Law Trump administration gives up on 2020 Census question

[cincymma79]

The Alabama suit has to go forward but I don't think they can win.

The Census was never meant to only count citizens. I think this is pretty clear when you look at the history involving slaves and the compromise that represents the intent behind the language. The Free States made a nearly identical argument for why slaves should not be counted in the Census. That argument being that counting slaves in the Census would result in them losing seats to the states that did have slaves and that since slaves were not people under the law (they were property) they shouldn't count. The compromise was that the slaves were counted but at less than a full person.

I'll cite Madison here for some insight into how the Founding Fathers framed the issue:


That list of qualities largely applied to illegal aliens as well. They are protected against bodily harm, they can be punished for doing harm to others, they are seen as members of society (hence the granting of due process rights to them).

The only people excluded from the count were "Indians not taxed". Which makes sense since the Census is also for the apportionment of Direct Taxes. Illegal aliens are taxes and they are free Persons.

So, while I understand letting the case proceed, I don't think they have much chance of winning if the Court follows the original intent of the Const.

Then we let them count illegals as 3/5 of a vote

 

[Headkicktoleg]

The census citizenship question was about gerrymandering, not catching illegal aliens.

What does it say about your side where you want illegals counted for districting purposes

 

[Higus]

What does it say about your side where you want illegals counted for districting purposes

Couple of issues:
1) The census is used for purposes beyond redistricting. It influences infrastructure and services that people use no matter what their citizenship status is, like transportation, law enforcement, healthcare and public education resources allocated to a region. Having inaccurate data hurts the people that live in said regions
2) Illegal immigrants cannot vote, so the effect on redistricting as far as it influences elections is negligible (provided the districts are drawn fairly)
3) Your question is falsely premised. The citizenship question is used to gather data that would allow GOP operatives to make their gerrymandering efforts more efficient. It would have no effect on a fairly drawn electoral map.

 

[panamaican]

There is one important distinction here: slaves were lawfully present. They were counted as 3/5 persons, but their lawful presence was taken for granted. The term “persons” was used instead of “voters” because not all persons lawfully present in the USA could vote (e.g., slaves, women, children, permanent residents).



I’ll put it like this: there are arguments to be made on both sides. IMO, the better argument is against providing representation to illegal aliens. At a time when there are 20+ million illegals inside the USA, and hundreds of thousands coming each year, this should be clear. The numbers of illegals exceeds the population of 48 out of 50 states, and the combined total population of our 15 least populous states. Continuing to afford them representation is a serious threat to the integrity of this union. It raises the question, “for whom exactly does this government exist?”

But like I said, I don’t trust Roberts. After his performance in the census question case, pretty much no one trusts him. I can only hope that if this case makes its way to the high court, we have one more solidly Conservative judge (preferably a Gorsuch-style Conservative) to put this nightmare to rest.

That's not a legal argument based on the Constitution. That's more of a personal opinion.

The judiciary isn't going to make "practical" opinions, they're going to make legal ones based on what the Constitution intended. And there isn't anywhere in the Constitution that limits the Census to ciitizens or to voters.

If you read what I quote from Madison - the determining factors seem to be if the government has the authority to exercise control over the individual while they are within the country - the power to tax, to harm, and to protect from harm. All of those things apply to illegal aliens - they are still obligated to pay taxes. They are still jailed for committing crimes. They are still protected by due process of law.

That's what the Founding Fathers and the Constitution seemed to believe when creating the Census. How you or I feel about illegal aliens 200 years later isn't the question.

 

[Caudillo]

Technically, if they left the US, we could then invade and then push them all back across the border.

We wouldn’t be attacking our own citizens then. Constitution would be safe

but is that worth it. The international effect, internal effect of that violence, and is it necessary? You can live fine without arizona, new mexico, west texas, and parts of southern california. The rockies act as a natural border, the best thing is to hold the midwest, pacific northwest, rocky mountain states, and the south and rust belt and east coast. Obviously you want to hold most of california if possible or at least the best areas.

 

[Caudillo]

By printing the questionnaire without the question, it makes the existing case "moot", meaning that there is nothing to litigate because the issue has already been resolved. This basically saves them from having the District Court have to rule on if the Administration lied about why they were adding the question. Which would have happened because even the SCOTUS called the stated reason a "pretext".

They don't need a judicial ruling saying "The administration lied about why they added a citizenship question. They knew it would hurt the Census and Democrats and were willing to risk the accuracy of the Census for that partisan goal. Then they claimed that they cared about the Voting Rights Act to cover up their lie."

There's no way the GOP wants something like that on the record. So drop the case because the court rules on the "pretext" issue and move on.

i still dont understand. and dont know what moot means, litigate, pretext. etc. need to look this up. I have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[JamesRussler]

That's not a legal argument based on the Constitution. That's more of a personal opinion.

It's an argument with a legal basis in the Constitution. No, I didn't brief it here. As much as I enjoy Sherdog, that's too much energy for a forum post. If you want to see the argument fleshed out, just read the moving papers in the AL case I linked.

The judiciary isn't going to make "practical" opinions, they're going to make legal ones based on what the Constitution intended. And there isn't anywhere in the Constitution that limits the Census to ciitizens or to voters.

That's completely wrong. In fact, that's among the first illusions shattered by a law school education. Of course the Court is guided by policy implications, because the Court is aware that every decision they make reflects policy priorities. Where do you think "qualified immunity" came from? Where do you think "reasonable expectation of privacy" came from? Why do you think "due process" encompasses pretty much everything under the sun? The academic debate between legal formalism and legal realism has been settled for a long time.

Like you said, "there isn't anywhere in the Constitution that limits the Census to ciitizens [sic] or to voters." Some have argued, as you do, that this places upon the government an affirmative obligation to count all "persons" in the census, regardless of legal status. Other people, like myself, point out that the Constitution was written for "We the People of the United States," and that counting illegal aliens gives them representation that was intended for "the People of the United States."

If this case goes before the Court, the Court must make a decision. They will be making policy either way, and there will be "practical" implications. If they decide "persons" includes illegal aliens, they will be effectively enfranchising aliens at the expense of citizens. If they decide "persons" does not include illegal aliens, it will increase the political representation of citizens at the expense of illegal aliens.

If you read what I quote from Madison - the determining factors seem to be if the government has the authority to exercise control over the individual while they are within the country - the power to tax, to harm, and to protect from harm. All of those things apply to illegal aliens - they are still obligated to pay taxes. They are still jailed for committing crimes. They are still protected by due process of law.

That's what the Founding Fathers and the Constitution seemed to believe when creating the Census. How you or I feel about illegal aliens 200 years later isn't the question.

What do you think Madison would say if you asked him about apportioning seats to 20+ million illegal aliens? Because in Federalist No. 54, he was talking about slaves (specifically, to justify the 3/5 compromise). You have a pretty expansive view of Madison's reasoning.

And more to the point, using your reasoning, is there any person on Earth (other than a non-taxed "Indian") who wouldn't qualify to be counted in the census? It seems like the only qualification would be mere presence in the USA or its territories. Do you not see how that goes against common sense?

 

[JamesRussler]

Apparently they’re printing the forms without the question, but they’re continuing the legal battle, and may reprint the forms at a later date, pending a favorable ruling.

 

[panamaican]

It's an argument with a legal basis in the Constitution. No, I didn't brief it here. As much as I enjoy Sherdog, that's too much energy for a forum post. If you want to see the argument fleshed out, just read the moving papers in the AL case I linked.



That's completely wrong. In fact, that's among the first illusions shattered by a law school education. Of course the Court is guided by policy implications, because the Court is aware that every decision they make reflects policy priorities. Where do you think "qualified immunity" came from? Where do you think "reasonable expectation of privacy" came from? Why do you think "due process" encompasses pretty much everything under the sun? The academic debate between legal formalism and legal realism has been settled for a long time.

Like you said, "there isn't anywhere in the Constitution that limits the Census to ciitizens [sic] or to voters." Some have argued, as you do, that this places upon the government an affirmative obligation to count all "persons" in the census, regardless of legal status. Other people, like myself, point out that the Constitution was written for "We the People of the United States," and that counting illegal aliens gives them representation that was intended for "the People of the United States."

If this case goes before the Court, the Court must make a decision. They will be making policy either way, and there will be "practical" implications. If they decide "persons" includes illegal aliens, they will be effectively enfranchising aliens at the expense of citizens. If they decide "persons" does not include illegal aliens, it will increase the political representation of citizens at the expense of illegal aliens.



What do you think Madison would say if you asked him about apportioning seats to 20+ million illegal aliens? Because in Federalist No. 54, he was talking about slaves (specifically, to justify the 3/5 compromise). You have a pretty expansive view of Madison's reasoning.

And more to the point, using your reasoning, is there any person on Earth (other than a non-taxed "Indian") who wouldn't qualify to be counted in the census? It seems like the only qualification would be mere presence in the USA or its territories. Do you not see how that goes against common sense?

"We the People" is not "We the Citizens" nor is it "We the Legal Permanent Residents."

At the time of the drafting of the Constitution, there were no such things as "illegal immigrants". It was simply "citizens" and everyone else. The modern conversation about illegal immigrants doesn't start showing up until the mid-1800s. And it's not until 1940 that we required non-U.S. citizens to be registered with the government.

So, when they wrote "We the People" the "People" were citizens and non-citizens alike. And the Census was created knowing that it would be counting people with voting power, the citizens, and the people with no voting power, the slaves and the non-immigrants.

As for Madison, yes he was talking about slaves, I already said that. What I also said is that when they were creating the idea of the Census, the issue of non-legal residents was already being addressed. The Free States made the argument that including slaves in the Census would cost them Representatives. The Framers decided that even though slaves were not legally residents, citizens or otherwise, of the United States, they were still within the States and should be counted.

As for going against "common sense", the legislative history and the historical record behind the Constitution is the only relevant "common sense" and "common sense" makes it pretty clear that the Census is meant to count everyone who lives here, regardless of status.

 

[cincymma79]

Apparently they’re printing the forms without the question, but they’re continuing the legal battle, and may reprint the forms at a later date, pending a favorable ruling.

 

[Serenity Now]

Should have just taken all of Mexico in 1848...

They were too racist to do it.

I believe they discussed taking a bunch of Mexico, but they were like nah, since there were too many mexicans living there....they didn't want mexicans lol.

 

[AlexDB9]

They were too racist to do it.

I believe they discussed taking a bunch of Mexico, but they were like nah, since there were too many mexicans living there....they didn't want mexicans lol.

Well if they did this whole problem would be a mute point @BarryDillon

 

[JamesRussler]

"We the People" is not "We the Citizens" nor is it "We the Legal Permanent Residents."

At the time of the drafting of the Constitution, there were no such things as "illegal immigrants". It was simply "citizens" and everyone else. The modern conversation about illegal immigrants doesn't start showing up until the mid-1800s. And it's not until 1940 that we required non-U.S. citizens to be registered with the government.

That point cuts both ways. Yes, there are a number of concepts that were taken for granted at the time of our nation's founding (see, e.g., our nation's first naturalization act). They may not have been spelled out clearly in the Constitution, as there was no perceived need. That doesn't mean the Constitution doesn't embody them.

The idea that only "persons" with legal status, i.e., those lawfully present, should be counted in the census is one of those concepts.

So, when they wrote "We the People" the "People" were citizens and non-citizens alike. And the Census was created knowing that it would be counting people with voting power, the citizens, and the people with no voting power, the slaves and the non-immigrants.

"We the People" definitely refers to citizens of the USA. It is from the preamble, so it doesn't have force of law by itself, but it has always been understood to refer to the citizens of the United States, from whom the Nation of the United States derives its sovereignty. This concept of popular sovereignty is so fundamental to the founding of this nation that no one has ever thought to seriously question it (until now, apparently).

The "people with no voting power" you referenced above were women and children, neither of whom could vote at the time the Constitution was ratified.

You haven't addressed the distinction I noted, that slaves were lawfully present. Some non-citizens are lawfully present. Not all of them are.

As for Madison, yes he was talking about slaves, I already said that. What I also said is that when they were creating the idea of the Census, the issue of non-legal residents was already being addressed. The Free States made the argument that including slaves in the Census would cost them Representatives. The Framers decided that even though slaves were not legally residents, citizens or otherwise, of the United States, they were still within the States and should be counted.

Again, address this distinction I mentioned above. Slaves, while not "citizens" at the time, were lawfully present. Do you think that makes a difference? If not, please explain.

As for going against "common sense", the legislative history and the historical record behind the Constitution is the only relevant "common sense" and "common sense" makes it pretty clear that the Census is meant to count everyone who lives here, regardless of status.

I mentioned the concept of popular sovereignty above. The basis for our nation's existence, and the source of its political power, is the consent of the citizens. Not the consent of the federal government. Not the consent of the British crown. Not the consent of the "Native Americans." Not the consent of the Spanish, the French, the Mexicans, the Ottomans, the Japanese, etc. And for that reason, it would make no sense for our Founding Fathers to apportion seats in our House of Representatives for anyone other than American citizens. To do so would defeat the purpose of citizenship, and breach the social contract We the People entered into with our government back in 1789. That is just common sense.

We are not the United Nations.
We are the United States of America.

 

[MikeMcMann]

This topic re-affirms, amongst others, how painfully stupid Trump is.

He is calling it fake news that his own lawyers and officials in the DOJ say the census is going forward without the question. He is calling it fake news that Wilbur Ross said the same.

He is not saying 'I don't care what others say, i'm the boss and this is going to happen', which would just be tyrannical but instead he shows he is stupid and liar.

 

[carlos cadona]

Well this turned into a civil war fantasy thread rather quickly.

 

[ToxicShocker]

 

[7437]

Probably a good move for trump. He supporters are dumb as fuck so they will believe it