Trump orders new census that does NOT count illegal immigrants

[excalibur]

​

The text of that clause ‘vests Congress with virtually unlimited discretion in conducting the decennial “actual Enumeration,” and Congress “has delegated its broad authority over the census to the Secretary.”’” 24 The Secretary’s decisions as to how to conduct the census, or otherwise enumerate, must bear a “reasonable relationship to the accomplishment of an actual enumeration.”25 Moreover, the President has the constitutional authority to direct the policy decisions of the Secretary of Commerce to include the adjustment of the census enumeration.26 The Supreme Court in Franklin stated the Census Act “does not curtail the President’s authority to direct the Secretary in making policy judgments that result in ‘the decennial census’; he is not expressly required to adhere to the policy decisions reflected in the Secretary’s report.” 27​

​

The Supreme Court has ruled that the President is not constitutionally required to follow the Secretary’s tabulation; therefore, “the action that creates an entitlement to a particular number of​

Representatives . . . is the President’s statement to Congress, not the Secretary’s report to the President.” 28​

​

​

https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1092&context=ndlr_online

​

 

[excalibur]

article 3 is clear the power to rule on matters involving the Government rests with the Supreme Court and any Federal Court established that is inferior to the Supreme Court with the final say resting with the Supreme Court.

Please provide the exact quote from the Constitution you believe says what you claim it says.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Please provide the exact quote from the Constitution you believe says what you claim it says.

section 2 of article 3

Section 2​

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.





In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

 

[excalibur]

section 2 of article 3

Section 2​

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.





In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

That doesn't say what you claim it says. Sorry.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Gunny is correct and excalibur, as is his wont, twisting the meaning of words into something is completely unintended by the original writers.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

That doesn't say what you claim it says. Sorry.

yes it does it states all matters involving the US Government are decided by the Federal Courts.

 

[protectionist]

How is it illegal?

They are here illegally. Deport them.

 

[postman]

yes it does it states all matters involving the US Government are decided by the Federal Courts.

Not all matters. The court does not have jurisdiction over political issues, like disputes between congress and the executive, or disputed use of their constitutional powers, unless the disputes involve whether they are acting within the limits the constitution sets.

Ex: Trump stopped prosecuting public corruption cases, such as bribery or abuse of power of public officials.
Or: Trump wants to deny birthright citizenship (14th) to children of illegal aliens.

The court has no authority to inject itself into political decisions,(1st example) unless it violates the constitution. (2nd example)

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Not all matters. The court does not have jurisdiction over political issues, like disputes between congress and the executive, or disputed use of their constitutional powers, unless the disputes involve whether they are acting within the limits the constitution sets.

Ex: Trump stopped prosecuting public corruption cases, such as bribery or abuse of power of public officials.
Or: Trump wants to deny birthright citizenship (14th) to children of illegal aliens.

The court has no authority to inject itself into political decisions,(1st example) unless it violates the constitution. (2nd example)

All matters judicial ARE decided by the courts.

There are no exceptions. None. Nada. Uh uh.

 

[StatesRightsForever]

yes it does it states all matters involving the US Government are decided by the Federal Courts.

Do you ever stop lying.?

 

[StatesRightsForever]

All matters judicial ARE decided by the courts.

There are no exceptions. None. Nada. Uh uh.

What a stupid thing to say. What does "matters Judicial" even mean.?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

What a stupid thing to say. What does "matters Judicial" even mean.?

We aren't responsible for your inability to read and understand the written word.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Do you ever stop lying.?

Stop whining.

He is correct, and you just don't like it.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

What a stupid thing to say. What does "matters Judicial" even mean.?

That you don't get it means you are close to not be sentient.

Read Article III of the Constitution.

 

[Hafar1014]

I would think not..given that the entire stated purpose of the census is for apportionment.
The whole number of persons.
The Constitution does NOT stipulate citizens only--in fact, it is clear, that they meant everyone who is subject to taxation--given that the only stated exception was predicated not on citizenship..but on taxpaying status~

BTW..as to Trump's idea of a mid-decade census..well, nothing says we can't be counted whenever the Govt. decides.
However, the only census that is eligible to be used to apportion is the decennial census.
That is specifically spelled out in the Constitution.

It means it applies to legal voters since voting is the whole point

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

A deportation program flawed with numerous due process flaws.
Permanent tax cuts for the wealthy, limited tax cuts for everyone else, costly tariffs to consumers.
NPR and DOE are not going anywehere.
Democrat party healthy in rebuilding with new leaders.
Tariffs on target to bring in 1 trillion a year enough to pay off the annual deficit in 2 years
Trump has dementia and is in Putin's pocket.
The new Russian collusion investigation revealing the truth of Russian contacts with Trump campaign.
It won't work for you next election, guaranteed.

 

[BackAgain]

Apparently, Trumpsters will howl over the very notion of following the Constitution and its mandates~

Nope. That’s neither apparent nor true.

Proponents of the proposal only wish to make clear what the Constitution intends to achieve

And it is not unconstitutional.

 

[Zincwarrior]

Got an Ouija board handy?

 

[TemplarKormac]

That certainly took long enough

 

[AZrailwhale]

A convention would be the end of the US.
As a country, we simply would not agree.
On anything...except that the other guys are fucked up~

No because there are 27 Red states and only 12 dependably Blue states. Getting a 2/3s majority for constitutional changes would be more than possible in a convention. A new convention would add ironclad guarantees to the Bill of Rights that congress couldn't override.