- If it is illegal, why does Canada, Australia, and many European countries use it?
- If it is illegal, how did the U.S. use it for 130 years on the standard census questionnaire?
- If it is illegal, how did the U.S. use it on the long form census (sent to every sixth person) from 1970 to 2000?
According to the argument being made, the only two times our country has followed the constitutional law was in 1960 and 2010, when they didn't use the citizenship question at all.
Lastly, what makes this particular question special? Every year people either refuse or threaten to refuse the census questionnaire because they don't want to provide the federal government with certain bits of information. Arguably, every question requiring the person to provide personal information to the government is a potential question that will limit participation.
The census bureau (by law) is not allowed to share their census information with any other agencies (including law enforcement) within the federal government. It certainly could not share that information with state government or any private entities.
Likewise, by law, every citizen must take the census survey (Title 13, U.S. Code, Sections 141 and 193). We must take it, even if we are required to provide information to the federal government that we might rather remain private. If we refuse, we would be in breach of the law.
Why is it that American citizens would be required to provide information that they would rather not provide, but we should take heed of illegal aliens who might have problems providing information of their own? As a fundamental matter of equal protection under the constitution, why should the privacy concerns of American citizens take the back seat to privacy concerns of illegal aliens?
Either ask all of the questions that might limit participation or ask none of the questions that might limit participation. But it seems to be unfair, unethical, and unconstitutional to pick and choose the questions based on the needs or desires of one particular group of non-citizens.
149 comments:
More liberal alternate reality:
Kareem Abdul Jabber is out claiming that the new Rosanne show is the most anti trump show on tv.
What an ass he is.
He didn't watch it. Clearly. Or he is just stupid.
The Trump Slump
New York Times: “Even after a fast start to 2018, stock markets finished the first quarter down for the year — the first quarterly decline since 2015. It suggested that a period of calm and steadily rising markets had given way to a turbulent new era with a bearish bent.”
Financial Times: “Traders said anxieties were being exacerbated by Donald Trump’s tweets and trade policies.”
The Dow is up 19%
since Trump took office.
By comparison, it was up 32%
for Barack Obama during the same time period.
James Boswell of Normal, Illinois is a pedophile.
James admitted he Hates Trump.
In Jane's article, " quarterly decline since 2015."
James a admitted s he Hates Trump.
Never heard this during the Lost years.
"the risk that the economy might be growing too fast". From Jane's article
Jane, you said this was the Obama Oconomy, now it isn't, when did you, flip flop.
Mueller just got his first sentencing in his pathetic investigation. Some dutch dutch lawyer unconnected to the trump campaign just got thirty days for lying.
30 days for lying to the FBI, real Elliot Ness stuff.
Mexican Leftist Holds Big Lead In Presidential Election
“Mexican left-wing presidential candidate Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador has an 18-point lead ahead of the July 1 election, according to a poll published on Monday that showed him with a growing advantage at the start of formal campaigning,” Reuters reports.
“A Lopez Obrador victory could usher in a Mexican government less accommodating toward the United States, where President Trump has stoked trade tensions with Mexico and aggressively moved to curb immigration.”
____________________
James says:
Trump is helping this Mexican leftist get elected. Obrador gains points by making fun of Trump and using him as a punching bag. He scorns the very idea that Mexico will ever pay for a wall, and says he will not let foreign politicians make Mexico a piñata.
Thanks, Donald, for helping to elect a leftist on our southern border.
As for the economy, it was doing well until Trump started ruining it.
12:45 makes that clear to those who can read and think.
O’Rourke Raised Staggering Sum Last Quarter
Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D-TX) raised over $6.7 million for his U.S. Senate bid in the first quarter of 2018, “a staggering number that poses a new category of threat” to Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), the Texas Tribune reports.
“The haul is easily O’Rourke’s biggest fundraising quarter yet, more than double his next-closest total for a three-month period. It also is more than any Democratic Senate candidate nationwide took in last quarter, O’Rourke’s campaign said."
And that's without taking any PAC money.
Jane flips. Ok sissy baby chaser.
30 Day"
J walking level. Cost millions of hard earned tax dollars.
EPA returning from the swamp to common sense. Taking an eraserto the Lost years.
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt announced today that his agency was rolling back Obama-era fuel efficiency and emissions standards for automobiles, calling the move another step in President Trump’s “regulatory agenda.”
Jan 21, 2017.
"As for the economy, it was doing well until Trump started ruining it." *Jane flips
The Dow's Trump Slump
The Dow is up 19%
since Trump took office.
By comparison, it was up 32%
for Barack Obama during the same time period.
Trump Orders Military to Guard Southern Border
“President Trump said that he planned to order the military to guard parts of the southern border until he can build a wall and tighten immigration restrictions, proposing a remarkable escalation of his efforts to crack down on migrants entering the country illegally,” the New York Times reports.
Said Trump: “Until we can have a wall and proper security, we’re going to be guarding our border with the military. That’s a big step. We really haven’t done that before, or certainly not very much before.”
Politico: “A senior official at the Department of Homeland Security said Tuesday that putting troops on the U.S.-Mexico border had been under discussion but that no roll-out had been planned because of unresolved policy issues. The official said Secretary of Defense James Mattis did not want armed troops at the border.”
The Trump Wall.
Am expected. Putin on steroids
About that wall.
Washington Post:
"Trump is hoping you are too stupid to notice."
Barack Obama during the same time period." Jane
You mean those 12 months in 2009 that the Bush Economy?
((Liberal logic bites you in your dumb ass))
calling the move another step in President Trump’s “regulatory agenda.”
To ruin and pollute the environment because it's too hard to and expensive to do the correct thing. Fuck breathing there is plenty of air.....
This is funny. The pro - Illegal I migration crowd of janebakedWimP
oPie is your coupe solar powered?
Obimbo the chimp still has not bought a ev as he promised the UAW he would do.
12 months in 2009 that the Bush Economy?
Was shedding jobs faster than your loss of brain cells......That Busch economy asshole????
2009[edit]
January 2009 – 818,000 jobs lost
February 2009 – 724,000 jobs lost
March 2009 – 799,000 jobs lost
April 2009 – 692,000 jobs lost
May 2009 – 361,000 jobs lost
June 2009 – 482,000 jobs lost
July 2009 – 339,000 jobs lost
August 2009 – 222,000 jobs lost
September 2009 – 199,000 jobs lost
October 2009 – 202,000 jobs lost[3]
November 2009 - 64,000 jobs created[4]
December 2009 - 109,000 jobs lost[4]
Politico: “A senior official at the Department of Homeland Security said Tuesday...
The official said...
must be an international man of mystery.
heh.
Am expected. Putin on steroids
huh? what's that alky???
We are not Canada, Australia, or other European countries. The USA, as you (may) know, is a Federal Republic comprised of sovereign States, and hence have concerns about equal protection under the law regarding the State representation in Federal Congress and the Electoral College.
The question isn't "Is it illegal" as so disingenuously stated here, but more properly, "Will this approach diminish equal protections and States' Rights?"
Those who hold States' Rights in high regard will be ideologically opposed to any measure which tends to infringe upon those rights. Those who are fundamentally more comfortable under Federal control will naturally feel that the issue is inconsequential. It is therefore surprising to me where many modern Conservatives fall on this question, since they are seemingly advocating against a fundamental tenant of Conservatism.
I am happy to see just how deeply invested with his own money jane is.
HomelessBaked owns no equities, well. That is if he has not yet again changed , yet another fantasy,err, story.
oPie is your coupe solar powered?
You mean those 12 months in 2009 that the Bush Economy?
WP, obama lovers/followers argued it was the Federal Govt job to defend the borders. Attacked the Governors of border states. No Mexinia and gob moon beam.
Those who hold States' Rights in high regard will be ideologically opposed to any measure which tends to infringe upon those rights. Those who are fundamentally more comfortable under Federal control will naturally feel that the issue is inconsequential.
that has nothing to do with it. what matters is the rule of law and jurisdiction. this is a federal matter. period. i'm a huge states rights fan but i'm the first to admit that's not the issue here.
I do not want to see Federal military forces assuming jurisdiction on American soil, such as at border crossings. That's about as poorly thought out idea as any I've yet seen from this Administration.
this is a federal matter. period.
Ah, I see that you're one of those who are more comfortable under Federal control.
It is true that Congress controls the apportionment, but the rights of States to representation and the rights of State's citizens to equal protection under the law means that it is NOT "a federal matter. period"
In fact, the Supreme Court has found time and again that the States do have rights to enforce with respect to the Census. That the Federal government is tasked with the undertaking does not grant them the sole discretion of how to do it. Unless you want to discard the Constitution that is.
Assuming jurisdiction sounds deliberately more ominous than protecting the border from masses of unknown people trying to enter the country outside legal avenues
Ah, I see that you're one of those who are more comfortable under Federal control.
oh for fuck's sake, spare me wp.
it's not about what i'm more comfortable with. it's about the jurisdiction to perform the task.
you want to see me get enthusiastic about states rights?
shut down the federal education dept., tear down the building and salt the earth upon which it stood. return THAT to the states where it belongs.
.and if what you say is true and a certain state is harmed by the census questionnaire let them seek a remedy with the court. if they have a case it will be a slam dunk.
It sounds ominous because it is. Any true small government Conservative takes the Posse Comitatus Act seriously. You seem to be hoping to bypass the act by asserting an emergent danger to National Security. Why? Do you LIKE the idea of the US Military having more authority over your actions?
Or are you hoping that the military exerts authority over OTHER people, but not you? I hate to burst your bubble, but it doesn't work that way.
it's about the jurisdiction to perform the task.
You're mixing up two concepts, jurisdiction and performance.
It's as if you said, "Police have jurisdiction over traffic stops, therefore they can search your car any time they want". Jurisdiction is always within a limited context, and always restrained by the rights of those under the jurisdiction. The same with the Census, if you insist on an analogy with jurisdiction. The operation of the Census is always restrained by the (Constitutional) rights of those States and Citizens who have a Constitutional interest in the count.
I think that you ARE comfortable with Federal control, literally, but your self-image is such that you don't want to admit it. Otherwise why would you keep insisting that a Federal Agency has "jurisdiction" over it and can perform it however they want, regardless of what the States and Citizens (and US Courts!) may have to say about it?
BTW, it's actually Congress, not the Census Bureau, that has ultimate authority over the counting.
.and if what you say is true and a certain state is harmed by the census questionnaire let them seek a remedy with the court.
I'd rather prevent harm before it's done to people. Normal law abiding responsible citizens will agree that civil action is the last resort, to be used against scoundrels who refuse to abide by legal or ethical standards.
I expect States and citizens of those States to apply political pressure to prevent any Republican shenanigans from devaluing their representation. And only if those efforts fail, only then petition the Courts to enjoin the Federal government to halt those scurrilous schemes.
WP, we got it. Your butt hurt over your Gal losing.
The problem from the ramblings of WimP is clear.
The illegal flood is fine.
The Fine woman of the US Military are the problem.
"Spare me"
Trembling WimP.
When our Military responses daily in the USA to enforce laws, respond to Forrest Fires, flood and other diasters, or you ok with those US Military Service Members?
The flip and flop in 4,3,2. ...
WP check Joint Task Force North, it's been done.
Not saying I'm comfortable with the idea
You're not bursting any bubbles here sport
Hogg's failure,again.
#neveragain
FEMALE shooter.
Dumb ass thinks it's insulting the military to want to deny them authority on domestic soil.
WP check Joint Task Force North, it's been done.
Almost, it was Bush I think that barely skirted the PCA by declaring "war on drugs" or cartels or something, and making it a joint mission with domestic law enforcement.
Military patrolling the border will take it a step or two beyond that.
Federal Republic comprised of sovereign States, and hence have concerns about equal protection under the law regarding the State representation in Federal Congress and the Electoral College.
Well if you can argue equal protection, I could argue that California has too many representatives in relation to their voting population thus violating the one man, one vote principle of the equal protection clause.
Almost, it was Bush I think that barely skirted the PCA by declaring "war on drugs" or cartels or something, and making it a joint mission with domestic law enforcement.
It was Bush, but they were deployed in Arkansas to take on the Arkansas Nat Guard during integration Little Rock Nine, Battle of Blair Mountain where the ma-deuce was used on Americans and they were used to inter Japanese Americans in WWII exec order 9066.
Again, I'm uncormfortable with the idea.
Awe wittle WimP stomps feet.
Bed time for you child.
You got a chance to briefly bask in the attention, but you blew it. Back to "ignore" for you.
if I recall correctly the regular army lent one or two M1- Abrams to be used against the Branch Davidian's, but that may have been TX Nat Guard
The concept of deploying regular US forces on our soil, bothers me. But Trump ain't the first and it doesn't make him Putin
I could argue that California has too many representatives in relation to their voting population thus violating the one man, one vote principle of the equal protection clause.
You could argue that, and some do, but it's very much on the fringes. The usual refutation is that representation in Congress and the Electoral College is an apportionment, not a sum of votes.
It would probably be BETTER, more Democratic in my opinion, if the apportionment in Congress was somehow related to the tallies of a popular vote in the respective States, but to get to that would entail a Constitutional Amendment. It is determined by a count of population.
if I recall correctly the regular army lent one or two M1- Abrams to be used against the Branch Davidian's, but that may have been TX Nat Guard
I'm pretty sure that the National Guard used them - they certainly acted like idiots with the tanks, which I don't think would have happened with professional soldiers. The whole operation in fact.
But Trump ain't the first and it doesn't make him Putin
That may be true, but it doesn't mean it's not a half-baked stupid idea. Especially to respond to a "caravan" that's 800 miles away and will never actually make it to the border.
I'm uncomfortable with the whole concept as I've stated
BTW the Putin shiv was directed at Roger not you.
There was a Deal.
Dems got DACA
TRUMP got the wall.
Shake hands and each enjoyed a political victory.
"TUCSON, Ariz. — President Barack Obama on Tuesday ordered 1,200 National Guard troops to boost security along the U.S.-Mexico border, pre-empting Republican plans to try to force votes on such a deployment."
But TRUMP is the devil.
Hypocrites.
Mueller told Trump’s attorneys the president remains under investigation but is not currently a criminal target
WP, has joined HB in the belief they are better then the rest of US.
Ok, they belive in no US Border and no bar to entering the United States.
The cHerry is the believe that any human with in the US is to be count as a citizen .
1,200 National Guard troops to boost security along the U.S.-Mexico border
The National Guard has to be "federalized", or called into active duty, before the President can utilize them. It is an action which should not be taken lightly since it infringes on State sovereignty. The National Guard are NOT the US Military, Loretta.
It's bad enough to use National Guard for what's basically police duties, and Obama should have resisted more. What he did was a compromise with the Republicans, led by John McCain on this issue, who wanted to deploy 5 or 6 times that number of National Guard on the border.
WP...
You still never answered why the question was considered perfectly legal and perfectly acceptable, and used in every census but 1960 and 2000? But suddenly a legal constitutional problem in 2020?
You also never answered why this particular question is any more important than any of the other questions that infringe on peoples privacy?
WP...
are you for or against the state's arguments that they should be able to enforce their own border control if the Federal Government doesn't?
or is your state's rights argument limited to things you agree with?
"It is an action which should not be taken lightly since it infringes on State sovereignty."
Suddenly you're worried about state sovereignty, lol.
"and Obama should have resisted more. What he did was a compromise with the Republicans, led by John McCain on this issue, who wanted to deploy 5 or 6 times that number of National Guard on the border."
LOL! It's never Obama's fault.
Precedent has been set, again...by both parties.
Hopefully Trump will scare the bejesus out of the invaders.
Anonymous caliphate4vr said...
if I recall correctly the regular army lent one or two M1- Abrams to be used against the Branch Davidian's, but that may have been TX Nat Guard
yup. under the direction of janet reno and the FBI.
and that was how we got tim mcveigh and okc.
i'm always amused by the fact that every potential threat the left seems to freak out over under a GOP administration has actually happened under a democrat administration.
The National Guard are NOT the US Military, Loretta.
you don't say.
well up here in NY our NG derives 50% of its funding from the pentagon and 50% of its funding from NYS. and NG troops do deploy overseas:
Ninty-one New York Army National Guard soldiers assigned to Main Command Post Operational Detachment are now part of the Army's most-deployed combat division.
The soldiers, including some from Capital Region communities, are now assigned to the 10th Mountain Division (Light Infantry) Main Command Post Operational Detachment. They have been mobilized and will deploy with elements of the division's headquarters later this year to Iraq.
The soldiers are members of the New York Army National Guard's unit Main Command Post Operational Detachment, which was activated in 2016 in Syracuse.
The detachment normally comes under the command of the New York Army National Guard's Troy-based 42nd Infantry Division. The detachment augments the 10th Mountain Division's command post during combat deployments. It provides staff officers and noncommissioned officers who bring added skills to the headquarters.
https://www.timesunion.com/local/article/Army-Guard-unit-to-deploy-with-10th-Mountain-12797635.php
"The National Guard are NOT the US Military, Loretta."WP
"you don't say."
I stopped reading, lol.
Clearly he's "winging" it.
National Guard reserve units aren under federal control.
Just the latest "hair on fire" moment.
*are
History eludes alky, jane. WimP, oPie and those on the left.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_of_the_United_States
National Guard reserve units are under federal control.
Suggest lesbo loser read the above...You might find WP is correct...but being the lazy sycophant you are, I doubt you will..
The tidal wave it is a coming.....
MADISON, Wis. (AP) — Rebecca Dallet, a liberal Milwaukee judge, easily defeated conservative Michael Screnock on Tuesday in the race for Wisconsin Supreme Court, fueling optimism among Democrats for more victories in the fall midterms.
The win in the first statewide general election in the country this year forced Gov. Scott Walker, who endorsed Screnock, to warn his fellow Republicans.
"Tonight's results show we are at risk of a #BlueWave in WI," Walker, who is up for re-election in November, tweeted. "Big government special interests flooded Wisconsin with distorted facts & misinformation. Next, they'll target me and work to undo our bold reforms."
From the commie's own link...
"The National Guard may receive state funding, however in most states it is primarily funded through the federal government. The Army, Navy, Marine, Coast Guard, and Air Force Reserve components are not under state control and are solely funded by the federal government."
Which is exactly what I said. The pitiful troll can't read...
National Guard reserve units aren (sic) under federal control.
*are
Winning bigly in the tariff war......Market futures down 400+ and trumps arrogance is all to blame....but the sycophants will slurp away at his man hood like he's the second coming of Regan. How sad... wonder how CH polls numbers prediction will hold with this latest bullshit?????
BEIJING/WASHINGTON (Reuters) - China hit back quickly on Wednesday against the Trump administration's plans to slap tariffs on $50 billion in Chinese goods, retaliating with a list of similar duties on key U.S. imports including soybeans, planes, cars, beef and chemicals.
The speed with which the trade struggle between Washington and Beijing is ratcheting up – China took less than 11 hours to respond with its own measures – led to a sharp selloff in global stock markets and commodities. [MKTS/GLOB]
U.S. President Donald Trump denied that the tit-for-tat moves amounted to a trade war between the world's two economic superpowers
National Guard reserve units aren (sic) under federal control.\\
Unless authorized and called up by congress, asshole.....
there's never been any mystery as to how the NG operates and under whose command depending upon the event. sometimes the situation can get a little contentious when the governor of the state and the president are of different political parties, but that's something you take in stride.
Lesbo...the NG goes both ways, depending on circumstances....state and national control are both in play.....
Unless authorized and called up by congress, asshole...
Actually, it's the president who can call up the guard by proclamation and executive order.
"PRESIDENTIAL RESERVE CALL-UP AUTHORITY: 10 U.S.C. 12304
Under this type of authority, the president can activate up to 200,000 members of the Selected Reserve and up to 30,000 members of the Individual Ready Reserve, who can be kept on active duty for up to 365 days for any mission deemed necessary. Two new authorizations fall under this authority and apply to all DoD components."
https://ec.militarytimes.com/guard-reserve-handbook/activation-deployment/types-of-activation/
Winging it won't work, Denny sweetie.
"state and national control are both in play....."
Not Reserve units, Denny sweetie.
It may interest Denny that 90% of both the Union and Confederate armies in the civil war were what we now call National Guard units.
war were what we now call National Guard unit
SO FUCKING WHAT!!!!!
"state and national control are both in play....."
Not Reserve units,
WRONG LESBO....
"It may interest Denny that 90% of both the Union and Confederate armies in the civil war were what we now call National Guard units."
They also make up about 45 percent of the work force in Iraq and Afghanistan.
So much for WP' s insult that they aren't professiona , eh.
You forgot LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL, Denny sweetie.
*professional
o much for WP' s insult that they aren't professiona ,
ANOTHER SO FUCKING WHAT, ASSHOLE......LESBO....The only. insult is you thinking you have made a point....
You forgot LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL
Wow, poor little triggered Lenny.
They also make up about 45 percent of the work force in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Wow that certainly is news....they make up 45% of the work force in Iraq!!!! Dayum, they sure are professional with numbers like that....!!!!!
poor little triggered Lenny.
Drinking early today, Lesbo?????
You still never answered why the question was considered perfectly legal and perfectly acceptable, and used in every census but 1960 and 2000?
In the first place, it was NOT used in the census but in the long form, sent to only 2.5% of households to obtain more demographics. Which, as you'll recall, is exactly what I advocated doing. And about which your buddies here chimed in, "but WP sampling techniques are illegal"
Secondly, it's really a span of 14 census, and only 9 of them involved that question on the long form.
Thirdly, both the Census professionals and other authorities have long warned of a chilling effect of asking about citizenship status in the general count - it was not and never has been "perfectly acceptible".
are you for or against the state's arguments that they should be able to enforce their own border control if the Federal Government doesn't?
Of course. I am a true conservative libertarian, not the phony variety of authoritarian bent that permeates the modern Republican Party.
Ninty-one New York Army National Guard soldiers assigned to Main Command Post Operational Detachment are now part of the Army's most-deployed combat division.
"Federalized" under the Presidential authority that I alluded to earlier, claiming emergent danger to national security. In this case because we were stretched too thin in Iraq and Afghanistan ... and you folks who claim to be so steeped in "history" should know that from the Pentagon down to the front lines, deployment of the National Guard in active combat (and even back-line positions such as manning prisons) was one of their deepest concerns.
If ANY of you think that this means that National Guard are Federal forces, then you are sadly mistaken.
You folks should read this "primer" from the National Guard Association of the US, written by an Adjutant General who was a former USAF attorney
https://www.ngaus.org/sites/default/files/pdf/primer%20fin.pdf
With regards to the border and "invasion" (sic) of the caravan currently stalled 800 miles in Mexico, the appropriate military response (if any) would be the "Title 32 Duty" of the National Guard. NOT the US Army, Marines etc.
I'll quote just a segment "Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution (the Militia Clause) also authorizes use of the National Guard under continuing state control but in the service of the federal government to “execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions.”
"Title 10 Duty" is when the Guard are mobilized under, strictly, federal control, for national defense. Since that mobilization is subject to the Posse Comitatus Act, it would NOT be appropriate for border patrol duties.
If ANY of you think that this means that National Guard are Federal forces, then you are sadly mistaken.
while deployed in iraq president trump is at the top of their chain of command. not governor cuomo.
i now return you back to your game of semantics, already in progress.
Secondly, it's really a span of 14 census, and only 9 of them involved that question on the long form.
Actually the question has been used in 17 out of the last 19 census surveys (13 of them being sent to everyone) and was never challenged as being illegal.
Thirdly, both the Census professionals and other authorities have long warned of a chilling effect of asking about citizenship status in the general count
Yet, none of them provide any empirical evidence to back this opinion?
So can you tell us which amendment to the constitution, or which laws cover the "chilling effect opinion" that you are apparently using as a legal argument?
If ANY of you think that this means that National Guard are Federal forces, then you are sadly mistaken.
I don't think the taliban makes that distinction.
Neither does anybody else. It's a specious distinction without a diffrence.
He's winging it.
i now return you back to your game of semantics, already in progress.
Your lack of understanding of the three distinct possible deployments, and the legal restrictions thereof, is not my semantics.
Since that mobilization is subject to the Posse Comitatus Act, it would NOT be appropriate for border patrol duties.
Patrolling and protecting the border against invasion falls within the legal and historic duty of not only the US army, but every army in human history.
If I'm "winging it" then so is the Adjutant General, the National Guard Association, and everyone else who understands the National Guard structure.
Please internalize these facts:
"As explained above, federal and state constitutions and
statutes provide the primary authority for use of military force by
the federal and state governments. These provisions, in so far as
they apply to the National Guard, reflect the constitutional balance
of power between the sovereign states and the central federal
government. National Guard forces are unique among all other
military components in that they may be used in one of three
legally distinct ways:
(1) by the Governor for a state purpose authorized by state law
(state active duty); or
(2) by the Governor, with the concurrence of the President or
the President’s designee (e.g., the Secretary of Defense), for
shared state/federal purposes or for a primary federal purpose
(Title 32 Duty); or
(3) by the President for a federal purpose
authorized by federal law (Title 10
duty). "
Actually the question has been used in 17 out of the last 19 census surveys (13 of them being sent to everyone) and was never challenged as being illegal.
The citizenship question has appeared on census forms as early as 1820 and has appeared periodically from 1820 to 1890.
From 1890 to 1950 it appeared in every census standard form.
Thereafter it appeared on the long form until the 2010 census when is was removed by Barack Obama.
f 14 census, and only 9 of them involved that question on the long form
Interesting factoid WP....the way it has been presented by the right, I have been under the impression it was always asked and data collected...Seems to me not only is trump a pathological liar, but his sycophants have been brainwashed, like CH, to promote the lies to everyone...Yep, it is a downward spiral of deceit
Patrolling and protecting the border against invasion falls within the legal and historic duty of not only the US army, but every army in human history.
In the USA it is the duty of the Border Patrol, a Federal law enforcement agency. In recent years (specifically in 2002) the Border Patrol has been augmented by the National Guard deployed under Title 10 federal control.
When there is an actual invasion by armed forces, then the US Military will respond. But likely the National Guard will be there first, since it is one of their primary missions.
..Seems to me not only is trump a pathological liar, but his sycophants have been brainwashed, like CH, to promote the lies to everyone...Yep, it is a downward spiral of deceit
They're relying on a couple of Trump-friendly columnists who conveniently left out certain facts, and successfully confusing their readers.
Your lack of understanding of the three distinct possible deployments, and the legal restrictions thereof, is not my semantics.
i'll leave you to get wrapped around that axle. i'm interested in one thing only - securing the border. so is my president. his predecessor otoh would've fiddle-fucked around forever trying to figure out which 'title' to use and ultimately nothing would've gotten done. he would've sent an army of voter registration clerks to the border.
mexico has been using our country as their welfare ATM and it has got to stop.
In the USA it is the duty of the Border Patrol, a Federal law enforcement agency.
It is the duty of the Border Patrol to enforce immigration and customs law, not to protect the country against invasion.
And when large numbers of people cross the border without permission, that is a textbook definition of an invasion.
WP, it's clear that you don't understand, or know, that the National Guard is made up of a "state" force and "federal" force.
Quit digging.
Shouldn't bother the President with all that legal stuff, right RRB? Constitutional authority, following the law, that's for sissy liberals.
Just deploy the US Army, tanks, machine guns, helicopters. Who cares if you're giving up some silly constitutional rights.
WP, it's clear that you don't understand, or know, that the National Guard is made up of a "state" force and "federal" force.
Where did you get that one from? Did you read the primer in the link I posted?
Did you read the actual deployment rules that I posted?
Hell, Denny even confirmed it with a lousy wiki link.
Hell, Denny even confirmed it with a lousy wiki link.
My link confirmed WP's arguement....the only thing you proved again is that a brick has more brains than our sweet lesbo.....
"The Army, Navy, Marine, Coast Guard, and Air Force Reserve components are not under state control and are solely funded by the federal government."
Tedious.
"i now return you back to your game of semantics, already in progress."
It's called trolling.
Loretta the lesbo alleges...
Tedious.
Yes you are. And also wrong again....Idiot..
Anonymous wphamilton said...
Shouldn't bother the President with all that legal stuff, right RRB? Constitutional authority, following the law, that's for sissy liberals.
i'm a big fan of the legal stuff. paralysis through analysis? not so much. don't hit the fainting couch just yet, wp. i'm sure that as opposed to the previous president, this one will seek a constitutional remedy. in the meantime, that invasion that you think is stalled? i'll bet it's not. in fact i'll bet it's getting an assist from the mexican government.
look, i get the fact that you guys are desperate for new voters to swing power back to the left. and i get the fact that you're willing to take extraordinary measures, some illegal, to do it. today you have a president that will not tolerate what you're trying to get away with. one way or the other your efforts will be thwarted and the border will be secured.
The Census Freak-Out
Others have voiced the concern that including the question may depress the survey’s response rate, yielding unreliable data and potentially diminishing the apportionment of House seats and electoral votes in states with immigrant-heavy populations. Immigrants fearful of the Trump administration, the worry goes, will decline to fill out the survey, thus making the data less accurate and leading to an undercount. In addition to determining apportionment, the census affects the distribution of federal dollars and is used to enforce voting-rights laws, so it is reasonable to want its data to be as accurate as possible. But no evidence supports the claim that including the citizenship question on the census will have a significant effect on either its response rate or the reliability of its data.
In reality, the Commerce Department is making a mundane change to grant a December request from the Department of Justice. The Justice Department said it needed more data on the location of voters to buttress its enforcement of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits states from passing racially discriminatory election laws. The scope of that provision has been interpreted very broadly to block assorted redistricting efforts and to require majority-minority districts, and the DOJ says it needs more data to properly enforce the law.
Regardless, there is nothing untoward about asking people whether they are citizens of a country or not. If Democrats really feared the possibility of an undercount, they would be vigorously urging people to disregard the fearmongering and respond to the census. Instead, they are throwing a conspiratorial fit.
"Army, Navy, Marine, Coast Guard, and Air Force Reserve components" are not the National Guard.
The National Guard is a reserve force, under Title 10 deployment for national emergency or war. In fact, the President, Congress and Secretary of Defense have the authority to active the National Guard for federal service, which is why they are considered Reserve forces.
In normal operation, ie, not during war or national emergency, the National Guard are not under federal control. They are under State control, for the State's purposes, generally for natural disasters but also under domestic law enforcement authority.
When under Federal control, the National Guard may not be employed for Domestic duties except in extreme circumstances such as insurrection, to enforce Federal laws in cases of rebellion, and to jointly assist domestic law enforcement agencies.
This is practically a defining characteristic of American tradition, one of the grievances in the Declaration of Independence being the standing armies of England. It's kind of blowing my mind that I'm seeing any push-back at all on this. This should be basic, fundamental common knowledge.
i'm a big fan of the legal stuff. paralysis through analysis? not so much.
Then you should be agreeing with me on that basis alone. The National Guard under State control (Title 32) was deployed within DAYS to assist in airport security (and other immediate priorities). It took months for the Defense Department to even devise a memo for deployment for Federal control (Title 10).
Tedious.
You don't understand that they are different entities? It's "tedious" that what you are quoting does not refer to the National Guard?
"Army, Navy, Marine, Coast Guard, and Air Force Reserve components" are not the National Guard."
The hell if they aren't.
"The Air National Guard (ANG), also known as the Air Guard, is a federal military reserve force as well as the militia air force of each U.S. state, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the territories of Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands. It, along with each state's, district's, commonwealth's or territory's Army National Guard component, makes up the National Guard of each state and the districts, commonwealths and territories as applicable."
What is wrong with you?
Can't admit being wrong, or just moving on is a serious character flaw.
"You don't understand that they are different entities? It's "tedious" that what you are quoting does not refer to the National Guard?"
Nice try.
Just stop it.
Now you're making me laugh.
So WP...
Wouldn't the President declaring a national emergency and ordering the National Guard to deploy sort of work hand in hand? By nature of the law, the latter cannot happen without the former, which would seem to me to be a simple matter of semantics (again).
In other words, isn't it up to the President to determine whether the National Guard needs to be used for Federal uses (based on his/her determination of a national emergency)?
Or is it your assertion that someone else (perhaps the editorial staff from the Washington Post, or Democratic leadership) determines what is and isn't considered a national emergency?
In response to the "mundane" DOJ request for the question, the Census Bureau recommends a better alternative
"A Census Bureau analysis matching administrative records with the 2010 decennial census and ACS responses over several more recent years showed that using administrative records could be more accurate than self-responses in the case of non-citizens. That Census Bureau analysis showed that between 28 and 34 percent of the citizenship self-responses for persons that administrative records show are non-citizens were inaccurate. In other words, when non-citizens respond to long form or ACS questions on citizenship, they inaccurately mark "citizen" about 30 percent of the time."
And by the way, the Census Bureau itself is concerned that the response rate will suffer "The Census Bureau and many stakeholders expressed concern that Option B, which would add a citizenship question to the decennial census, would negatively impact the response rate for noncitizens" although they had no rigorous documentation. The ACS survey responses support that concern, although as I've also pointed out here numerous times, they note that ACS is not the same as the Decennial Census and cannot be directly compared.
Wouldn't the President declaring a national emergency and ordering the National Guard to deploy sort of work hand in hand?
Yes it would. However his declaring a National Emergency to "secure the border" against his imagined horde of Mexican criminals will be rightly seen as a misuse of executive power by all but the most ardent authoritarian-minded sycophants.
Can't admit being wrong, or just moving on is a serious character flaw.
I seem to be butting up against that here. I've shown links to enough documentation already, that I don't need to go into it further. Read them or not, your choice.
Anonymous wphamilton said...
In response to the "mundane" DOJ request for the question, the Census Bureau recommends a better alternative
Funny you didn't actually quote that alternative.
I therefore asked the Census Bureau to develop a fourth alternative, Option D, which would'
combine Options Band C. Under Option D, the ACS citizenship question would be asked on the
decennial census, and the Census Bureau would use the two years remaining until the 2020
decennial census to further enhance its administrative record data sets, protocols, and statistical
models to provide more complete and accurate data. This approach would maximize the Census
Bureau's ability to match the decennial census responses with administrative records.
Accordingly, at my direction the Census Bureau is working to obtain as many additional Federal
and state administrative records as possible to provide more comprehensive information for the
population.
It is my judgment that Option D will provide DOJ with the most complete and accurate CVAP
data in response to its request. A"skingthe citizenship question of 100 percent of the population
gives each respondent the opportunity to provide an answer. This may eliminate the need for the
Census Bureau to have to impute an answer for millions of people. For the approximately 90
percent of the population who are citizens, this question is no additional imposition. And for the
approximately 70 percent of noli-citizens who already answer this question accurately on the
ACS, the question is no additional imposition since census responses by law may only be used
anonymously and for statistical purposes. Finally, placing the question on the decennial census
and directing the Census Bureau to determine the best means to compare the decennial census
responses with administrative records will permit the Census Bureau to determine the inaccurate
response rate for citizens and non-citizens alike using the entire population. This will enable the
Census Bureau to establish, to the best of its ability, the accurate ratio of citizen to non-citizen
responses to impute for that small percentage of cases where it is necessary to do so.
misuse of executive power by all but the most ardent authoritarian-minded sycophants.
I see...
Once again, you rely on your own self defined fact based arguments. You know, the ones void of the political rhetoric you hate from others.
WP...
It sounds to me as if you are attempting to make a political argument into a legal one. The President has a legal authority to call for the use of the National Guard in response to a national emergency. Your own legal description confirms it.
You just hypothetically don't like it for this situation... so in your mind it is (or at least should be) illegal and unconstitutional.
When everything is a crisis, nothing is a crisis.
It must be miserable waking up everyday with your hair on fire.....over nothing.
It took months for the Defense Department to even devise a memo for deployment for Federal control (Title 10).
so is that a feature or a bug?
and i can only imagine the requisite number of inboxes and outboxes that memo needed to travel through was in the thousands.
thank goodness for the bureaucracy and the deep state or nothing would get done around here!
Funny you didn't actually quote that alternative. - they want to use Administrative records, in combination with the DOJ request for a new question.
The imputation from administrative records is inadequate for a citizen count, but is sufficient for the less demanding purposes of non-citizen counts necessary for fund allocation and enforcement resource allocation that the DOJ wants. The Bureau is essentially saying, administrative records work fine for this demographic data, but if you want a precise count we're going to have to individually count each of them.
The real question is this: Do the ACS surveys have lower participation (and wrong answers) because of the citizenship question, because it's a greater burden, or a combination of both? Even though there is no Bureau analysis demonstrating either case, if it's the former does that represent a tolerable distortion for the count, for purposes of apportionment? Which the States and the US Courts demand must be as precise as possible ...
I contend that a 30% "lie rate" on the ACS is a greater distortion than whatever they're trying to correct, regardless of the hypothetical change in the fail to respond rate. We are better off counting all the bodies we can find, without burdening the count with what are, at the very least, potentially disruptive extra questions. And discovering that information using Administrative records and other techniques.
The President has a legal authority to call for the use of the National Guard in response to a national emergency.
That's kind of like the President has the legal authority to fire Comey, which as you've never quite grasped is subject to legal restrictions. In this case, restrictions with Constitutional implications including separations of powers.
You or Trump are not, EVER, going to convince many people that disregarding Posse Comitatus is "a political issue". And to the extent that you DO convince people that it was implemented as a "political issue", you will have only convinced them also that Trump cannot be trusted with political power. It is not a trivial thing, to deploy US Military troops (as opposed to National Guard) on American territory for domestic purposes, without some kind of insurrection or reality-based national security measure. It is, literally, one of the stupidest things a President could contemplate.
The only reason you'd even think about defending the idea is because your Trump tweeted it, and you can't accept that the man is simply ignorant.
You just hypothetically don't like it for this situation... so in your mind it is (or at least should be) illegal and unconstitutional.
As did the Founding Fathers, when they declared Independence. And drafted the Articles of Confederation, and when signing the US Constitution ...
but none of that's important, is it CH, when Trump tweets that he'll just do it.
"when Trump tweets that he'll just do it."
LOL.
"We can't wait for Congress to do its job, so where they won't act, I will."
Hypocrite.
Writing executive orders to keep government working vs deploying the US Military for domestic law enforcement duties, quite a comparison there.
But you probably think, like CH, that it's no big deal. Since you don't see any difference with that and the National Guard.
I happen to know the difference between the National Guard, Reservists and the regular military.
It's you who is struggling to keep trolling the thread going.
Anonymous wphamilton said..
.
Writing executive orders to keep government working vs deploying the US Military for domestic law enforcement duties, quite a comparison there.
how many opportunities over what extended period of time has the congress had to deal with our open border, wp?
what you're witnessing is push finally coming to shove.
we have a full fledged invasion on our hands. the time for legal niceties has long since passed.
That's kind of like the President has the legal authority to fire Comey, which as you've never quite grasped is subject to legal restrictions.
Exactly what legal restrictions are those? I can tell you constitutionally the president's power to hire and fire executive officers is almost absolute.
There is no law that checks the president's power to fire executives and if one was proposed and passed over a presidential veto (no president in his right mind would ever accept such an abridgement of his authority), it's constitutionality would be challenged immediately and found wanting.
In this case, restrictions with Constitutional implications including separations of powers.
Since the FBI is not part of Congress or the Judiciary, I don't see a separation of powers issue.
CH is right, you see things you think should be legal or not legal, constitutional or not constitutional and treat them as facts in your mind.
That's just not the way things work in this country.
"That's just not the way things work in this country."
It's how it works when you're a good little liberal
You or Trump are not, EVER, going to convince many people that disregarding Posse Comitatus is "a political issue".
Plenty of precedent for it.
On June 10, 1963, President John F. Kennedy federalized National Guard troops and deployed them to the University of Alabama to force its desegregation.
That was in direct disregard of the Posse Comitatus act. At least Trump has the justification of preventing an invasion by foreign agents.
Exactly what legal restrictions are those?
We've been over this before. Corrupt intent, deliberately, would make it illegal. Among a number of other restrictions.
Since the FBI is not part of Congress or the Judiciary, I don't see a separation of powers issue.
You don't see an issue because you didn't realize that we're talking about using Federal military forces for domestic law enforcement.
And that, the rule of law applied even to the President, IS the way things work in this country. No matter how much you wish it weren't so when it comes to Trump.
On June 10, 1963, President John F. Kennedy federalized National Guard troops and deployed them to the University of Alabama to force its desegregation.
So, like Loretta, you don't understand the difference between the domestic use of the National Guard and the US Military forces.
Even after I helpfully linked you to the Adjutant General explaining this to you, from the National Guard site itself.
Abandon all thought, in your support of ignorant Trump Tweets.
LOL!
When facts get in the way of your TDS, make up shit.
border crossings at a 47 year low....and we are in an emergency per donnie....talk about fake news!!!!!!!
Politics
Mexico Border Wall: Oregon Governor Tells Trump She'll Refuse Order To Send Guard Troops South
Newsweek Shane Croucher,Newsweek 3 hours ago
Governor Kate Brown said she will refuse any order from President Donald Trump to send Oregon's guard troops down south to the US-Mexico border.
Trump wants National Guard troops sent to the Mexican border as his effort to build an impenetrable wall stalls because his administration is struggling to secure enough funds from Congress or other sources. He originally said Mexico would pay for the wall, but it has refused.
In a presidential memorandum authorizing the request of deployment of Guards to the border, Trump says U.S. security is "imperiled by a drastic surge of illegal activity", in particular drug trafficking by gangs and unlawful immigration.
He said it is a "crisis" of "lawlessness" at the southern border.
"If @realDonaldTrump asks me to deploy Oregon Guard troops to the Mexico border, I’ll say no," tweeted Democratic Gov Brown. "As Commander of Oregon’s Guard, I’m deeply troubled by Trump’s plan to militarize our border."
She added: "There’s been no outreach by the President or federal officials, and I have no intention of allowing Oregon’s guard troops to be used to distract from his troubles in Washington."
So, like Loretta, you don't understand the difference between the domestic use of the National Guard
And it's obvious you don't understand the definition of the word federalized.
This is now just obtuse stupidity.
We've been over this before. Corrupt intent.
You do realize when it comes to the powers of the president, "corrupt intent" is a theory that has never been tested in court.
In fact no presidential firing has ever been challenged much less overturned.
Even Nixon's Saturday night massacre passed constitutional muster.
"This is now just obtuse stupidity"
Oh that ship sailed at the very beginning, lol.
And it's obvious you don't understand the definition of the word federalized
I posted it for you Ace, straight from the National Guard site, and I posted their top lawyer's explanation of it.
It helps if you actually read what you're criticizing :)
Do you, or do you not understand how Title 10 deployment can be a Posse Comitatus problem while Title 32 deployment would not be?
Since neither of you will deign to inform yourselves when it's provided for you, here's a hint: Title 10 deployment is "federalized".
You do realize when it comes to the powers of the president, "corrupt intent" is a theory that has never been tested in court.
What kind of half-baked trivial argument is that supposed to be? It's not even a "theory" for pete's sake, it's statutory law.
Furthermore there are more crimes than are possible to list, that Presidents have never been charged with. You think that means that it's only "theory" that a President committing them could be held accountable. Good lord.
Post a Comment