•   
  •   
  •   

OpinionJudge Andrew Napolitano: Census asks too many questions – it’s just supposed to determine our population size

17:50  11 july  2019
17:50  11 july  2019 Source:   foxnews.com

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. require(["medianetNativeAdOnArticle"], function (medianetNativeAdOnArticle) { medianetNativeAdOnArticle.getMedianetNativeAds(true); }); "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.

Judge Napolitano ' s Chambers: Judge Andrew Napolitano weighs in on the Supreme Court' s decision to not include a citizenship question in the The First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments constitutionally limit the only question that the census may ask , and the only question the recipient of the census

Judge Andrew Napolitano : Census asks too many questions – it ’ s just supposed to determine our population size . In addition to asking about bedrooms and toilets and education, this year, the census folks were instructed by President Trump to ask the citizenship status of all persons.

Judge Andrew Napolitano: Census asks too many questions – it’s just supposed to determine our population size© REUTERS/Carlos Barria A protester holds a sign outside the U.S. Supreme Court where the court ruled that U.S. President Donald Trump's administration did not give an adequate explanation for its plan to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census, delivering a victory to New York state and others challenging the proposal in Washington, D.C., June 27, 2019.

Editor’s note: The opinions in this article are the author’s, as published by our content partner, and do not necessarily represent the views of MSN or Microsoft.

Late last month, the Supreme Court ruled on a challenge to a question that the Commerce Department announced it would add to the 2020 census. The census itself has been mandated by the Constitution to be taken every 10 years so that representation in the House of Representatives could be fairly apportioned to reflect population changes.

DOJ ordered to find ways to include citizenship question on 2020 census, official says

DOJ ordered to find ways to include citizenship question on 2020 census, official says A lawyer with the Department of Justice said Wednesday that agency officials have been ordered to determine whether there is a way the administration can include a citizenship question on the 2020 census, hours after a tweet from President Trump raised confusion over the status of the question.Joseph Hunt, an assistant attorney general with DOJ's civil division, said Wednesday that the department has been "instructed to examine whether there is a path forward, consistent with the Supreme Court's decision, that would allow us to include the citizenship question on the census." "We think there may be a legally available path under the Supreme Court's decision.

Judge Andrew Napolitano : Census asks too many questions — it ’ s just supposed to determine our population sizeA citizenship question is unlikely Napolitano points out that the constitutionally mandated purpose of the national census is to measure population size in order to fairly apportion

See more of Judge Andrew Napolitano on Facebook. It ’ s one where the laws of supply and demand, not government central planning, regulate the market. It doesn’t want us to ask tough questions and deal with harsh realities about interest and credit.

Over the years, the folks who prepare the census developed an appetite for peering into the personal lives of everyone living in America, and Congress – which has the same mentality as the census bureaucrats – permitted this. So, the Census Bureau began adding personal questions in the census itself.

The First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments constitutionally limit the only question that the census may ask, and the only question the recipient of the census must answer: How many persons reside in the responder’s home?

BOOKER INTRODUCES BILL TO RESTRICT USE OF CENSUS CITIZENSHIP QUESTION

Yet, that constitutional question was not good enough for the bureaucrats. In addition to asking about bedrooms and toilets and education, this year, the census folks were instructed by President Trump to ask the citizenship status of all persons. But the Supreme Court ruled that, on the justification offered by the Commerce Department, the question may not be asked.

The real problem of Trump's citizenship question

The real problem of Trump's citizenship question The 2020 Census is not Trump's census, it is our census. It is by and for the American people, and it must be carried out without further delay, writes Raul Reyes

See more of Judge Andrew Napolitano on Facebook. Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano disagreed on Thursday with George Washington University law scholar Jonathan Turley’ s argument that President Trump had the authority to disregard a subpoena issued by Congress.

Judge Napolitano joined Fox and Friends and said Trump's comments to the NY Times "has got to be just demoralizing to the Attorney General and to many , many good people at the Justice Strange days ahead and it ' s entirely because Mad King Trump has a lap dog Congress as corrupt as he is.

Here is the backstory.

Though this has taken on serious political overtones, it is simply an issue about the government rejecting personal liberties – again. So, when the census folks first revealed their intention to ask the citizenship question, two challenges were filed in different federal courts, and each sought to ascertain the reason for the question.

That's because – even though the Constitution only mandates and only permits one question: "How many persons live here?" – federal law, in defiance of the Constitution, permits ancillary questions if the answers to those questions will assist the mission of the Census Bureau or the broader federal government.

Thus, the lawsuits challenging the proposed citizenship question forced the federal government to explain how the answers received from this question would help the government to do its work.

Both federal courts enjoined the printing of census forms until the feds explained themselves. When Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross refused to be interrogated at a deposition, a bureaucrat unfamiliar with the secretary's and the president's thinking came and testified. He told lawyers for the challengers and the Department of Justice that the feds needed citizenship data to enforce the Voting Rights Act.

Ken Cuccinelli confident citizenship question will be on 2020 census

Ken Cuccinelli confident citizenship question will be on 2020 census President Trump's chief immigration and citizenship officer believes that the 2020 U.S. census will include a question on citizenship. require(["medianetNativeAdOnArticle"], function (medianetNativeAdOnArticle) { medianetNativeAdOnArticle.getMedianetNativeAds(true); }); Acting United States Citizenship and Immigration Services Director Ken Cuccinelli predicted that Trump would ultimately succeed in amending the 2020 census. Cuccinelli appeared on Fox News Sunday with guest host Dana Perino, according to a clip of the show released early on Twitter.

It is not just about how many people we have but what is going on otherwise. I do understand however in the newest census , a lot more personal Because it ' s always more than that. It ' s a tool to acquire knowledge about US citizens and has been a tool like that since Romans decided to do the

“The census is supposed to count everyone,” said Attorney General Maura Healey of “I think that it is going to determine the individuals in our country, and provide information that allows us to In fact, various citizenship questions have appeared in many censuses since 1850, especially during

All courts that examined that basis for the citizenship question – including the Supreme Court – disbelieved it. The Supreme Court characterized the stated reason as "contrived" and it directed the lower courts to keep their injunctions in place while they sought to determine the true motivations for the question.

When senior officials at the Commerce Department and the Justice Department read the Supreme Court decision and examined the relevant law, they instructed the Justice Department lawyers who were trying the cases to inform the judges in each case that the government recognized its defeat; the census would proceed without the citizenship question.

Then the president got involved and characterized what Justice Department lawyers – his Justice Department lawyers – told two federal judges as "fake news." The Justice Department then pulled these career lawyers off the cases and sent in new teams of lawyers to try to come up with a lawful and credible reason to justify the citizenship question.

The Department of Justice is in a pickle on this because judges are always skeptical when lawyers – particularly government lawyers who needn't worry about collecting a fee from a client – are replaced during a case with no rational explanation. It is far more likely that the career Justice Department lawyers resigned from the cases – rather than reverse or contradict themselves – than it is that the department brass removed them.

U.S. says revamping census legal team is justified -- Maryland filing

U.S. says revamping census legal team is justified -- Maryland filing The U.S. Department of Justice on Wednesday rejected the contention that replacing its legal team in cases concerning the 2020 census was unjustified or prejudice the case. In a filing in a federal court in Maryland, the Justice Department said Attorney General William Barr had broad authority to assign lawyers, and that a staffing change "will not affect the posture of the case or cause any disruption." The filing came a day after U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman in Manhattan rejected a Justice Department request to substitute new lawyers in the census case he oversees. The Maryland case is overseen by U.S.

Can new Justice Department trial teams salvage the department's cases? I don't see how. The Commerce Department alleged that the reason for the census question was to assist in the enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The Supreme Court declined to accept that explanation because the Voting Rights Act does not apply to three-quarters of the states and there was no request from the Justice Department – which enforces the Voting Rights Act – asking for this.

Moreover, federal courts uphold a doctrine that prohibits the government in a constitutional challenge from supplying reasons for its behavior as an afterthought – an after-the-fact rationalization. That doctrine will bar the judicial consideration of any reason that has not already been offered to support the citizenship question.

Compounding this is a statement that the president made last weekend; namely, that the citizenship question was being asked for reapportionment purposes. Hold on. That statement directly defies the consistent Justice Department arguments that reapportionment has nothing to do with this.

Does the census count only citizens, citizens and lawfully resident noncitizens, or all persons? It counts all persons. Thus, citizenship is irrelevant to its counting mission and to the government's enforcement of the Voting Rights Act, as noncitizens cannot vote.

Can the president rectify this with an executive order? In a word: no. The judicial injunctions against asking the question would apply to and supersede an executive order.

This mess is yet another example of personal liberty versus government power. On one side is the right to privacy in the home, expressly guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment, and the right to silence, expressly guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment and by implication in the First Amendment. On the other side is an avaricious government that wants to know all it can about persons in America – whether constitutional or not.

Could a future Commerce Department ask how many guns are kept in the house or who living there goes to Mass on Sunday or if any resident has had an abortion? How much longer will a free people permit these intrusions? How much longer will we be a free people?

Read More

Trump’s Effort to Rig the Census Failed, but the Fight Is Far From Over.
Of course, the massive surrender to the reality of an unnavigable loss at the Supreme Court last month was presented as a complete and total victory.

—   Share news in the SOC. Networks

Topical videos:

usr: 3
This is interesting!