S. House of Representatives, the party also flipped control of 21 state legislative chambers. The resulting maps have helped keep the GOP in power even in some states where more votes are cast for Democrats.



"They were strategic in understanding the ramifications of redistricting. Tom understood that," said Tim Storey, a redistricting expert at the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), who knew Hofeller for years. "There was no Tom Hofeller on the Democratic side."



The strategy weakened the political power of African Americans and Democrats, making Hofeller's work reviled among opponents who claimed it ran afoul of the Constitution.

And regarding this census, here was Hofeller's and the administration's purpose of under representing legal Hispanic voters and increasing the value of white citizen voters.

Deceased G.O.P. Strategist’s Hard Drives Reveal New Details on the Census Citizenship Question


The documents cited in the Thursday court filing include an unpublished August 2015 analysis by Mr. Hofeller, who was hired by The Washington Free Beacon, a conservative news outlet financially backed by Paul Singer, a billionaire New York hedge fund manager and major Republican donor. Mr. Hofeller’s charge was to assess the impact of drawing political maps that were not based on a state’s total population — the current practice virtually everywhere in the nation — but on a slice of that population: American citizens of voting age.

At the time, the study’s sponsor was considering whether to finance a lawsuit by conservative legal advocates that argued that counting voting-age citizens was not merely acceptable, but required by the Constitution.

Mr. Hofeller’s exhaustive analysis of Texas state legislative districts concluded that such maps “would be advantageous to Republicans and non-Hispanic whites,” and would dilute the political power of the state’s Hispanics.

The reason, he wrote, was that the maps would exclude traditionally Democratic Hispanics and their children from the population count. That would force Democratic districts to expand to meet the Constitution’s one person, one vote requirement. In turn, that would translate into fewer districts in traditionally Democratic areas, and a new opportunity for Republican mapmakers to create even stronger gerrymanders.

The strategy carried a fatal flaw, however: The detailed citizenship data that was needed to draw the maps did not exist. The only existing tally of voting-age citizens, Mr. Hofeller's study stated, came from a statistical sample of the population largely used by the Justice Department to verify that the 1965 Voting Rights Act was ensuring the voting rights of minority groups.

“Without a question on citizenship being included on the 2020 Decennial Census questionnaire,” Mr. Hofeller wrote, “the use of citizen voting age population is functionally unworkable.”

Roughly 16 months later, as President-elect Trump prepared to take office, Mr. Hofeller urged Mr. Trump’s transition team to consider adding a citizenship question to the census, the transition official responsible for census issues, Mark Neuman, said last year in a deposition in the Manhattan census lawsuit.

The above is just gibberish and not related to this simple issue on counting citizens on the census which is important to help in many ways
The purpose of the census and a constitutional requirement is that we count everyone, not citizens.

The question does not preclude anyone from being counted. All they have to do is fill out the form.
That is true but the purpose of the census is to find out how many people are in the country and where they are located. By putting extraneous questions about citizenship we know from census surveys that we will get poorer responses which means we will miss people that should be counted. If we put questions about religion, criminal convictions, etc, the counts will go down. This defeats the primary purpose of the census. Question like this should be put on surveys which are sent out by the census bureau, not the census.

Then why does the census include questions about race? If they can ask about what race you are, why can't they ask if you're a citizen or not?
Because it was mandated by the census act. Unlike citizenship questions, race questions don’t reduce response to the census.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Republicans fucked themselves on this by using any excuse to justify the question and acting as if the idea of a deliberate under-count of the census never occurred to them. No one likes to be bullshitted to their face.
Nobody said anything never occurred to them.

The point you ignore is that it's a legitimate question.
No it isn't. It's designed to skew the results. The mission of the census is to be as accurate as possible and totally non-partisan. There is no way the question would yield an accurate result so why have it? The answer is obvious. Republicans want an under-count in immigrant communities for when districts are redrawn and when federal money gets spent.

Why would there be an under count? Oh yea, if you're illegal you won't answer and be counted. smh
 
And you would be wrong. The Census is NOT the purview of the Executive branch. The numbers gathered are for the use of the Congress, in setting spending priorities, not the Executive branch.


The conduct and tabulation of census data is the purview of the executive branch. That data is used by every level of government for various purposes. But the primary purpose of the census is to determine the allocation of representatives throughout the US.

.
No information gathered by the census will alter the number of representatives per state by merely adding the question of citizenship. All residents who respond will still be counted regardless of citizenship.


Where did I mention the citizenship question in the post you replied to?

.
When you said, "but the primary purpose of the census is to determine the allocation of representatives throughout the US," which is the topic of this thread. If you don't want to answer, I have no problem accepting that as acknowledgement you agree the citizenship question does not impact the appropriation of representation.


I guess you could take that view if you continue to ignore the implications of the 14th Amendment.

.

The 14th amendment does not change the requirement to count everyone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
The conduct and tabulation of census data is the purview of the executive branch. That data is used by every level of government for various purposes. But the primary purpose of the census is to determine the allocation of representatives throughout the US.

.
No information gathered by the census will alter the number of representatives per state by merely adding the question of citizenship. All residents who respond will still be counted regardless of citizenship.


Where did I mention the citizenship question in the post you replied to?

.
When you said, "but the primary purpose of the census is to determine the allocation of representatives throughout the US," which is the topic of this thread. If you don't want to answer, I have no problem accepting that as acknowledgement you agree the citizenship question does not impact the appropriation of representation.


I guess you could take that view if you continue to ignore the implications of the 14th Amendment.

.
The implications are that all U.S. citizens eligible to vote and non-U.S. citizens other than Indians not taxes are counted. Meaning asking folks if they're a U.S. citizen doesn't actually alter the count since U.S. citizens and non-U.S. citizens are already counted.

That’s true but not answering the citizen question can subject you to fine. Answering the question yes for residents who may not be citizen can mean jail time. Answer no means the person may be illegal. The simplistic solution is just to not respond which means no one in the resident is counted.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
No information gathered by the census will alter the number of representatives per state by merely adding the question of citizenship. All residents who respond will still be counted regardless of citizenship.


Where did I mention the citizenship question in the post you replied to?

.
When you said, "but the primary purpose of the census is to determine the allocation of representatives throughout the US," which is the topic of this thread. If you don't want to answer, I have no problem accepting that as acknowledgement you agree the citizenship question does not impact the appropriation of representation.


I guess you could take that view if you continue to ignore the implications of the 14th Amendment.

.
The implications are that all U.S. citizens eligible to vote and non-U.S. citizens other than Indians not taxes are counted. Meaning asking folks if they're a U.S. citizen doesn't actually alter the count since U.S. citizens and non-U.S. citizens are already counted.

That’s true but not answering the citizen question can subject you to fine. Answering the question yes for residents who may not be citizen can mean jail time. Answer no means the person may be illegal. The simplistic solution is just to not respond which means no one in the resident is counted.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That's a poor excuse. People should know if they're a citizen or not.
 
The conduct and tabulation of census data is the purview of the executive branch. That data is used by every level of government for various purposes. But the primary purpose of the census is to determine the allocation of representatives throughout the US.

.
No information gathered by the census will alter the number of representatives per state by merely adding the question of citizenship. All residents who respond will still be counted regardless of citizenship.


Where did I mention the citizenship question in the post you replied to?

.
When you said, "but the primary purpose of the census is to determine the allocation of representatives throughout the US," which is the topic of this thread. If you don't want to answer, I have no problem accepting that as acknowledgement you agree the citizenship question does not impact the appropriation of representation.


I guess you could take that view if you continue to ignore the implications of the 14th Amendment.

.

The 14th amendment does not change the requirement to count everyone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Where did I say it did?

.
 
The above is just gibberish and not related to this simple issue on counting citizens on the census which is important to help in many ways
The purpose of the census and a constitutional requirement is that we count everyone, not citizens.

The question does not preclude anyone from being counted. All they have to do is fill out the form.
That is true but the purpose of the census is to find out how many people are in the country and where they are located. By putting extraneous questions about citizenship we know from census surveys that we will get poorer responses which means we will miss people that should be counted. If we put questions about religion, criminal convictions, etc, the counts will go down. This defeats the primary purpose of the census. Question like this should be put on surveys which are sent out by the census bureau, not the census.

Then why does the census include questions about race? If they can ask about what race you are, why can't they ask if you're a citizen or not?
Because it was mandated by the census act. Unlike citizenship questions, race questions don’t reduce response to the census.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Nothing in the constitution mandates that the census count people by race.
 
When you said, "but the primary purpose of the census is to determine the allocation of representatives throughout the US," which is the topic of this thread. If you don't want to answer, I have no problem accepting that as acknowledgement you agree the citizenship question does not impact the appropriation of representation.


I guess you could take that view if you continue to ignore the implications of the 14th Amendment.

.
The implications are that all U.S. citizens eligible to vote and non-U.S. citizens other than Indians not taxes are counted. Meaning asking folks if they're a U.S. citizen doesn't actually alter the count since U.S. citizens and non-U.S. citizens are already counted.


What ever. The last sentence of section 2 refers to citizens. But you'll continue to ignore it, carry on commie.

.
No, I don't ignore it. It refers to citizens who don't count towards appropriating representation. It doesn't mean only citizens can be counted.

You'll also note the first sentence includes Indians who are taxed -- many of whom were not U.S. citizens at the time that amendment was ratified. Proving beyond any rightard shadow of doubt that non-U.S. citizens are counted.

Your lack of reading comprehension skills is showing again. Try reading the Second Section very, very slowly and especially where representation shall be reduced in proportion which the Number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such States. The math requires the count of "citizens".

JWK

.
Good catch!
 
I guess you could take that view if you continue to ignore the implications of the 14th Amendment.

.
The implications are that all U.S. citizens eligible to vote and non-U.S. citizens other than Indians not taxes are counted. Meaning asking folks if they're a U.S. citizen doesn't actually alter the count since U.S. citizens and non-U.S. citizens are already counted.


What ever. The last sentence of section 2 refers to citizens. But you'll continue to ignore it, carry on commie.

.
No, I don't ignore it. It refers to citizens who don't count towards appropriating representation. It doesn't mean only citizens can be counted.

You'll also note the first sentence includes Indians who are taxed -- many of whom were not U.S. citizens at the time that amendment was ratified. Proving beyond any rightard shadow of doubt that non-U.S. citizens are counted.

Your lack of reading comprehension skills is showing again. Try reading the Second Section very, very slowly and especially where representation shall be reduced in proportion which the Number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such States. The math requires the count of "citizens".

JWK

.
Good catch!
:lmao:
 
The purpose of the census and a constitutional requirement is that we count everyone, not citizens.

The question does not preclude anyone from being counted. All they have to do is fill out the form.
That is true but the purpose of the census is to find out how many people are in the country and where they are located. By putting extraneous questions about citizenship we know from census surveys that we will get poorer responses which means we will miss people that should be counted. If we put questions about religion, criminal convictions, etc, the counts will go down. This defeats the primary purpose of the census. Question like this should be put on surveys which are sent out by the census bureau, not the census.

Then why does the census include questions about race? If they can ask about what race you are, why can't they ask if you're a citizen or not?
Because it was mandated by the census act. Unlike citizenship questions, race questions don’t reduce response to the census.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Nothing in the constitution mandates that the census count people by race.
Yeah, it just says everyone should be counted except for Indians not taxed and disenfranchised voters.
 
Republicans fucked themselves on this by using any excuse to justify the question and acting as if the idea of a deliberate under-count of the census never occurred to them. No one likes to be bullshitted to their face.
Nobody said anything never occurred to them.

The point you ignore is that it's a legitimate question.
No it isn't. It's designed to skew the results. The mission of the census is to be as accurate as possible and totally non-partisan. There is no way the question would yield an accurate result so why have it? The answer is obvious. Republicans want an under-count in immigrant communities for when districts are redrawn and when federal money gets spent.
Incorrect.

A person who is asked if they are a citizen and answers 'no' is still counted on the census. They are just categorized as "not a citizen".
 
Natural law is universal law

The supreme law that makes everything change in time to fit will always destroy non universal laws

What is the universal law with the census ?? It is counting everyone and every gender and every race

Why is this important

Because the wise needs correct data to analyze and then to help correctly

States have different systems and different successes. To learn what brings the best success all people must be counted in accordance to who they are.

Health studies cannot be properly done and finding solutions without everyone counted on who they are

Illegals must be counted as illegals and not as citizens ... Race must be counted. Gender must be counted. Religion must be counted.

Political correctness is a big crime against the universal law that will come back to destroy the area so others will learn

George Washington said suffering is the best way to learn

But high logics can see and learn without the great pain and gift of suffering so people will learn

The democrat system is a major crime against the universal law
 
The above is just gibberish and not related to this simple issue on counting citizens on the census which is important to help in many ways
The purpose of the census and a constitutional requirement is that we count everyone, not citizens.

The question does not preclude anyone from being counted. All they have to do is fill out the form.
That is true but the purpose of the census is to find out how many people are in the country and where they are located. By putting extraneous questions about citizenship we know from census surveys that we will get poorer responses which means we will miss people that should be counted. If we put questions about religion, criminal convictions, etc, the counts will go down. This defeats the primary purpose of the census. Question like this should be put on surveys which are sent out by the census bureau, not the census.

Then why does the census include questions about race? If they can ask about what race you are, why can't they ask if you're a citizen or not?
Because it was mandated by the census act. Unlike citizenship questions, race questions don’t reduce response to the census.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Are you suggesting that asylum seekers would refuse to fill out a census form because of that question being there? Why? Don't they want to come to America and take part in our system and become Americans? That includes filling out government paperwork. If they can't even do that much they shouldn't be here.
 
Skewing the results defeats the purpose of the census. It's just another example of republicans targeting democracy itself because they think it is against them.

It defeats the goals of your evil party.

The purpose of the census is to determine representation. Illegals are not citizens and have no representation outside of the consulate of their governments.
Loon, adding the question if one is a citizen or not does not determine the legal status of non-U.S. citizens.

Try harder next time.

Retard.

The census is to determine the representation for the CITIZENS of the nation. Your flaccid non sequitur notwithstanding.
 
Back
Top Bottom