Author Bio.

The Census Showdown

“Transparency” is one of those words that politicians love to use regardless on which side of the political divide they reside on — much like “bipartisanship.”

You Might Like
Learn more about RevenueStripe...

However if truth-be-told, those two words actually scare the hell out of career politicians because both those words suggest openness, cooperation, and clarity.

This is, without a doubt, the reason Democrats along with their surrogates within the media are opposed to adding a citizenship question within the 2020 census form.

That one elementary question regarding one’s citizenship has created a firestorm of resistance among radical leftists. Which once again calls into question one of their favorite words “transparency” the fundamental bedrock of why we have a census in the first place, and why progressive are fighting tooth-and-nail to keep that elementary question off the census form.

The reason for the resistance lies with the nation’s “head-count” of individuals used most critically to decide the distribution of congressional representation. In short, the higher the population, the more congressional power in Washington.

The Supreme Court decided not to render a definitive legal decision, thus throwing it back to the President requiring a more convincing argument of why a citizenship question should be added, which actually flies in the face of precedent, in that a citizenship question has been asked all the way back since 1970, “Is this person a CITIZEN of the United States?”

It was former President Obama who decided to omit the question; President Trump is simply attempting to reinstate the question that has been asked every decade since 1970.

In light of the Supreme Court’s reluctance to follow through regarding their own legal standard of precedent, the President has decided once again to perhaps go the executive order route, instructing the Attorney General (an astute lawyer), to look into ways of adding the citizenship question within the 2020 form.

Barr vesting South Carolina on Monday acknowledged to the press that the administration will present a legal workaround that will allow a question on citizenship to be added to the 2020 Census.

Adding, “I think over the next day or two, you’ll see what approach we’re taking and I think it does provide a pathway for getting the question on the census.”

The Attorney General’s remark in perhaps finding a way forward regarding the citizenship question, so infuriated Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Monday fuming that the President wants to “make America white again.”

Barr also weighted on the Supreme Court’s reluctance to render a legal decision on the issue, saying, “I agree with him (Trump) that the Supreme Court decision was wrong.”

Adding there is “an opportunity potentially to cure the lack of clarity that was the problem, and we might as well take a shot at doing that.”

You Might Like
Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Although the court questioned the administration’s use of the Commerce Law regarding the question of citizenship, it did not rule on the legality of the citizenship question, thus giving the administration another bite of the apple

Meanwhile, Justices Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, and Neil Gorsuch argued in their dissent that the Supreme Court’s only role was to determine whether Commerce Secretary Ross was breaking the law by including a question about citizenship. The court found he did not break the law in doing so.

“The Court’s erroneous decision, in this case, is bad enough, as it unjustifiably interferes with the 2020 census.  But the implications of today’s decision are broader.  With today’s decision,  the Court has opened a Pandora’s box of pretext-based challenges in administrative law,” they wrote.

“In short, today’s decision is a departure from traditional principles of administrative law.  Hopefully, it comes to be understood as an aberration—a ticket good for this day and this train only.”

  1. Post Author

    The citizenship question is crucial for the reason you cite, congressional representation. But there is one other crucial reason as well. State representation to the Electoral College is also based on that count, one representative for each state district, meaning that if citizenship is not counted and non-citizens excluded, states with the highest concentration of non-citizens will get more districts and therefore more electoral votes. After the 2010 census, California got five new districts at the expense of other states. My state lost one. That can determine the outcome of a presidential election as well as congressional majorities. So it is really a no-brainer. The citizenship question is absolutely required as well as historically acceptable and proper. Omitting the question means that we are giving representation and presidential election influence to people who cannot legally vote! It makes no sense.

Leave a Reply