(03-28-2018 10:50 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/does-c...ar-BBKO4ay
Love the way the left lumps all immigrants, legal and illegal, under one banner. One of my cousins is married to a legal Mexican immigrant. I cannot conceive of them refusing to answer the census questions.
OTOH, lots of the illegals will not even answer the door for a stranger and will view any visitor from the government suspiciously, even without hearing the questions. I doubt there will be very many more that will refuse to respond than there already are.
To be fair, suspicion of governmental visitors is a founding principle of our republic -- and thank God for it! An immigrant who takes a similar view is, in that respect at least, assimilating quite well.
(03-28-2018 11:20 AM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ] (03-28-2018 10:50 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/does-c...ar-BBKO4ay
Love the way the left lumps all immigrants, legal and illegal, under one banner. One of my cousins is married to a legal Mexican immigrant. I cannot conceive of them refusing to answer the census questions.
OTOH, lots of the illegals will not even answer the door for a stranger and will view any visitor from the government suspiciously, even without hearing the questions. I doubt there will be very many more that will refuse to respond than there already are.
To be fair, suspicion of governmental visitors is a founding principle of our republic -- and thank God for it! An immigrant who takes a similar view is, in that respect at least, assimilating quite well.
Yes, by all means thank God. Would that more Americans were more suspicious of government.
As Ronald Reagan said, "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"
(03-28-2018 10:50 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/does-c...ar-BBKO4ay
Love the way the left lumps all immigrants, legal and illegal, under one banner. One of my cousins is married to a legal Mexican immigrant. I cannot conceive of them refusing to answer the census questions.
It's pretty disgusting how the media continually does this. I would be absolutely furious if I was an immigrant that is here legally.
(03-28-2018 11:23 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-28-2018 11:20 AM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ] (03-28-2018 10:50 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/does-c...ar-BBKO4ay
Love the way the left lumps all immigrants, legal and illegal, under one banner. One of my cousins is married to a legal Mexican immigrant. I cannot conceive of them refusing to answer the census questions.
OTOH, lots of the illegals will not even answer the door for a stranger and will view any visitor from the government suspiciously, even without hearing the questions. I doubt there will be very many more that will refuse to respond than there already are.
To be fair, suspicion of governmental visitors is a founding principle of our republic -- and thank God for it! An immigrant who takes a similar view is, in that respect at least, assimilating quite well.
Yes, by all means thank God. Would that more Americans were more suspicious of government.
As Ronald Reagan said, "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"
I wonder how our leftist friends view those words. With joy?
But you both make good points. Maybe we all ought to refuse to answer.
In any event, I see a chasm in the ways legals and illegals would respond, while they throw them all together in one basket.
I am in awe of the logic of the lawsuit:
We predicate allocation of Congressional seats on voting citizens.
We have a census to count those citizens (and gather other data).
California is suing to not count citizens, since, in their own rationale, it will diminish their Congressional seats.
I mean this is dogs eating their own feces level of logic and reasoning.
And, Bill Clinton's census asked about citizenship status....
Getting back to the Cambridge Analytics scandal, any change in opinion based on the news that CA did not either write, publish, or use the app? Reports are now saying CA *bought* their data from an outfit called Global Science Research, which was in fact the company that obtained the data through an app and a psychological test taken by Facebook users.
And on another tangent to the Facebook stuff going on, any comments on the people defending the Obama Team actions with Facebook given reports that cite statements of Carol Davidsen, the former media director for Obama for America, Facebook gave the 2012 Obama campaign direct access to the personal data of Facebook users in violation of its internal rules, making a special exception for the campaign. The Daily Mail, a British newspaper, reported that Davidsen said on Twitter March 18 that Facebook employees came to the campaign office and “were very candid that they allowed us to do things they wouldn’t have allowed someone else to do because they were on our side.”
Doesnt this categorically contradict the assertions on board that Team O's data usage was not pure as the driven snow? Not only did Team O design an app to mine data of other people other than the person using the app, they openly accepted data given in complete violation of company rules to all third parties, but magically waived for Team O.
Interestingly enough, if a person or entity gives office space for free to a campaign, it has to listed as a campaign contribution in kind. Facebook never bothered to report this contribution of data for free, and in violation of its *own* rules, as such a contribution.
Analysis of Facebook's 'Freebies' by a former commissioner of the Federal Election Commission
Sorry if Dinesh D'Souza got felony time for his 'campaign donation channeling', this type of **** deserves felony time as well.
(03-28-2018 12:25 PM)At Ease Wrote: [ -> ]Quote:Who is included in the apportionment population counts?
The apportionment calculation is based upon the total resident population (citizens and non-citizens) of the 50 states.
https://www.census.gov/topics/public-sec...qs.html#Q2
Going back to the Constitution, wasn't the 3/5 compromise for slaves part of the apportionment process?
However, we do not know that answering NO to the citizenship question would affect apportionment one iota. The Dems position is that it would intimidate some i8llegals from responding at all. My experience with illegals is that they will not open the door to a stranger who looks official so the questions on the survey are moot.
(03-28-2018 12:07 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]I am in awe of the logic of the lawsuit:
We predicate allocation of Congressional seats on voting citizens.
We have a census to count those citizens (and gather other data).
California is suing to not count citizens, since, in their own rationale, it will diminish their Congressional seats.
I mean this is dogs eating their own feces level of logic and reasoning.
And, Bill Clinton's census asked about citizenship status....
I actually agree with your comment on the logic about the question on the census. However, your comment about Clinton's census isn't true. The last time the Census asked the question was in 1950.
There are questionnaires sent with the Census called the American Community Survey. On that Survey (and others that predate it) the question has been posed. But that is not the official Census.
(03-28-2018 12:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Going back to the Constitution, wasn't the 3/5 compromise for slaves part of the apportionment process?
Article I, Section 2, paragraph 3:
"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."
...superseded by Amendment XIV, Section 2:
"Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed."
(03-28-2018 01:37 PM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ] (03-28-2018 12:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Going back to the Constitution, wasn't the 3/5 compromise for slaves part of the apportionment process?
Article I, Section 2, paragraph 3:
"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."
...superseded by Amendment XIV, Section 2:
"Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed."
And the requirement that "direct Taxes" be apportioned among the States led to the 16th Amendment.
(03-28-2018 01:54 PM)JSA Wrote: [ -> ] (03-28-2018 01:37 PM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ] (03-28-2018 12:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Going back to the Constitution, wasn't the 3/5 compromise for slaves part of the apportionment process?
Article I, Section 2, paragraph 3:
"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."
...superseded by Amendment XIV, Section 2:
"Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed."
And the requirement that "direct Taxes" be apportioned among the States led to the 16th Amendment.
The second decade of the 20th Century gave us these four amendments:
(1) Income tax
(2) Direct election of Senators
(3) Prohibition
(4) Women's suffrage
It took 14 years to get rid of prohibition. The others are still in force.
On the other hand, 1933 was pretty solid: we got rid of prohibition, and shortened the presidential lame duck period from four months to 1.5
That may have been the best single year for amendments since 1791.
(03-28-2018 02:11 PM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ] (03-28-2018 01:54 PM)JSA Wrote: [ -> ] (03-28-2018 01:37 PM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ] (03-28-2018 12:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Going back to the Constitution, wasn't the 3/5 compromise for slaves part of the apportionment process?
Article I, Section 2, paragraph 3:
"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."
...superseded by Amendment XIV, Section 2:
"Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed."
And the requirement that "direct Taxes" be apportioned among the States led to the 16th Amendment.
The second decade of the 20th Century gave us these four amendments:
(1) Income tax
(2) Direct election of Senators
(3) Prohibition
(4) Women's suffrage
It took 14 years to get rid of prohibition. The others are still in force.
On the other hand, 1933 was pretty solid: we got rid of prohibition, and shortened the presidential lame duck period from four months to 1.5
That may have been the best single year for amendments since 1791.
Nearly one-fifth of the amendments (and nearly one-third since the Bill of Rights) have concerned voting:
The Fifteenth Amendment prohibited discrimination of the right to vote based on race or former status of involuntary servitude.
The Seventeenth Amendment provided for the direct election of Senators.
The Nineteenth Amendment prohibited discrimination of the right to vote based on sex.
The Twenty Fourth Amendment prohibited the use of a poll tax.
The Twenty Sixth Amendment allowed all citizens over the age of 18 who are not otherwise disqualified the right to vote.
Would the question about gender also be unconstitutional?
Some people of fluid gender might not want to answer that question.
Maybe we could get Becerra to file suit on this question also, on the grounds that it might intimidate or influence some people into not responding, thus depriving California of representation.
(03-28-2018 02:11 PM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ] (03-28-2018 01:54 PM)JSA Wrote: [ -> ] (03-28-2018 01:37 PM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ] (03-28-2018 12:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Going back to the Constitution, wasn't the 3/5 compromise for slaves part of the apportionment process?
Article I, Section 2, paragraph 3:
"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."
...superseded by Amendment XIV, Section 2:
"Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed."
And the requirement that "direct Taxes" be apportioned among the States led to the 16th Amendment.
The second decade of the 20th Century gave us these four amendments:
(1) Income tax
(2) Direct election of Senators
(3) Prohibition
(4) Women's suffrage
It took 14 years to get rid of prohibition. The others are still in force.
On the other hand, 1933 was pretty solid: we got rid of prohibition, and shortened the presidential lame duck period from four months to 1.5
That may have been the best single year for amendments since 1791.
I would vote for 1868, just on the basis of the sole Amendment of that year.
14th was the lens through which the Bill of Rights is applicable to the individual state governments --- without that it would be a madhouse since the Bill of Rights, written in the negative, serves as a 'floor' (bare minimum) level for a right that governmental restriction cannot impinge upon.
States were always allowed to grant more rights than elucidated in the Bill of Rights; for example the Texas Constitution enshrines much broader free speech, religious, association, and gun possession rights for its populace than the Federal Constitution grants.
But before the 14th Amendment, the Bill of Rights was interpreted as only being applicable against the Federal government, thus you had the utterly bizarre world where a state action of an individual state could be far more restrictive vis a vis rights associated with the Bill of Rights, and in fact violative of them if passed or enforced by the Federal government.
The 14th was a fantastic Amendment *just* for the Due Process clause that does that.
(03-28-2018 02:17 PM)JSA Wrote: [ -> ] (03-28-2018 02:11 PM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ] (03-28-2018 01:54 PM)JSA Wrote: [ -> ] (03-28-2018 01:37 PM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ] (03-28-2018 12:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Going back to the Constitution, wasn't the 3/5 compromise for slaves part of the apportionment process?
Article I, Section 2, paragraph 3:
"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."
...superseded by Amendment XIV, Section 2:
"Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed."
And the requirement that "direct Taxes" be apportioned among the States led to the 16th Amendment.
The second decade of the 20th Century gave us these four amendments:
(1) Income tax
(2) Direct election of Senators
(3) Prohibition
(4) Women's suffrage
It took 14 years to get rid of prohibition. The others are still in force.
On the other hand, 1933 was pretty solid: we got rid of prohibition, and shortened the presidential lame duck period from four months to 1.5
That may have been the best single year for amendments since 1791.
Nearly one-fifth of the amendments (and nearly one-third since the Bill of Rights) have concerned voting:
The Fifteenth Amendment prohibited discrimination of the right to vote based on race or former status of involuntary servitude.
The Seventeenth Amendment provided for the direct election of Senators.
The Nineteenth Amendment prohibited discrimination of the right to vote based on sex.
The Twenty Fourth Amendment prohibited the use of a poll tax.
The Twenty Sixth Amendment allowed all citizens over the age of 18 who are not otherwise disqualified the right to vote.
The 17th didnt concern 'voting' per se. It concerned itself with "who chose" the Senators, lot the qualifications to vote.
It was a redistributive amendment as it directly transferred power from the states to the federals government, where the three 'meta branches' implied in the Constitution are the powers of the Federal government, the powers of the states, and the powers (rights) of the populace.
Quote:As Ronald Reagan said, "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"
After thinking on it a bit, the only government official recently to actually help me is Donald Trump, with his tax bill.
(03-28-2018 03:58 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Quote:As Ronald Reagan said, "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"
After thinking on it a bit, the only government official recently to actually help me is Donald Trump, with his tax bill.
What about the Reagan tax cuts? Those helped me and I was a real young whipper snapper....
Oooops, just noted the term 'recently'.
[roseanne rosanna danna mode] Never Mind [/roseanne rosanna danna mode]