(07-09-2019 01:56 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-09-2019 11:09 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  How do we handle the potential conflict that requesting citizenship might adversely affect the collection of information on total persons in each state? Because Section 2 covers two issues - apportioning delegates and, if voting rights are abridged, accounting for that in apportioning.

There isnt an issue. One is Constitutional in nature, states 'shall' do such an enforcement -- and that enforcement requires counting.

Being the 'the law is in the words' type moron that I am, whether there is some moral issue in counting is immaterial.

I think your posit of 'potential tension that might adversely affect' underscores the very real differences between the 'lets make up what it ought to mean and do on the fly' school on one hand and the textualism school of Constitutional
interpretation, or for that matter, statutory legal interpretation, does it not?

First sentence requires a count of people. Last portion requires a count of citizens. Full stop.

Posit all you want about the 'potential tension' and things that '*might* adversely affect', neither changes either requirement in the slightest. Wouldnt be the first time a 'living Constitutionalist' argues that the actual words mean *not* their actual words, nor will I surmise it will be the last. Thank you for the wonderful example.

(07-09-2019 03:02 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  One more question. If the citizenship question makes illegals not fill out and return the form, what’s wrong with that?

(07-09-2019 04:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-09-2019 01:56 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-09-2019 11:09 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  How do we handle the potential conflict that requesting citizenship might adversely affect the collection of information on total persons in each state? Because Section 2 covers two issues - apportioning delegates and, if voting rights are abridged, accounting for that in apportioning.

There isnt an issue. One is Constitutional in nature, states 'shall' do such an enforcement -- and that enforcement requires counting.

Being the 'the law is in the words' type moron that I am, whether there is some moral issue in counting is immaterial.

I think your posit of 'potential tension that might adversely affect' underscores the very real differences between the 'lets make up what it ought to mean and do on the fly' school on one hand and the textualism school of Constitutional
interpretation, or for that matter, statutory legal interpretation, does it not?

First sentence requires a count of people. Last portion requires a count of citizens. Full stop.

Posit all you want about the 'potential tension' and things that '*might* adversely affect', neither changes either requirement in the slightest. Wouldnt be the first time a 'living Constitutionalist' argues that the actual words mean *not* their actual words, nor will I surmise it will be the last. Thank you for the wonderful example.

I'm not arguing that these words don't mean what they mean...

My question was what do you if there is a conflict in trying to accommodate both sentences? As you are arguing, the Constitution states we must ask people whether they are citizens. What if that question directly creates a situation where we're unable to accommodate the first sentence? Why is accomplishing the second sentence more important than accomplishing the first?

I'm guessing you say we ignore the conflict because the Constitution doesn't direct us on how to address the conflict?

(07-09-2019 04:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-09-2019 01:56 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-09-2019 11:09 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  How do we handle the potential conflict that requesting citizenship might adversely affect the collection of information on total persons in each state? Because Section 2 covers two issues - apportioning delegates and, if voting rights are abridged, accounting for that in apportioning.

There isnt an issue. One is Constitutional in nature, states 'shall' do such an enforcement -- and that enforcement requires counting.

Being the 'the law is in the words' type moron that I am, whether there is some moral issue in counting is immaterial.

I think your posit of 'potential tension that might adversely affect' underscores the very real differences between the 'lets make up what it ought to mean and do on the fly' school on one hand and the textualism school of Constitutional
interpretation, or for that matter, statutory legal interpretation, does it not?

First sentence requires a count of people. Last portion requires a count of citizens. Full stop.

Posit all you want about the 'potential tension' and things that '*might* adversely affect', neither changes either requirement in the slightest. Wouldnt be the first time a 'living Constitutionalist' argues that the actual words mean *not* their actual words, nor will I surmise it will be the last. Thank you for the wonderful example.

I'm not arguing that these words don't mean what they mean...

My question was what do you if there is a conflict in trying to accommodate both sentences? As you are arguing, the Constitution states we must ask people whether they are citizens. What if that question directly creates a situation where we're unable to accommodate the first sentence? Why is accomplishing the second sentence more important than accomplishing the first?

I'm guessing you say we ignore the conflict because the Constitution doesn't direct us on how to address the conflict?

(07-09-2019 04:51 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-09-2019 04:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-09-2019 01:56 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-09-2019 11:09 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  How do we handle the potential conflict that requesting citizenship might adversely affect the collection of information on total persons in each state? Because Section 2 covers two issues - apportioning delegates and, if voting rights are abridged, accounting for that in apportioning.

There isnt an issue. One is Constitutional in nature, states 'shall' do such an enforcement -- and that enforcement requires counting.

Being the 'the law is in the words' type moron that I am, whether there is some moral issue in counting is immaterial.

I think your posit of 'potential tension that might adversely affect' underscores the very real differences between the 'lets make up what it ought to mean and do on the fly' school on one hand and the textualism school of Constitutional
interpretation, or for that matter, statutory legal interpretation, does it not?

First sentence requires a count of people. Last portion requires a count of citizens. Full stop.

Posit all you want about the 'potential tension' and things that '*might* adversely affect', neither changes either requirement in the slightest. Wouldnt be the first time a 'living Constitutionalist' argues that the actual words mean *not* their actual words, nor will I surmise it will be the last. Thank you for the wonderful example.

I'm not arguing that these words don't mean what they mean...

My question was what do you if there is a conflict in trying to accommodate both sentences? As you are arguing, the Constitution states we must ask people whether they are citizens. What if that question directly creates a situation where we're unable to accommodate the first sentence? Why is accomplishing the second sentence more important than accomplishing the first?

I'm guessing you say we ignore the conflict because the Constitution doesn't direct us on how to address the conflict?

So asking people if they are citizens absolutely precludes the question of whether you are a person within the USA...... got it.

Funny, you are trying to bootstrap what, at best, is a maybe conflict into an absolute conflict where one absolutely precludes the other.

The problem is that you are bootstrapping the potential conflict into an absolute conflict --- like a good progressive would and a true 'living law' follower would.

Im not saying 'one ignores conflict' -- I am saying one performs the functions (both of them) that are mandated.

And yes, you are saying that those words dont mean what they expressly are stated as.

You are conflating 'count the people, count the citizens' to 'count the people, count the citizens, but only count the citizens in a manner that precludes a supposed and potential conflict, that conflict that doesnt seem to exist between two ministerial acts until I inject a whole crapload of sociological background into it'.

The first one can be summarized in 6 words. That is, textualism.

Your want/need is a litany that is about 6-7 times the bounds of the first, and wishes to add a hole smorgasborg of concepts and subactions that dont just run against the text itself, but against a good amount of historical record from 1865 surrounding the 14th. That is, living a 'law du jour' (i.e. the progressive panacea to any situation).

Perhaps one day you might realize the difference between the two.

(07-09-2019 05:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-09-2019 04:51 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-09-2019 04:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-09-2019 01:56 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-09-2019 11:09 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  How do we handle the potential conflict that requesting citizenship might adversely affect the collection of information on total persons in each state? Because Section 2 covers two issues - apportioning delegates and, if voting rights are abridged, accounting for that in apportioning.

There isnt an issue. One is Constitutional in nature, states 'shall' do such an enforcement -- and that enforcement requires counting.

Being the 'the law is in the words' type moron that I am, whether there is some moral issue in counting is immaterial.

I think your posit of 'potential tension that might adversely affect' underscores the very real differences between the 'lets make up what it ought to mean and do on the fly' school on one hand and the textualism school of Constitutional
interpretation, or for that matter, statutory legal interpretation, does it not?

First sentence requires a count of people. Last portion requires a count of citizens. Full stop.

Posit all you want about the 'potential tension' and things that '*might* adversely affect', neither changes either requirement in the slightest. Wouldnt be the first time a 'living Constitutionalist' argues that the actual words mean *not* their actual words, nor will I surmise it will be the last. Thank you for the wonderful example.

I'm not arguing that these words don't mean what they mean...

My question was what do you if there is a conflict in trying to accommodate both sentences? As you are arguing, the Constitution states we must ask people whether they are citizens. What if that question directly creates a situation where we're unable to accommodate the first sentence? Why is accomplishing the second sentence more important than accomplishing the first?

I'm guessing you say we ignore the conflict because the Constitution doesn't direct us on how to address the conflict?

So asking people if they are citizens absolutely precludes the question of whether you are a person within the USA...... got it.

Funny, you are trying to bootstrap what, at best, is a maybe conflict into an absolute conflict where one absolutely precludes the other.

The problem is that you are bootstrapping the potential conflict into an absolute conflict --- like a good progressive would and a true 'living law' follower would.

Im not saying 'one ignores conflict' -- I am saying one performs the functions (both of them) that are mandated.

And yes, you are saying that those words dont mean what they expressly are stated as.

You are conflating 'count the people, count the citizens' to 'count the people, count the citizens, but only count the citizens in a manner that precludes a supposed and potential conflict, that conflict that doesnt seem to exist between two ministerial acts until I inject a whole crapload of sociological background into it'.

The first one can be summarized in 6 words. That is, textualism.

Your want/need is a litany that is about 6-7 times the bounds of the first, and wishes to add a hole smorgasborg of concepts and subactions that dont just run against the text itself, but against a good amount of historical record from 1865 surrounding the 14th. That is, living a 'law du jour' (i.e. the progressive panacea to any situation).

Perhaps one day you might realize the difference between the two.

But the conflict does exist - the whole reason the SC pushed the decision back down is because evidence came to light that the Trump admin specifically made the decision to add the citizenship question in order to affect the first sentence - counting the number of people in the country.

You’re being intentionally ignorant in an astounding way by suggesting there is no conflict present.

And if you’re arguing for absolute textualism, how do you square the regulation of any arms? Or any free speech? Or do you disagree with rulings the court has made upholding both types of laws?

Quote:President Trump’s allies have invested a great deal in an ongoing examination of the origins of the Russia investigation that is currently being conducted by the Justice Department’s inspector general, Michael Horowitz. The idea is that this internal examination will finally reveal that law enforcement acted corruptly by undertaking surveillance of a Trump campaign adviser as part of its investigation into a foreign attack on our political system.

But this whole narrative may have taken a new hit.

Quote:Three attorneys from the Inspector General’s office of the U.S. Department of Justice met in person in early June with dossier author Christopher Steele in Britain, said two sources with direct knowledge of the lawyers’ travels.

The interview with Steele, a former top spy on Russia for Britain’s Secret Intelligence Service, or MI6, took place while Trump was in London for a formal state visit with Queen Elizabeth and a meeting with UK Prime Minister Theresa May.

One of the two sources said Horowitz’s investigators appear to have found Steele’s information sufficiently credible to have to extend the investigation. Its completion date is now unclear.

Quote:The extensive, two-day interview … delved into Steele’s extensive work on Russian interference efforts globally, his intelligence-collection methods and his findings about Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, who the FBI ultimately surveilled. …

The interview was contentious at first, the sources added, but investigators ultimately found Steele’s testimony credible and even surprising. The takeaway has irked some U.S. officials interviewed as part of the probe — they argue that it shouldn’t have taken a foreign national to convince the inspector general that the FBI acted properly in 2016.

… The extensive interview with Steele, and the investigators’ sense that he offered new and important information, may dampen expectations among the president’s allies who’ve claimed that Steele’s sensational dossier was used improperly by the bureau to “spy” on the campaign.

(07-09-2019 05:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-09-2019 04:51 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-09-2019 04:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-09-2019 01:56 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-09-2019 11:09 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  How do we handle the potential conflict that requesting citizenship might adversely affect the collection of information on total persons in each state? Because Section 2 covers two issues - apportioning delegates and, if voting rights are abridged, accounting for that in apportioning.

There isnt an issue. One is Constitutional in nature, states 'shall' do such an enforcement -- and that enforcement requires counting.

Being the 'the law is in the words' type moron that I am, whether there is some moral issue in counting is immaterial.

I think your posit of 'potential tension that might adversely affect' underscores the very real differences between the 'lets make up what it ought to mean and do on the fly' school on one hand and the textualism school of Constitutional
interpretation, or for that matter, statutory legal interpretation, does it not?

First sentence requires a count of people. Last portion requires a count of citizens. Full stop.

Posit all you want about the 'potential tension' and things that '*might* adversely affect', neither changes either requirement in the slightest. Wouldnt be the first time a 'living Constitutionalist' argues that the actual words mean *not* their actual words, nor will I surmise it will be the last. Thank you for the wonderful example.

I'm not arguing that these words don't mean what they mean...

My question was what do you if there is a conflict in trying to accommodate both sentences? As you are arguing, the Constitution states we must ask people whether they are citizens. What if that question directly creates a situation where we're unable to accommodate the first sentence? Why is accomplishing the second sentence more important than accomplishing the first?

I'm guessing you say we ignore the conflict because the Constitution doesn't direct us on how to address the conflict?

So asking people if they are citizens absolutely precludes the question of whether you are a person within the USA...... got it.

Funny, you are trying to bootstrap what, at best, is a maybe conflict into an absolute conflict where one absolutely precludes the other.

The problem is that you are bootstrapping the potential conflict into an absolute conflict --- like a good progressive would and a true 'living law' follower would.

Im not saying 'one ignores conflict' -- I am saying one performs the functions (both of them) that are mandated.

And yes, you are saying that those words dont mean what they expressly are stated as.

You are conflating 'count the people, count the citizens' to 'count the people, count the citizens, but only count the citizens in a manner that precludes a supposed and potential conflict, that conflict that doesnt seem to exist between two ministerial acts until I inject a whole crapload of sociological background into it'.

The first one can be summarized in 6 words. That is, textualism.

Your want/need is a litany that is about 6-7 times the bounds of the first, and wishes to add a hole smorgasborg of concepts and subactions that dont just run against the text itself, but against a good amount of historical record from 1865 surrounding the 14th. That is, living a 'law du jour' (i.e. the progressive panacea to any situation).

Perhaps one day you might realize the difference between the two.

But the conflict does exist - the whole reason the SC pushed the decision back down is because evidence came to light that the Trump admin specifically made the decision to add the citizenship question in order to affect the first sentence - counting the number of people in the country.

You’re being intentionally ignorant in an astounding way by suggesting there is no conflict present.

And if you’re arguing for absolute textualism, how do you square the regulation of any arms? Or any free speech? Or do you disagree with rulings the court has made upholding both types of laws?

Quote:[the enumeration clause] “permits Congress, and by extension the Secretary, to inquire about citizenship on the census questionnaire.”

Quote:You’re being intentionally ignorant in an astounding way by suggesting there is no conflict present.

Quote:[blather about 'arms']

(07-09-2019 07:39 PM)At Ease Wrote:  

Quote:President Trump’s allies have invested a great deal in an ongoing examination of the origins of the Russia investigation that is currently being conducted by the Justice Department’s inspector general, Michael Horowitz. The idea is that this internal examination will finally reveal that law enforcement acted corruptly by undertaking surveillance of a Trump campaign adviser as part of its investigation into a foreign attack on our political system.

But this whole narrative may have taken a new hit.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/07/09/william-barrs-shilling-trump-may-have-just-hit-snag/?utm_term=.4a45bda4a6ac

Quote:Three attorneys from the Inspector General’s office of the U.S. Department of Justice met in person in early June with dossier author Christopher Steele in Britain, said two sources with direct knowledge of the lawyers’ travels.

The interview with Steele, a former top spy on Russia for Britain’s Secret Intelligence Service, or MI6, took place while Trump was in London for a formal state visit with Queen Elizabeth and a meeting with UK Prime Minister Theresa May.

One of the two sources said Horowitz’s investigators appear to have found Steele’s information sufficiently credible to have to extend the investigation. Its completion date is now unclear.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-idUSKCN1U410I

Quote:The extensive, two-day interview … delved into Steele’s extensive work on Russian interference efforts globally, his intelligence-collection methods and his findings about Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, who the FBI ultimately surveilled. …

The interview was contentious at first, the sources added, but investigators ultimately found Steele’s testimony credible and even surprising. The takeaway has irked some U.S. officials interviewed as part of the probe — they argue that it shouldn’t have taken a foreign national to convince the inspector general that the FBI acted properly in 2016.

… The extensive interview with Steele, and the investigators’ sense that he offered new and important information, may dampen expectations among the president’s allies who’ve claimed that Steele’s sensational dossier was used improperly by the bureau to “spy” on the campaign.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/09/christopher-steele-trump-dossier-doj-1403318

(07-09-2019 05:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-09-2019 04:51 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-09-2019 04:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-09-2019 01:56 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-09-2019 11:09 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  How do we handle the potential conflict that requesting citizenship might adversely affect the collection of information on total persons in each state? Because Section 2 covers two issues - apportioning delegates and, if voting rights are abridged, accounting for that in apportioning.

There isnt an issue. One is Constitutional in nature, states 'shall' do such an enforcement -- and that enforcement requires counting.

Being the 'the law is in the words' type moron that I am, whether there is some moral issue in counting is immaterial.

I think your posit of 'potential tension that might adversely affect' underscores the very real differences between the 'lets make up what it ought to mean and do on the fly' school on one hand and the textualism school of Constitutional
interpretation, or for that matter, statutory legal interpretation, does it not?

First sentence requires a count of people. Last portion requires a count of citizens. Full stop.

Posit all you want about the 'potential tension' and things that '*might* adversely affect', neither changes either requirement in the slightest. Wouldnt be the first time a 'living Constitutionalist' argues that the actual words mean *not* their actual words, nor will I surmise it will be the last. Thank you for the wonderful example.

I'm not arguing that these words don't mean what they mean...

My question was what do you if there is a conflict in trying to accommodate both sentences? As you are arguing, the Constitution states we must ask people whether they are citizens. What if that question directly creates a situation where we're unable to accommodate the first sentence? Why is accomplishing the second sentence more important than accomplishing the first?

I'm guessing you say we ignore the conflict because the Constitution doesn't direct us on how to address the conflict?

So asking people if they are citizens absolutely precludes the question of whether you are a person within the USA...... got it.

Funny, you are trying to bootstrap what, at best, is a maybe conflict into an absolute conflict where one absolutely precludes the other.

The problem is that you are bootstrapping the potential conflict into an absolute conflict --- like a good progressive would and a true 'living law' follower would.

Im not saying 'one ignores conflict' -- I am saying one performs the functions (both of them) that are mandated.

And yes, you are saying that those words dont mean what they expressly are stated as.

You are conflating 'count the people, count the citizens' to 'count the people, count the citizens, but only count the citizens in a manner that precludes a supposed and potential conflict, that conflict that doesnt seem to exist between two ministerial acts until I inject a whole crapload of sociological background into it'.

The first one can be summarized in 6 words. That is, textualism.

Your want/need is a litany that is about 6-7 times the bounds of the first, and wishes to add a hole smorgasborg of concepts and subactions that dont just run against the text itself, but against a good amount of historical record from 1865 surrounding the 14th. That is, living a 'law du jour' (i.e. the progressive panacea to any situation).

Perhaps one day you might realize the difference between the two.

But the conflict does exist - the whole reason the SC pushed the decision back down is because evidence came to light that the Trump admin specifically made the decision to add the citizenship question in order to affect the first sentence - counting the number of people in the country.

You’re being intentionally ignorant in an astounding way by suggesting there is no conflict present.

And if you’re arguing for absolute textualism, how do you square the regulation of any arms? Or any free speech? Or do you disagree with rulings the court has made upholding both types of laws?

(07-09-2019 07:39 PM)At Ease Wrote:  

Quote:President Trump’s allies have invested a great deal in an ongoing examination of the origins of the Russia investigation that is currently being conducted by the Justice Department’s inspector general, Michael Horowitz. The idea is that this internal examination will finally reveal that law enforcement acted corruptly by undertaking surveillance of a Trump campaign adviser as part of its investigation into a foreign attack on our political system.

But this whole narrative may have taken a new hit.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/07/09/william-barrs-shilling-trump-may-have-just-hit-snag/?utm_term=.4a45bda4a6ac

Quote:Three attorneys from the Inspector General’s office of the U.S. Department of Justice met in person in early June with dossier author Christopher Steele in Britain, said two sources with direct knowledge of the lawyers’ travels.

The interview with Steele, a former top spy on Russia for Britain’s Secret Intelligence Service, or MI6, took place while Trump was in London for a formal state visit with Queen Elizabeth and a meeting with UK Prime Minister Theresa May.

One of the two sources said Horowitz’s investigators appear to have found Steele’s information sufficiently credible to have to extend the investigation. Its completion date is now unclear.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-idUSKCN1U410I

Quote:The extensive, two-day interview … delved into Steele’s extensive work on Russian interference efforts globally, his intelligence-collection methods and his findings about Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, who the FBI ultimately surveilled. …

The interview was contentious at first, the sources added, but investigators ultimately found Steele’s testimony credible and even surprising. The takeaway has irked some U.S. officials interviewed as part of the probe — they argue that it shouldn’t have taken a foreign national to convince the inspector general that the FBI acted properly in 2016.

… The extensive interview with Steele, and the investigators’ sense that he offered new and important information, may dampen expectations among the president’s allies who’ve claimed that Steele’s sensational dossier was used improperly by the bureau to “spy” on the campaign.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/09/christopher-steele-trump-dossier-doj-1403318

(07-10-2019 12:26 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Guess I will pout this in the catch-all thread.

Warning signs[

I believe none of the warning signs are checked for in a background check.

(07-10-2019 12:02 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  How many of you have msn as your homepage?

(07-10-2019 12:09 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(07-10-2019 12:02 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  How many of you have msn as your homepage?

My default browser page is Google. Is there a reason why one would want it to be MSN?

(07-10-2019 09:56 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Tariffs working?

(07-10-2019 12:52 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-10-2019 09:56 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Tariffs working?

Definitely working for European retailers!