DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Trump looking 'very strongly' at delaying census

Trump looking 'very strongly' at delaying census


President Trump said Monday he's looking “very strongly” at delaying the 2020 census if the administration is not allowed to add a citizenship question, an unprecedented move that would surely trigger new legal challenges.

“We’re looking at that,” Trump told reporters at the White House when asked about a delay. “So you can ask other things, but you can’t ask whether or not somebody is a citizen? So we are trying to do that. We’re looking at that very strongly.”

Trump first floated a delay of the census last week after the Supreme Court blocked the administration from including a citizenship question, demanding that the Commerce Department provide a more clear-cut explanation for the move.

The president said it’s crucial the question be asked because “it’s very important to find out if somebody’s a citizen as opposed to an illegal.” He said, without citing evidence, that immigrants living illegally in the U.S. are “treated better than the coal miner” suffering from black lung.

The high court’s ruling may preclude the question from being added to census forms. The Commerce Department has said it faces a July 1 printing deadline but that it could be pushed back to the end of October under extenuating circumstances.

Legal experts have said delaying the census would violate the Constitution, which says it must take place every 10 years and must count all people living in the U.S. Under federal law, the census must begin by April 1, 2020.

Trump said last week he was asking his legal advisers to examine whether a delay is possible.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/451248-trump-looking-very-strongly-at-delaying-census

Well we all know that nobody on the right actually care about the constitution until you bring up guns.

Is this even legal?

No. Not if he tries to extend it beyond 2020. It's mandated by Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution and takes place every 10 years.

It depends if you want to follow whats in the constitution which states census is to be held every 10 years.

Shake my head.
So utterly predictable.

In the whole run-up to this court decision, IQ45 was cracking that "hurryup" whip. Thought being: "Let's get this rammed through, so there is enough time to reprint those sweet, sweet new census forms."

Now, after an unexpected reversal of fortune, he wants to molest the Constitution in order to manufacture the results he wants.

Well, tough. The law has spoken.

__________

Time's up, 'Poppin' Fresh.' You lose this round. Ink's dry; send'em out. You and your ghoulfriend Stephanie Miller will just have to lick each others'- wounds, and figure out some other way to be deplorable going forward.

Court's in your balls, Doughboy.
What next?

He will bluster, he will threaten, he will talk big, his base will get all riled up, then he will give in...... and claim victory.

Ok...explain to me what that means? I'll be glad to discuss the Constitution. I am way right, and care very deeply about the Constitution way beyond guns.

I take that comment personal, so what are you talking about?


Nobody on the right cares...PFFT

If you can;t deduce what the statement is in reference to while reading this thread - Maybe it doesn't matter much.

I totally understand the census question. Article 1, Sect. 2 demands a census. The President is wanting to delay, which can be done. Nothing says it has to be April, 1 of the census year.

Furthermore, citizenship questions have been asked up until the 1950's. I can't tell you the year off the top of my head.

He isn't asking if he can cancel the census, he is asking if he can delay the census.

JC

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/02/us/trump-census-citizenship-question.html

2020 Census Won’t Have Citizenship Question as Trump Administration Drops Effort
A protest at the Supreme Court in Washington last week as the justices considered a case involving an attempt to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census.
Credit
J. Scott Applewhite/Associated Press


ImageA protest at the Supreme Court in Washington last week as the justices considered a case involving an attempt to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census.
A protest at the Supreme Court in Washington last week as the justices considered a case involving an attempt to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census.CreditCreditJ. Scott Applewhite/Associated Press
By Michael Wines
July 2, 2019

380
WASHINGTON — The Trump administration, in a dramatic about-face, abandoned its quest on Tuesday to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census, a week after being blocked by the Supreme Court.

Faced with mounting deadlines and a protracted legal fight, officials ordered the Census Bureau to start printing forms for next year’s head count without the question.

The decision was a victory for critics who said the question was part of an administration effort to skew the census results in favor of Republicans. It was also a remarkable retreat for an administration that typically digs into such fights.

Just last week after the Supreme Court’s decision, President Trump said he was asking his lawyers to delay the census, “no matter how long,” in order to fight for the question in court.

Sign Up for The Daily Newsletter
Every Friday, get an exclusive look at how one of the week’s biggest news stories on “The Daily” podcast came together.

SIGN UP
Word of the action came in a one-sentence email from the Justice Department to lawyers for plaintiffs in a New York lawsuit that sought to block the question’s inclusion in the head count.

The email offered no explanation, but the administration was confronting weeks or months of additional legal challenges to the question. Meanwhile, the Census Bureau had said it needed to begin printing questionnaires by July 1 to meet the April 2020 deadline for conducting the census.

Unlock more free articles.
Create an account or log in
The administration’s decision appeared to end a yearlong battle over the country’s all-important decennial head count. Census results are used to divvy up seats in the House of Representatives and to draw political maps at all levels of government. They are also used to allot federal funding for key social services.

The addition of a citizenship question to the census could have had profound implications for American politics. Officials at the Census Bureau itself have said that including the question would lead to an undercount of noncitizens and minority residents. As a result, areas with more immigrants, which tend to vote Democratic, could have lost both representation and federal funding.

The Supreme Court last week rejected the administration’s stated reason for adding a question on citizenship to the census, and while the decision was not a conclusive ruling, the justices placed a daunting hurdle before the government.

Editors’ Picks

He’s Spent Just One Night on His Private Island. He’s Had Enough.

At 75, Taking Care of Mom, 99: ‘We Did Not Think She Would Live This Long’

‘Had I Catfished My Wife?’: A Debut Midlife-Crisis Memoir
Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said in a statement Tuesday evening that he respected the Supreme Court, but strongly disagreed with its ruling.

“The Census Bureau has started the process of printing the decennial questionnaires without the question,” he said. “My focus, and that of the Bureau and the entire Department is to conduct a complete and accurate census.”

Dale Ho, director of the Voting Rights Project at the American Civil Liberties Union, which was among the plaintiffs trying to block the question, praised the outcome, saying the Supreme Court left the administration with “no choice but to proceed with printing the 2020 census forms without a citizenship question.”

As drafted by the administration, the census would have asked: “Is this person a citizen of the United States?” Options were to include: “Yes, born in the United States”; “Yes, born in Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, or Northern Marianas”; “Yes, born abroad of U.S. citizen parent or parents”; “Yes, U.S. citizen by naturalization”; or “No, not a U.S. citizen.”

For the last year, there has been a bitter legal battle over whether the Commerce Department broke the law when it decided in March 2018 to tack a citizenship question onto the census, long after other aspects of the questionnaire had been finalized.

The department, which oversees the Census Bureau, had argued that the Justice Department needed a more accurate count of citizens to enforce the 1965 Voting Rights Act, but three lower courts ruled that that was an obvious pretext for some other unstated goal.

The department’s explanation was further undermined last month after plaintiffs uncovered computer files from a deceased Republican political strategist, Thomas B. Hofeller, who had first urged the incoming Trump administration in 2016 to consider adding the question to the next census.

The files included a study in which Mr. Hofeller concluded that a citizenship question was central to a strategy to increase Republican political power by excluding noncitizens and persons under voting age from the census figures used for drawing new political boundaries in 2021.

The disclosure led to the reopening of one of the lawsuits opposing the question, and plaintiffs were scheduled to begin new efforts this month to prove that the question was an effort to discriminate against Hispanics for political gain.

On Tuesday, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, which represents plaintiffs in that suit, indicated that it was unwilling to end the lawsuit without further assurances from the administration that the issue of the citizenship question had in fact been fully resolved.

Thomas A. Saenz, the organization’s president and general counsel, said his group wanted to make sure there wasn’t any misinformation spread about there still being a citizenship question.

“No matter what happens, there’s still a lingering hardship from how long the administration had this hanging out there, and the publicity it got,” he said.

Opposition to the citizenship question was rooted among local governments and advocacy groups representing ethnic minorities, all of whom feared that the question’s mere presence on the census would deter noncitizens and even legal immigrants from filling out the form for fear of government retaliation.

The groups’ victory on Tuesday may have eased that threat, but hardly eliminated it. The public controversy over the issue has already stirred fears of retribution among many immigrants, who say they will avoid filling out the census form even if the question is not asked.

“Now is the time to shift gears and begin robust education and outreach campaigns to ensure each person in this country is counted,” said Letitia James, the attorney general of New York, which was also among the plaintiffs suing to block the question. “Everyone counts, therefore everyone must be counted.”

j/c

How can a census that is all about counting the number of people in the country NOT have a question about citizenship? Isn't it important to know how many citizens vs. non-citizens are in the country? Taking a census in today's environment WITHOUT asking a citizenship question would be irresponsible. When will common sense make a return? This is twilight zone stuff.

Because then you might not even get an accurate reading of the LEGAL migrants living here.

My wife is scared because the gop seem to target not just illegals, but the legal ones as well.

I get wanting the question on there, but I also get why the S.C. didn’t put it on there.

Maybe trumps lawyers should’ve presented a more rock solid reason than the trash one they offered. Seems like trump doesn’t hire actual lawyers but political activist posing as one.

Interesting. My mother is not afraid to answer that question. Never has been.



I read Roberts' conclusion and he chickened out...again...just like with the Obamacare ruling. He found a legal reason to get to his conclusion. Very disappointing...again. He is working too hard to appear impartial. Lord help us if the shoe gets to the other foot.



Yeah...it's Trump's fault.

It actually is trumps fault. Read up on their argument. It’s was flimsy and vague. They had how long to put this case together? Fail.

So Trump wrote the argument? He's one talented guy for being such a moron.

Common sense - not law interpretation - dictates that a citizenship question be asked on a US census effort...especially in our current environment.

Spending money on a census that cannot address the count of ILLEGALS in the country is irresponsible.

Is trump in charge of them? I guess the buck never stops with the guy in charge in conservative world. It’s never trumps fault for failures. Lol.

The census is to count 'residents' not 'citizens', see the difference?

So your issue is that the judge found a 'legal reason' to deliver an opinion/ruling you did not like so he is being too impartial?

You do realize that's exactly what the SCOTUS is supposed to be right? smfh

Yep...all the more reason to know which residents are illegal immigrants. The census is intended to gather information about the humans in the USA...like being male or female or choice.

Spending the money that is required for a census and NOT getting pertinent info is irresponsible.

First question: Is it important for the census to be accurate?

Second question: What, precisely, is valuable about knowing who is a US citizen and who isn't?

With that answer, do you think someone who is non citizen would want to announce to the US govt that they are illegal?

If that person would not want to announce they are non citizen to the US govt, would they fill out the census, or not?

If some people don't fill out the census, will we have accurate numbers for the census?

Roberts focused HIS ruling on a technicality that has perfect legal basis...but was not the focus of the issue...just like with calling Obamacare constitutional because it was a TAX. When BO promised us it was not a tax.

In both instances, Roberts was careful to basically state that if the argument was posed differently, the ruling may be different...knowing that the effort required would make a re-review virtually impossible . Hence, working too hard to appear impartial.

The pertinent information being how many non-citizens reside there so they can be subtracted from the numbers that decide how much representation 'residents' will have in Congress? smfh

Okay, so the term "nobody" was too broad. But there certainly wasn't a ground swell about it from the right. And in the post I made just before the one you quoted I explained that it would have to be pushed beyond 2020 in order to go against the constitution.

The problem is, there would not have been time to print them, get them out and filled out in time if he had pushed it much further down the calendar.

But it ended up being a lot of hot air once his lawyers explained the constitution to him.

Yes.



Information. The entire thing is about info-gathering. No different than asking male/female, relationship status etc. In today's environment, I think it is very important to be ABLE to measure the number of illegal immigrants in the country against prior census efforts.



No I do not. I also don't think the need for the information is any less valuable. Changing the ability to attain information - which is the purpose of the census - is not secondary to how one feels about their legal status.



I do not know...as I've stated above...it is info-gathering. There are a lot of people who will not respond for various reasons. Making it 'more-comfortable' for an illegal immigrant to fill out a census should not be a consideration.



How many people is some people? 'Some people' will not fill one out as I stated above. Parts of the country give out driver's licenses to illegal immigrants...healthcare...some want illegals to vote. I find it humorous that a person would be afraid of the census, but not afraid to drive down the road - with or without a valid license.

Actually the census isn't about gathering information. It's about getting an accurate account of residents.

I don't think that ever happened when the question WAS on the census. However, I think it SHOULD be done. (Regarding the impact on Congressional representation.)

What is the purpose of knowing male/female, relationship status, home ownership status, etc?

That's hilarious...it is more than just "residents". I believe the term is actually "citizens" - without regard to excluding those who are legal/illegal immigrants/citizens. Anyway...

What about marital status...and gender...and home ownership? Aka "Information". Things the government would like to know and for a variety of reasons.

Now he can just toss out SCOTUS rulings too?

TDS at its core. Do you understand what was the SCOTUS ruling?

Do you not understand that continuing an effort - that was essentially encouraged by that very SCOTUS ruling you referenced - is light years from "throwing out a SCOTUS" decision?

C'mon Man!

More hilarious TDS.

This won't be the last-ever census. The census COULD get delayed. The printing of forms stops the need for the information? Nice job Ted.

My goodness...the shortsightedness of people is remarkable.

Don't even try, Trump isn't talking about 10 years from now because he doesn't care about 10 years from now.

And you should seriously find a new crack on libs because the TDS thing has no affect other than make you look dumber than you are. And 2017 wants it's attack back.

No, the term is residents. If the term had been citizens the term citizens would not have been blocked from the census.



The reason the questions you pointed out are asked is for the purpose of funding.

Questions Planned for the 2020 Census and American Community Survey

https://www2.census.gov/library/publicat...ns-2020-acs.pdf

Maybe it's time for you to look into the facts rather than just rely on what "you believe".

So...you know what Trump cares about now? Wow. Amazing powers must come from TDS.

According to the constitution the census must take place every ten years. In order for the forms to be printed, sent out and filled out during the 2020 calendar year, there isn't enough time to delay the census long enough for the SCOTUS to revisit the citizenship question.

Do you ever bother to actually research anything you say?

More dot-connecting. The important point here is that the census does a great deal more than just count humans/residents/citizens...it is for gathering "INFORMATION". Whether you choose to believe that or not.

I've never made an effort to hide the fact I despise Trump. You can't all that TDS. All you can do is parrot more talking points and think you have it all figured out... You crack me up.

I tried to reread some of your posts from today and all I see is TDS TDS TDS... fact free Fox News regurge.

There is plenty of time to print forms to be filled-out. Happens every year around tax time.

Do you ever actually think-through an issue?

From the US Census Bureau website...

Census in the Constitution
Why Jefferson, Madison and the Founders Enshrined the Census in our Constitution
The U.S. Constitution empowers the Congress to carry out the census in "such manner as they shall by Law direct" (Article I, Section 2). The Founders of our fledgling nation had a bold and ambitious plan to empower the people over their new government. The plan was to count every person living in the newly created United States of America, and to use that count to determine representation in the Congress.

Enshrining this invention in our Constitution marked a turning point in world history. Previously censuses had been used mainly to tax or confiscate property or to conscript youth into military service. The genius of the Founders was taking a tool of government and making it a tool of political empowerment for the governed over their government.

They accomplished that goal in 1790 and our country has every 10 years since then. In 1954, Congress codified earlier census acts and all other statutes authorizing the decennial census as Title 13, U.S. Code. Title 13, U.S. Code, does not specify which subjects or questions are to be included in the decennial census. However, it does require the Census Bureau to notify Congress of general census subjects to be addressed 3 years before the decennial census and the actual questions to be asked 2 years before the decennial census.

Questions beyond a simple count are Constitutional
It is constitutional to include questions in the decennial census beyond those concerning a simple count of the number of people. On numerous occasions, the courts have said the Constitution gives Congress the authority to collect statistics in the census. As early as 1870, the Supreme Court characterized as unquestionable the power of Congress to require both an enumeration and the collection of statistics in the census. The Legal Tender Cases, Tex.1870; 12 Wall., U.S., 457, 536, 20 L.Ed. 287. In 1901, a District Court said the Constitution's census clause (Art. 1, Sec. 2, Clause 3) is not limited to a headcount of the population and "does not prohibit the gathering of other statistics, if 'necessary and proper,' for the intelligent exercise of other powers enumerated in the constitution, and in such case there could be no objection to acquiring this information through the same machinery by which the population is enumerated." United States v. Moriarity, 106 F. 886, 891 (S.D.N.Y.1901).

The census does not violate the Fourth Amendment. Morales v. Daley, 116 F. Supp. 2d 801, 820 (S.D. Tex. 2000). In concluding that there was no basis for holding Census 2000 unconstitutional, the District Court in Morales ruled that the 2000 Census and the 2000 Census questions did not violate the Fourth Amendment or other constitutional provisions as alleged by plaintiffs. (The Morales court said responses to census questions are not a violation of a citizen's right to privacy or speech.) "…[I]t is clear that the degree to which these questions intrude upon an individual's privacy is limited, given the methods used to collect the census data and the statutory assurance that the answers and attribution to an individual will remain confidential. The degree to which the information is needed for the promotion of legitimate governmental interests has been found to be significant. A census of the type of Census 2000 has been taken every ten years since the first census in 1790. Such a census has been thought to be necessary for over two hundred years. There is no basis for holding that it is not necessary in the year 2000."

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the District Court decision on October 10, 2001, 275 F.3d 45. The U.S. Supreme Court denied petition for writ of certiorari on February 19, 2002, 534 U.S. 1135. No published opinions were filed with these rulings.

These decisions are consistent with the Supreme Court's recent description of the census as the "linchpin of the federal statistical system … collecting data on the characteristics of individuals, households, and housing units throughout the country." Dept. of Commerce v. U.S. House of Representatives, 525 U.S. 316, 341 (1999).