There are fine and credible arguments on both sides about whether congressional
seats should be apportioned for all residents, only for legal residents, or only
for citizens.The words "person, persons, and people" are
used many times in the constitution and amendments. At various places it is
clear those words refer only to citizens: voters, members of congress. In other
places, they refer to a wider body including when protections are offered for
those accused of crimes. Even illegal aliens are entitled to due process.I don't claim to know what was intended on either the original
census, nor the post 14th amd census. I believe the question of who is entitled
to representation in the House is crucial.I also believe that
Presidential authority to add or remove questions on the census, under existing
laws governing the census are also important.I think partisan driven
outcomes such as who might be less likely to answer and which party might be
hurt are not important. Libertarians and conservatives have long chaffed at what
they considered extensive, intrusive questions on the census. Nobody seemed to
care whether they were accurately counted or not.
@TheJester It is always easy to cherry pick arguments that you agree with.
As I stated earlier, there are good arguments to be had both for and against the
citizenship question, regardless of how Mr. Ross presented it. It doesn't
change the fact that the administration technically has the authority to make
the change, which is why this is in court to begin with.Personally,
I think the question should be asked, but I'm open to hear a reasoned
argument, not the vitriol that comes from Mr. Will. This is not a new debate,
just because Trump raised the issue. It is unfortunate that so many of our
commentators have to vilify, denigrate and humiliate in their efforts to make
their point--and Trump is guilty of this as well. Whether or not I'm a
Republican or a Trump supporter is beside the point. Please present a well
reasoned, rational argument for and against. I don't even care if it is
somewhat biased, but at least give me something to think about. The name calling
is childish and Mr. Will, right or not, loses the argument when presented this
@GrainOfSaltWhy would Mr. Will be compelled to present "a slice
of the other side of the argument"? He simply had to use words
directly from the judge presiding over this case and pose a simple question that
any objective observer would understand: If the citizenship question is, as the
Trump administration insists, "a wholly unremarkable demographic
question." Why, then, was Ross so dishonest concerning its genesis?We all know the answer. My guess is that you are a Republican and Trump
supporter, so the ends (greater congressional representation for majority white
non-urban areas) justifies the means (a material misrepresentation of the actual
count of "all persons").
Perhaps a pilot test of the 2020 questionnaire could be performed to actually
quantify any drop in the response rate. Send out say, 20,000 questionnaires with
only 10,000 containing the citizenship question. Send them to two
demographically similar cities and see what happens.
Perhaps a Constitutional amendment to do away with a census should be passed.
Sounds like the census is not accurate in any event. And the rationale for the
census is arguably no longer valid. At the founding of this country, there
wasn't the huge government welfare services we now have. Representatives in
Congress should be based upon the number of citizens, not on every person
actually in the country. Why should it be otherwise ? If there is no distinction
between citizen and non-citizen, how can good evaluations and assessments be
made ? Let commercial interests make their surveys. Save taxpayer money and
Ah, yes, another scathing opinion from Mr. Will, who hates all things Trump. It
will be interesting top hear what the Supreme Court has to say, without the
accompanying diatribe. The is a strong case to be made for and against the
citizenship question, which is what makes this case particularly interesting.
Unfortunately Mr. Will is so consumed in his dislike of Trump that he fails to
present even a slice of the other side of the argument. It is unfortunate.