Welcome to ECCIE, become a part of the fastest growing adult community. Take a minute & sign up!

Welcome to ECCIE - Sign up today!

Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!

Go Premium

Go Back   ECCIE Worldwide > General Interest > The Political Forum
test
The Political Forum Discuss anything related to politics in this forum. World politics, US Politics, State and Local.

Most Favorited Images
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
Most Liked Images
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
Top Reviewers
cockalatte 650
MoneyManMatt 490
Jon Bon 408
Still Looking 399
samcruz 399
Harley Diablo 377
honest_abe 362
DFW_Ladies_Man 313
Starscream66 289
Chung Tran 288
lupegarland 287
nicemusic 285
George Spelvin 282
You&Me 281
sharkman29 260
Top Posters
DallasRain71035
biomed165084
Yssup Rider61777
gman4453917
LexusLover51038
offshoredrilling49139
WTF48267
pyramider46388
bambino43244
The_Waco_Kid38338
CryptKicker37323
Mokoa36497
Chung Tran36100
Still Looking35944
Mojojo33117

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 07-05-2019, 05:52 PM   #1
oeb11
Valued Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 31, 2009
Location: dallas
Posts: 23,345
Default Government lawyers affirm administration will pursue adding citizenship question to 2020 Census, according to statement to judge

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...fJy?li=BBnb7Kz


The Justice Department affirmed Friday that it still is pursuing a path for adding a citizenship question to the 2020 Census, according to a filing in federal court in Maryland.

The filing followed statements earlier in the day from President Trump in which he said he is “thinking of” issuing an executive order to add the controversial question.
Government lawyers said in their filing Friday that the Justice and Commerce Departments had been “instructed to examine whether there is a path forward” for the question and that if one was found they would file a motion in the Supreme Court to try to get the question on the survey to be sent to every U.S. household.


Attorneys for the government and challengers to the addition of the question faced a 2 p.m. deadline set by U.S. District Judge George J. Hazel to lay out their plans.

Hazel said earlier this week that if the government stuck with a plan to try to add the question, he would move ahead on a case before him probing whether the government has discriminatory intent in wanting to ask about citizenship.
The Justice Department lawyers argued in Friday’s filing that there was no need to start producing information in that case since for now courts have barred the government from adding the question. But the government also agreed to follow a schedule to move ahead if that was laid out.
The government has begun printing the census forms without the question, and that process will continue, administration officials said.
© Evan Vucci/AP President Trump talks to reporters on the South Lawn of the White House before departing for his Bedminster, N.J. golf club, on Friday. Trump had raised the possibility that some kind of addendum could be printed separately after further litigation of the issue, a move would almost certainly carry additional costs and may not be feasible, according to census experts.
“We’ll see what happens,” Trump said. “We could start the printing now and maybe do an addendum after we get a positive decision. So we’re working on a lot of things, including an executive order.”
Census experts say that, among other concerns, such an addendum would likely violate the bureau’s strict rules on testing a question, which include considering how the placement of a question on the form affects respondents’ likelihood of filling it out.
Trump’s comments came as government lawyers scramble to find a legal path to carry out the president’s wishes despite their conclusions in recent days that no such avenue exists.
Census officials and lawyers at the Justice and Commerce departments scrapped holiday plans and spent Independence Day seeking new legal rationales for a citizenship question that critics say could lead to a steep undercount of immigrants, which could limit federal funding to some communities and skew congressional redistricting to favor Republicans.
“It’s kind of shocking that they still don’t know what they’re doing,” Thomas A. Saenz, president and general counsel of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund said. MALDEF is representing some of the plaintiffs in the case in Maryland." We’re in this posture because they don’t know what the real plan is.”
The question had seemed settled after the Supreme Court ruled last week against the Trump administration. As late as Tuesday evening, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, who oversees the census, said the administration was dropping its effort and was printing the census forms without the citizenship question.
But Trump, in tweets Wednesday and Thursday, said he was not giving up. He tweeted Thursday morning: “So important for our Country that the very simple and basic ‘Are you a Citizen of the United States?’ question be allowed to be asked in the 2020 Census. Department of Commerce and the Department of Justice are working very hard on this, even on the 4th of July!”
The reversal came after Trump talked by phone with conservative allies who urged him not to give up the fight, according to a senior White House official and a Trump adviser, who both spoke on the condition of anonymity.
In the Supreme Court’s splintered ruling last week, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said the government had provided a “contrived” reason for wanting the information, seemingly leaving open the door for the government to offer a new justification and see whether it satisfies the court. An executive order from Trump and a new rationale given by Ross on the basis of that order could give the administration something to take back to the justices.
Trump told reporters Friday that the White House was surprised by the Supreme Court decision and that he found it “very shocking” that the citizenship question could not be included.
Trump said he believes the rationale provided by Ross “can be expanded very simply.”
“He made a statement,” Trump said of Ross. “He wrote something out. The judge didn’t like it. I have a lot of respect for Justice Roberts. But he didn’t like it, but he did say come back. Essentially, he said come back.”
Saenz derided the idea that an executive order could brush aside the 15 months of litigation that culminated in the high court’s ruling.
“Despite what yesterday’s military show may have looked like, the United States is not a Soviet bloc dictatorship,” Saenz said, referring to the “Salute to America” event that Trump staged on Thursday. “Executive orders do not override decisions of the Supreme Court. Separation of powers remains, as it has been for over 200 years, a critical part of our constitutional scheme.”
Earlier Friday, Ken Cuccinelli, Trump’s acting U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services director, said during an appearance on Fox Business Network that there’s a “high chance” that Trump would find a way, either through executive order or “another administrative way, to ask the simple census question.”
Cuccinelli said he met with Trump this week and the president “was very determined about this.”
In litigation earlier this year, the government stressed that forms needed to go to the printer by July 1, prompting the Supreme Court to expedite its consideration of the question.
In a June filing to the court, Solicitor General Noel Francisco noted that witnesses at trial had said changes to the questionnaire after June 2019 “would impair the Census Bureau’s ability to timely administer the 2020 census,” and that a delay until October would be feasible only with “exceptional resources.”
tara.bahrampour@washpost.com
john.wagner@washpost.com
Colby Itkowitz contributed to this report.


I was surprised at the rationale of the SC on the issue, to state the "Least".
The DPST resistance to counting citizens is flagrant pandering to achieve voting status for illegals and non-citizens. Democrats - DPST's want that to boost their voting numbers.

When it happens - it is the death of America as a nation under the Law of the Constitution.

Thought ( YR will ridicule ) - Grass-roots - a write-in on the census form -" I am a US citizen."

Let every citizen who chooses ( under penalty of perjury if false) - write in their citizenship status.

The DPST's gonna go through and round up all who do so for their concentration camps??
I think Not.

They would be met with deadly force in many circumstances attempting that. Their leadership- if the write-in happens - will still bluster and threaten.
Fuck Them.
I will write in my citizenship status.

I invite all who agree to do so as well.

DPST's - You know who you are - welcome to not participate.
oeb11 is offline   Quote
Old 07-05-2019, 06:21 PM   #2
Whisky_1
Valued Poster
 
Whisky_1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2, 2019
Location: Lake Charles, LA
Posts: 240
Default

This action if approved will reduce government funding for various federal initiatives in communities where they are needed the most and enable politicians to literally pick their own voters for the next 10 years. This is significant because the federal government has other more efficient and accurate ways to determine the number of citizens that are in this country on a more frequent basis than the US Census.
Whisky_1 is offline   Quote
Old 07-05-2019, 06:37 PM   #3
I B Hankering
Valued Poster
 
I B Hankering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 3, 2010
Location: South of Chicago
Posts: 31,214
Encounters: 9
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whisky_1 View Post
This action if approved will reduce government funding for various federal initiatives in communities where they are needed the most and enable politicians to literally pick their own voters for the next 10 years. This is significant because the federal government has other more efficient and accurate ways to determine the number of citizens that are in this country on a more frequent basis than the US Census.
Read the damn Constitution. The Census is not about appropriations. It's about apportionment.
I B Hankering is offline   Quote
Old 07-05-2019, 06:46 PM   #4
oeb11
Valued Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 31, 2009
Location: dallas
Posts: 23,345
Default

The Constitution of this country is not the strong suit for DPST's.

They long to scrap it and rule by their "Fiat of Feelings" of how it ought to be.
oeb11 is offline   Quote
Old 07-05-2019, 06:56 PM   #5
the_real_Barleycorn
Valued Poster
 
the_real_Barleycorn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 20, 2017
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 5,453
Encounters: 34
Default

The census is required. It is not optional. Local municipalities will be fine unless they want to spend money on illegals. That taxpayer money is for services for U.S. citizens. If they want to help illegals then ask the Koch brothers, George Soros, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, or Taylor Swift for money.
the_real_Barleycorn is offline   Quote
Old 07-05-2019, 07:58 PM   #6
Yssup Rider
BANNED
 
Yssup Rider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 3, 2010
Location: Clarksville
Posts: 61,777
Encounters: 67
Default

It’s a search and destroy mission for the Legion of Trump. He doesn’t like hearing no.

Not from Congress. Not from women. Not from the Supreme fucking Court.

What a megalomaniac douchenozzle.

No means no.
Yssup Rider is offline   Quote
Old 07-05-2019, 09:21 PM   #7
bb1961
Valued Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 5, 2010
Location: houston
Posts: 7,233
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yssup Rider View Post
It’s a search and destroy mission for the Legion of Trump. He doesn’t like hearing no.

Not from Congress. Not from women. Not from the Supreme fucking Court.

What a megalomaniac douchenozzle.

No means no.
You asked about reading the Constitution...DO IT!!
What do you know about Trumps nozzle??
Another Trump rant...way to go YR!!
bb1961 is offline   Quote
Old 07-05-2019, 10:43 PM   #8
Whisky_1
Valued Poster
 
Whisky_1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2, 2019
Location: Lake Charles, LA
Posts: 240
Cool

Quote:
Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn View Post
The census is required. It is not optional. Local municipalities will be fine unless they want to spend money on illegals. That taxpayer money is for services for U.S. citizens. If they want to help illegals then ask the Koch brothers, George Soros, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, or Taylor Swift for money.
True, the census is required. On the other hand, the addition of citizenship questions is not. Your statement seems to be emotional in nature. Emotionally derived policies generally tend to be inefficient, not cost effective and produce undesirable outcomes. A probable undesirable consequence of would be the under funding of government programs over the next ten years. Moreover, I suggest that taxpayer money is intended inpart to maintain American social institutions and national infrastructure which is for use by residents as well as citizens.
Whisky_1 is offline   Quote
Old 07-05-2019, 10:59 PM   #9
I B Hankering
Valued Poster
 
I B Hankering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 3, 2010
Location: South of Chicago
Posts: 31,214
Encounters: 9
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whisky_1 View Post
True, the census is required. On the other hand, the addition of citizenship questions is not. Your statement seems to be emotional in nature. Emotionally derived policies generally tend to be inefficient, not cost effective and produce undesirable outcomes. A probable undesirable consequence of would be the under funding of government programs over the next ten years. Moreover, I suggest that taxpayer money is intended inpart to maintain American social institutions and national infrastructure which is for use by residents as well as citizens.
The citizenship question is absolutely required to meet the Constitutional requirements stipulated in the 14th Amendment.

The 14th Amendment explicitly states that only those who can vote are to be counted for the purpose of apportionment. Anyone who is legally forbidden to vote in a federal election cannot be enumerated for purposes of apportionment; hence, there has to be someway of discerning who is a citizen eligible to vote and who is an non-citizen alien who is forbidden by federal law from voting for federal offices pursuant 18 U.S. Code § 611.
I B Hankering is offline   Quote
Old 07-06-2019, 05:56 AM   #10
dilbert firestorm
Valued Poster
 
dilbert firestorm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 9, 2010
Location: Nuclear Wasteland BBS, New Orleans, LA, USA
Posts: 31,921
Encounters: 4
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by I B Hankering View Post
Read the damn Constitution. The Census is not about appropriations. It's about apportionment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn View Post
The census is required. It is not optional. Local municipalities will be fine unless they want to spend money on illegals. That taxpayer money is for services for U.S. citizens. If they want to help illegals then ask the Koch brothers, George Soros, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, or Taylor Swift for money.

there really should be 2 censuses. one for apportionment (short form) and one for approriations (long from)
dilbert firestorm is offline   Quote
Old 07-06-2019, 07:07 AM   #11
gfejunkie
2016 County by County Map
 
gfejunkie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 13, 2009
Location: There now. Not here.
Posts: 4,378
Default

Like I said...

Quote:
Originally Posted by gfejunkie View Post
The fat lady hasn't sung yet.
The question will be on the 2020 census. Undeported occupants don't count.
gfejunkie is offline   Quote
Old 07-06-2019, 07:12 AM   #12
Yssup Rider
BANNED
 
Yssup Rider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 3, 2010
Location: Clarksville
Posts: 61,777
Encounters: 67
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gfejunkie View Post
Like I said...



The question will be on the 2020 census. Undeported occupants don't count.
Well thank you Chief Justice Junkie.

HAHAHAHAHSHSHS!!

No means no.
Yssup Rider is offline   Quote
Old 07-06-2019, 07:15 AM   #13
LexusLover
Valued Poster
 
LexusLover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 16, 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 51,038
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whisky_1 View Post
......the federal government has other more efficient and accurate ways to determine the number of citizens that are in this country on a more frequent basis than the US Census.
But any such fabricated "ways" are not the basis of redistricting and establishment of Congressional districts upon which the Electoral College membership is determined ....

... nice try!

That's what all this LiberalSocialistAntiTrump nonsense is about.

Their stupidity and disregard for history demonstrates why NONE OF THEM should be in a position of decision making .....

Quote:
The hijackers in the September 11 attacks were 19 men affiliated with al-Qaeda. 15 of the 19 were citizens of Saudi Arabia, two were from the United Arab Emirates, one was from Lebanon, and one was from Egypt.
Remember the "dots" that were not "connected"?

They can win a legitimate election for POTUS so they stuff the ballot boxes in the manner of JFK in Chicago, but in this instance it will be the "sanctuary" states for ILLEGAL ALIENS, who want the free stuff they are promised if they vote for the loons of the DNC.
LexusLover is offline   Quote
Old 07-06-2019, 08:23 AM   #14
Yssup Rider
BANNED
 
Yssup Rider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 3, 2010
Location: Clarksville
Posts: 61,777
Encounters: 67
Default

Millions of illegal votes. Millions!

Very fine people.

On both sides. On both sides.

Want cream in your covfefe?
Yssup Rider is offline   Quote
Old 07-06-2019, 08:28 AM   #15
Whisky_1
Valued Poster
 
Whisky_1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2, 2019
Location: Lake Charles, LA
Posts: 240
Cool

LexusLover you sound cray cray. My reclama.....45's bid to have the question placed on the census was rejected by the US Supreme Court. An executive order directing the question to be placed on the census is probable to be declared unconstitutional in a legal battle. Second, Congressional representation is based on population. The question would artifically set the US population at a low point with undesirable consequences. For the record, I'm not a big fan of the electoral college.
Whisky_1 is offline   Quote
Reply



AMPReviews.net
Find Ladies
Hot Women

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright © 2009 - 2016, ECCIE Worldwide, All Rights Reserved