Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-25-2019, 12:30 AM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 14,266

Supreme Court looks likely to approve Census citizenship question by 5-4 vote


The final vote may still be two months away, but it looks likely that SCOTUS will give a 5-4 ruling, along partisan lines, to permit the Census to ask about citizenship.


Wouldn't affect the 2020 election, but could redraw the map in the R's favor, to a small extent, by the 2022 and 2024 elections.
  #2  
Old 04-25-2019, 12:41 AM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,271
So, Kavanaugh is doing to the country what he did to Dr Ford? I need another drink.
  #3  
Old 04-25-2019, 12:43 AM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 14,266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
So, Kavanaugh is doing to the country what he did to Dr Ford? I need another drink.
It would affect a number of red states, though, too - states like Texas and Florida (although not sure Florida is really a red state), Arizona as well.
  #4  
Old 04-25-2019, 12:51 AM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,271
Well, I’ll drink to that. (Are you noticing a theme here?)
  #5  
Old 04-25-2019, 04:09 AM
Turek is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Inara's shuttle
Posts: 3,999
What would happen if people just boycotted the question?
  #6  
Old 04-25-2019, 07:20 AM
scr4 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Alabama
Posts: 15,706
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turek View Post
What would happen if people just boycotted the question?
The issue is not how people answer the question. The problem is, just the fact that there is such a question on the form discourages non-citizens from responding to the whole census. I don't see how boycotting would help alleviate that problem.
  #7  
Old 04-25-2019, 07:29 AM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 7,999
The question is necessary to provide inaccurate results.
  #8  
Old 04-25-2019, 07:39 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 9,631
I wonder if we're not overthinking this - is there empirical evidence that such a question discourages participation? Or more to the point, if someone is in the United States illegally, are they really interested in communication of any kind with the federal government? Wouldn't they lay low and avoid census questionnaires and census takers anyway? I would think that undocumented immigrants and overstayers would want to minimize their interaction with authorities of any kind, except for only the most essential situations (hospitalization, education of children, vaccinations, getting a driver's license, etc). It's understood that the federal government has always had the authority to deport non-citizens. I'm not saying that the question doesn't produce a chilling effect, but I'm just wondering if there's solid evidence that it does.

Last edited by asahi; 04-25-2019 at 07:41 AM.
  #9  
Old 04-25-2019, 08:33 AM
bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 17,743
I think you're right- it's probably a bit of unwarrantedly dickish mustache twirling on the bit of the Republicans, and a bit of frantically unnecessary panic on the part of Democrats.

I agree with Asahi, illegals are trying to fly under the radar as much as humanly possible- they're not going to somehow try and mooch public services, and yet be afraid to respond to the census at the same time. It's likely that they're going to do neither one in any event.

So the Republicans aren't going to somehow drive these illegals into hiding any more than they already are, and nor is their supposed under representation going to deprive them of any needed humanitarian services either.
  #10  
Old 04-25-2019, 08:43 AM
D'Anconia is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,421
According to the UN, countries asking a citizenship question on their census is a best practice.
  #11  
Old 04-25-2019, 08:59 AM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,912
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
According to the UN, countries asking a citizenship question on their census is a best practice.
And also the U.N. recommends strong gun laws. How about you get your census question, and we get better gun laws, and we call it even?

(Not actually expecting a response to your drive-bys, but there's maybe a 1% chance we can split this baby.)
  #12  
Old 04-25-2019, 09:03 AM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,616
There's a constitutional issue with your "strong gun laws". I don't think there's a constitutional issue with the citizenship question.
  #13  
Old 04-25-2019, 09:06 AM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,912
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
There's a constitutional issue with your "strong gun laws". I don't think there's a constitutional issue with the citizenship question.
Sure there is. An accurate count is a constitutional duty.
  #14  
Old 04-25-2019, 09:10 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 9,631
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
I think you're right- it's probably a bit of unwarrantedly dickish mustache twirling on the bit of the Republicans, and a bit of frantically unnecessary panic on the part of Democrats.

I agree with Asahi, illegals are trying to fly under the radar as much as humanly possible- they're not going to somehow try and mooch public services, and yet be afraid to respond to the census at the same time. It's likely that they're going to do neither one in any event.

So the Republicans aren't going to somehow drive these illegals into hiding any more than they already are, and nor is their supposed under representation going to deprive them of any needed humanitarian services either.
Keep in mind, there may be other ulterior motives for asking the question. I could see Republicans using the results to smear diverse, left-leaning states like California and New York, agitating that certain states are home to disproportionate numbers of non-citizens and therefore less deserving of federal tax dollars. That is something I could absolutely see, and maybe with some individuals, the existence of the citizenship question and having census takers knock on doors might have some chilling effect. It might also discourage green card holders who might misunderstand the intent and purpose of the question. All of these are possible, I suppose. I just wonder what the hard evidence is to substantiate the amount of fear that I've seen kicked around in the media.

Last edited by asahi; 04-25-2019 at 09:12 AM.
  #15  
Old 04-25-2019, 09:12 AM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Sure there is. An accurate count is a constitutional duty.
SCOTUS appears poised to disagree with you about the constitutionality of a citizenship question.
  #16  
Old 04-25-2019, 09:15 AM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,912
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
SCOTUS appears poised to disagree with you about the constitutionality of a citizenship question.
The law doesn't really matter to a handful of Supreme Court justices -- politics does.

Perhaps the census should also ask a series of questions about how many guns each household owns, and whether they are all legally owned, and how much ammunition is in the house. For, you know, reasons.
  #17  
Old 04-25-2019, 09:16 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 83,265
And they also appear poised to agree with him.
  #18  
Old 04-25-2019, 09:21 AM
BrotherCadfael is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Vermont
Posts: 10,210
Personally, I have always felt that the Census Department grossly overreaches their Constitutional mandate, by collecting statistical data unrelated to the enumeration of the populace. I would much prefer them to do a simple count. (And, yes, by count I mean count and not estimates.)


However, that train has long left the station. If they can ask how many bathrooms are in my house, they can ask the citizenship of the residents of that house. It may or may not be a good idea to do so, but it is certainly legal.



(And, with respect to the non-response issue, that is, the idea that asking citizenship will reduce the response rate, the same is true of the so-called "long form", the origin of the infamous bathrooms question alluded to above. It is well established that people who receive the long form are significantly less likely to respond than recipients of the standard form.)
  #19  
Old 04-25-2019, 09:22 AM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
The law doesn't really matter to a handful of Supreme Court justices -- politics does.

Perhaps the census should also ask a series of questions about how many guns each household owns, and whether they are all legally owned, and how much ammunition is in the house. For, you know, reasons.
If a Dem wins in 2028, s/he will probably have that option. In the meantime, back here at the thread topic, and your quaint opinion notwithstanding, "I don't think there's a constitutional issue with the citizenship question."
  #20  
Old 04-25-2019, 09:25 AM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,912
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
If a Dem wins in 2028, s/he will probably have that option. In the meantime, back here at the thread topic, and your quaint opinion notwithstanding, "I don't think there's a constitutional issue with the citizenship question."
I'll note that your opinion of the law tends to vary based on what's good for your political opinions. That's less than quaint, that's an unprincipled view of the rule of law.
  #21  
Old 04-25-2019, 09:28 AM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 7,999
The important thing is that if we expend the time and resources to gather data, we gather data that is less likely to be accurate. That's important.
  #22  
Old 04-25-2019, 09:33 AM
nate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 909
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Perhaps the census should also ask a series of questions about how many guns each household owns, and whether they are all legally owned, and how much ammunition is in the house. For, you know, reasons.
That's a really good idea! And I'm sure Republicans will have no issues with that due to their aversion to doing anything that might make them look hypocritical.
  #23  
Old 04-25-2019, 09:38 AM
Doctor Jackson's Avatar
Doctor Jackson is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Jawja
Posts: 10,319
I'm honestly not sure I get the whole furor over this question. The goal of the census is 2-fold: 1) count all the people in the country at that point in time; and 2) apportion Representatives to States.

For the purposes of goal #1 the question is moot, every breathing body should be counted. I get that the question may cause some who are in the country illegally not to answer the census at all and could cause the actual count to skew low. OTOH, I tend to agree with asahi as well - a large portion of people in the country illegally probably are not going to answer anyway. For those that do, what is to keep them from just checking "Yes" and sending the form in? It's not like Uncle Sam is going to cross check census forms to some citizenship database. There are, after all, three forms where normally honest people will lie - tax forms, census forms and golf scorecards.

For goal #2 - It seems Constitutionally pretty simple to me, either exclude resident non-citizens from taxation (the 14th amendment specifically excludes from representative apportionment numbers "Indians not taxed", I could see courts interpreting that as "people not taxed") and don't let them vote, or compel them to become part of the tax system and let them vote. Before anyone has a conniption, I don't mean that people who have no reportable tax burden should be excluded from voting. So long as one is subject to the US tax codes they should have a right to cast their vote. The whole "taxation without representation" thing. Whether one adheres to the tax codes or is in the country illegally are issues covered under, and should be enforced under, different laws.
  #24  
Old 04-25-2019, 09:39 AM
2ManyTacos is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 936
Others have noted that this likely decision bolsters the argument for Court-packing, because now you're getting to the point where dubious Court decisions start to rig election results. And I am inclined to agree.

Look, I am fairly conservative on immigration policy and even I think this question is unwarranted; the constitution calls for the enumeration of *people,* not citizens, so the issue doesn't really get much clearer than that.

Also, it's rich to see Roberts trying to tie this decision to better enforcement of the VRA given his decision in Shelby County, and how Gorsuch/Kavanaugh are appealing to agency deference and international models when their entire shtick has always been to eschew those things. Seriously, when we all just accept that these guys are nothing other than Fox News talking heads in robes, then it'll make it easier to just add more Justices and make them all irrelevant.
  #25  
Old 04-25-2019, 09:42 AM
That Don Guy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,490
Here's a strange question: what if...
(a) everybody who is undocumented answers "yes" to the question? What's the worst that could happen? They end up deported? Why isn't that happening already, then?
(b) a considerable number of citizens answer "no" to the question?
(c) people leave the question blank? I don't think anybody is going to say, "Sorry, but this form is incomplete, so this person isn't counted."

Note that, under current law (Title 13, Section 221, United States Code), the penalties are fines of up to $100 for leaving a question blank and up to $500 for giving a false answer.

Meanwhile, Title 13, Section 9 says:

"(a) Neither the Secretary [of Commerce], nor any other officer or employee of the Department of Commerce or bureau or agency thereof, or local government census liaison, may, except as provided in section 8 or 16 or chapter 10 of this title or section 210 of the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998 or section 2(f) of the Census of Agriculture Act of 1997—
(1) use the information furnished under the provisions of this title for any purpose other than the statistical purposes for which it is supplied; or
(2) make any publication whereby the data furnished by any particular establishment or individual under this title can be identified; or
(3) permit anyone other than the sworn officers and employees of the Department or bureau or agency thereof to examine the individual reports.
No department, bureau, agency, officer, or employee of the Government, except the Secretary in carrying out the purposes of this title, shall require, for any reason, copies of census reports which have been retained by any such establishment or individual. Copies of census reports which have been so retained shall be immune from legal process, and shall not, without the consent of the individual or establishment concerned, be admitted as evidence or used for any purpose in any action, suit, or other judicial or administrative proceeding."
  #26  
Old 04-25-2019, 09:46 AM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
I'll note that your opinion of the law tends to vary based on what's good for your political opinions. That's less than quaint, that's an unprincipled view of the rule of law.
I feel the same way about your opinion of the law.
  #27  
Old 04-25-2019, 09:50 AM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 14,266
Quote:
Originally Posted by That Don Guy View Post
(b) a considerable number of citizens answer "no" to the question?
That could only end up hurting their state's cause. If, for instance, Kansas winds up with a 95% rate of citizenry on the Census while California ends up with a 40% rate (due not only to immigration but also Californians willfully answering no even when yes,) then that can only bolster Kansas' arguments for more funding or whatnot.
  #28  
Old 04-25-2019, 09:55 AM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,271
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Jackson View Post
I'm honestly not sure I get the whole furor over this question. The goal of the census is 2-fold: 1) count all the people in the country at that point in time; and 2) apportion Representatives to States.

For the purposes of goal #1 the question is moot, every breathing body should be counted. I get that the question may cause some who are in the country illegally not to answer the census at all and could cause the actual count to skew low. OTOH, I tend to agree with asahi as well - a large portion of people in the country illegally probably are not going to answer anyway. For those that do, what is to keep them from just checking "Yes" and sending the form in? It's not like Uncle Sam is going to cross check census forms to some citizenship database. There are, after all, three forms where normally honest people will lie - tax forms, census forms and golf scorecards.

For goal #2 - It seems Constitutionally pretty simple to me, either exclude resident non-citizens from taxation (the 14th amendment specifically excludes from representative apportionment numbers "Indians not taxed", I could see courts interpreting that as "people not taxed") and don't let them vote, or compel them to become part of the tax system and let them vote. Before anyone has a conniption, I don't mean that people who have no reportable tax burden should be excluded from voting. So long as one is subject to the US tax codes they should have a right to cast their vote. The whole "taxation without representation" thing. Whether one adheres to the tax codes or is in the country illegally are issues covered under, and should be enforced under, different laws.
The problem is that if immigrants disproportionately avoid returning census forms, States with lots of immigrants will lose out on Congressional representation.
  #29  
Old 04-25-2019, 09:56 AM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,912
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I feel the same way about your opinion of the law.
Except that this opinion is based on nothing more than the laughable "everyone does it!" nonsense embraced by partisans. Look back through my posting history and you'll see tons of times where I have found that the law does not support what is good for my politics. I believe in the threads about Bears Ears and tax cuts you stated something to the effect that you support whatever policies are good for you personally, and don't really care about the process. I can state unequivocally that I reject your "ends justify the means" approach to the law.

Last edited by Ravenman; 04-25-2019 at 09:57 AM.
  #30  
Old 04-25-2019, 10:08 AM
YamatoTwinkie is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,242
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
There's a constitutional issue with your "strong gun laws". I don't think there's a constitutional issue with the citizenship question.
What if additional questions on the census were planned by a hypothetical Democratic government to be:

1. How many firearms are located in the premises?
2. How is each firearm on the premises secured?

Now, sure, they say on the surface that this is to collect better information for firearm statistics, but really it's designed to reduce response rates among gun-owners (likely to vote R).
  #31  
Old 04-25-2019, 10:08 AM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Except that this opinion is based on nothing more than the laughable "everyone does it!" nonsense embraced by partisans. Look back through my posting history and you'll see tons of times where I have found that the law does not support what is good for my politics. I believe in the threads about Bears Ears and tax cuts you stated something to the effect that you support whatever policies are good for you personally, and don't really care about the process. I can state unequivocally that I reject your "ends justify the means" approach to the law.
Now you've tried a very lame bait and switch. I generally support policies that are good for me personally, but that tells us nothing about my view of "the law". There was no serious legal / constitutional issue with shrinking Bears Ears or cutting my taxes. Do you have any actual examples where my "opinion of the law tends to vary based on what's good for [my] political opinions"?
  #32  
Old 04-25-2019, 10:13 AM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,912
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Now you've tried a very lame bait and switch. I generally support policies that are good for me personally, but that tells us nothing about my view of "the law". There was no serious legal / constitutional issue with shrinking Bears Ears or cutting my taxes. Do you have any actual examples where my "opinion of the law tends to vary based on what's good for [my] political opinions"?
Sure, but since this is about you personally I'll post them in the Pit thread and we can have a discussion of it over there. Sound good?
  #33  
Old 04-25-2019, 10:21 AM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by YamatoTwinkie View Post
What if additional questions on the census were planned by a hypothetical Democratic government to be:

1. How many firearms are located in the premises?
2. How is each firearm on the premises secured?

Now, sure, they say on the surface that this is to collect better information for firearm statistics, but really it's designed to reduce response rates among gun-owners (likely to vote R).
I don't think you'd see anything like the tizzy the Left is in over this citizenship question. That question might actually be against the law though:

Quote:
No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions be established.
18 U.S. Code § 926
  #34  
Old 04-25-2019, 10:22 AM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Sure, but since this is about you personally I'll post them in the Pit thread and we can have a discussion of it over there. Sound good?
You can post whatever you like over there. I prefer to have discussions in places where people are expected to behave somewhat less like juveniles, so I won't be joining you there.
  #35  
Old 04-25-2019, 10:28 AM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,912
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
You can post whatever you like over there. I prefer to have discussions in places where people are expected to behave somewhat less like juveniles, so I won't be joining you there.
I'm happy to keep it civil, but since the topic is you personally, in my opinion hijacking this thread is inappropriate, and I don't see that any other forum is really in the sweet spot of discussions of your principles and politics. If you don't like the way the discussion unfolds, you can always just stop showing up.
  #36  
Old 04-25-2019, 10:46 AM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 20,896
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
SCOTUS appears poised to disagree with you about the constitutionality of a citizenship question.
Perhaps so. I'd like to see their reasoning because this one seems pretty easy.

A census is a constitutional imperative. I do not think it is wrong to say that an "accurate" census is implied by that. A census would not pass constitutional muster if they just decided to ball park a guess over some drinks at the Census Bureau.

So, if an accurate census is what the constitution demands than any question that needs to be adjudicated should be answered based on the best evidence available for which choice provides for a more accurate census.

If you are fine with SCOTUS answering that question to make the census less accurate then really anything goes and the census can be made into a farce because why not?
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill
  #37  
Old 04-25-2019, 11:21 AM
raventhief's Avatar
raventhief is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 4,839
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I feel the same way about your opinion of the law.
Prove it.
  #38  
Old 04-25-2019, 11:40 AM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
Perhaps so. I'd like to see their reasoning because this one seems pretty easy.

A census is a constitutional imperative. I do not think it is wrong to say that an "accurate" census is implied by that. A census would not pass constitutional muster if they just decided to ball park a guess over some drinks at the Census Bureau.

So, if an accurate census is what the constitution demands than any question that needs to be adjudicated should be answered based on the best evidence available for which choice provides for a more accurate census.

If you are fine with SCOTUS answering that question to make the census less accurate then really anything goes and the census can be made into a farce because why not?
I think the evidence that it will make the census "less accurate" is somewhat dubious, but anyways, here is what the Census Department itself says about collecting additional statistical information:

Quote:
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).
One could make the argument that collecting additional statistical information above and beyond a simple count might make the count less accurate, but "the law" doesn't appear to care. Despite what you think is "implied", there don't appear to be any serious constitutional issues with asking about citizenship (or race or gender or the other myriad things that get asked on a census questionnaire)

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 04-25-2019 at 11:41 AM.
  #39  
Old 04-25-2019, 11:53 AM
Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,127
Quote:
On numerous occasions, the courts have said the Constitution gives Congress the authority to collect statistics in the census.
Justice Gorsuch, IIRC, made the point - if Congress doesn't want the question, they can pass a law and keep it off the census. Which accords with the general view that Congress makes laws, the Supreme Court doesn't. Or shouldn't.

Regards,
Shodan
  #40  
Old 04-25-2019, 12:12 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 14,266
Wonder if there is any math on just how this would change the EC/House makeup. The estimate was that 6 million or more people might go un-counted, which is less than two percent of the current U.S. population. Taking into account that this would also adversely affect Texas, Florida and Arizona, and..........perhaps it might amount to nothing more than a switchover of, say, five House seats and EVs going from blue to red?
  #41  
Old 04-25-2019, 12:18 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 20,896
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
One could make the argument that collecting additional statistical information above and beyond a simple count might make the count less accurate, but "the law" doesn't appear to care. Despite what you think is "implied", there don't appear to be any serious constitutional issues with asking about citizenship (or race or gender or the other myriad things that get asked on a census questionnaire)
The question should be, "How much less accurate is it?"

I see no problem with the census including other questions but I think the primary goal of the census is to count people and there should be a limit to how much the accuracy of that count is impacted by other questions.

If they can show that the count becomes less accurate but it is statistically insignificant then fine. It remains that the constitutional directive is to count people. Not gather other info. So the other info gathering, while fine, should take a back seat to the primary goal of accurately counting the populace.

If the citizenship question does not hurt that count then I have no problem with it being asked.
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill
  #42  
Old 04-25-2019, 12:35 PM
puddleglum's Avatar
puddleglum is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: a van down by the river
Posts: 6,517
The constitution says that the census should be conducted in such a way as congress shall by law direct.
Congress passed a law that says the Secretary of Commerce shall conduct the census in such a form and content as he may determine. Furthermore, the "the Secretary is authorized to obtain such other census information as necessary"

Given that the Constitution explicitly gives congress the authority to direct the census in any way they see fit, and congress explicitly give the Secretary of Commerce power to conduct the census in any form he wants, there is no way that asking about illegals is unconstitutional. It is an obvious decision.
  #43  
Old 04-25-2019, 12:37 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
The constitution says that the census should be conducted in such a way as congress shall by law direct.
Congress passed a law that says the Secretary of Commerce shall conduct the census in such a form and content as he may determine. Furthermore, the "the Secretary is authorized to obtain such other census information as necessary"

Given that the Constitution explicitly gives congress the authority to direct the census in any way they see fit, and congress explicitly give the Secretary of Commerce power to conduct the census in any form he wants, there is no way that asking about illegals is unconstitutional. It is an obvious decision.
I agree, and yet four justices are likely to vote against the administration, because:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
The law doesn't really matter to a handful of Supreme Court justices -- politics does. ...
  #44  
Old 04-25-2019, 12:38 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 20,896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Justice Gorsuch, IIRC, made the point - if Congress doesn't want the question, they can pass a law and keep it off the census. Which accords with the general view that Congress makes laws, the Supreme Court doesn't. Or shouldn't.
How is the Supreme Court making a law here?

The constitution demands we hold a census every ten years. If the administration decides to do something that imperils that count happening or damage its accuracy it is absolutely the place of the court to stop it and see that the constitutional directive is carried out appropriately.
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill
  #45  
Old 04-25-2019, 12:42 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 20,896
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
Given that the Constitution explicitly gives congress the authority to direct the census in any way they see fit, and congress explicitly give the Secretary of Commerce power to conduct the census in any form he wants...
So if the Secretary of Commerce only wants to send the census to heterosexual people that'd be ok?
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill
  #46  
Old 04-25-2019, 12:46 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
So if the Secretary of Commerce only wants to send the census to heterosexual people that'd be ok?
I don't think one has ever tried, but if they did, the obvious remedy would be for Congress to curtail his delegated power to determine the way the census is to be conducted. This isn't a situation that even remotely resembles that though. Commerce isn't saying they're not going to ask non-citizens questions or count them. The fear is that illegals won't respond / answer the questions. A better analogy would be what if the Secretary of Commerce wanted to ask about sexual orientation on the census and some people raised the concern that gays might respond at lower rates due to the presence of that question.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 04-25-2019 at 12:49 PM.
  #47  
Old 04-25-2019, 12:51 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 10,452
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
The constitution says that the census should be conducted in such a way as congress shall by law direct.
Congress passed a law that says the Secretary of Commerce shall conduct the census in such a form and content as he may determine. Furthermore, the "the Secretary is authorized to obtain such other census information as necessary"
How does the Constitution feel about the government getting census information that is completely wrong, and allocating resources for public services based on misleadingly bad data?
  #48  
Old 04-25-2019, 12:52 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,912
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
The constitution says that the census should be conducted in such a way as congress shall by law direct.
Congress passed a law that says the Secretary of Commerce shall conduct the census in such a form and content as he may determine. Furthermore, the "the Secretary is authorized to obtain such other census information as necessary"

Given that the Constitution explicitly gives congress the authority to direct the census in any way they see fit, and congress explicitly give the Secretary of Commerce power to conduct the census in any form he wants, there is no way that asking about illegals is unconstitutional. It is an obvious decision.
if that's the case, and Commerce has carte blanche to run the census any way it wants, why did Wilbur Ross lie so much about the reasons for including the question?
  #49  
Old 04-25-2019, 01:13 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 20,896
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I don't think one has ever tried, but if they did, the obvious remedy would be for Congress to curtail his delegated power to determine the way the census is to be conducted. This isn't a situation that even remotely resembles that though. Commerce isn't saying they're not going to ask non-citizens questions or count them. The fear is that illegals won't respond / answer the questions. A better analogy would be what if the Secretary of Commerce wanted to ask about sexual orientation on the census and some people raised the concern that gays might respond at lower rates due to the presence of that question.
puddleglum's position seems to be the Commerce Secretary can do as they see fit as regards the census. End of story.

I am suggesting that is not completely true with an extreme example.

And while it would be good if congress did its job clearly they do not always do so and the third, co-equal, branch of government is well within its purview to step in and put a stop to such things.

Congress and the Commerce Secretary do not have the right to damage the census in any way they see fit. The commandment from the constitution on this is to count the people living in the US every ten years and, one would presume, do it as accurately as can be done (within reason). The court enforcing that it happens that way is entirely appropriate.
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill

Last edited by Whack-a-Mole; 04-25-2019 at 01:15 PM.
  #50  
Old 04-25-2019, 01:24 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller is offline
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 43,885
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
There's a constitutional issue with your "strong gun laws". I don't think there's a constitutional issue with the citizenship question.
If there's not a constitutional question about the citizenship question, why is the Supreme Court reviewing the case?
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:14 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017