Yes, we were surprised at the recent Supreme Court ruling which prevented the Trump Administration from asking the “are you a citizen?” question on the 2020 census form. After all, the court said that the administration had the constitutional authority to ask the question, which in normal times should have led to a 9-0 decision in favor of the administration. But needless to say, these are not normal times, for the court, by a 5-4 vote,decided by Chief Justice John Roberts, determined that the administration’s “sole stated reason” for including the question was “pretextual” or “contrived.” Again, it should be obvious that an administration has the power to include any question that it has the power to include. Pardon the tautology, but if it has the power to include the question, but cannot include it, then it doesn’t really have the power, does it? And what was the “pretext”? Enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The government said that it wanted the question on the form in order to obtain an accurate count of the citizens in order to protect citizens against discrimination, namely, using gerrymandering to dilute their votes. It was noted that numerous federal court decisions have said that the population of citizens of voting age should be the means for determining if a district has been properly apportioned and drawn. However, the court decided that although the authority exists, the rationale for the question was insufficient. Up to this point, each Commerce Department of each Administration has prepared the census forms according to its own motivations, within limits expressed by Congress. Never has a court prohibited a question, nor does the court generally review each question on the form. To do so would be a violation of the separation of powers.
And let us also remember what the question was – “Are you a citizen?” Not “are you an illegal alien?” There are many legal-resident non-citizens in this country, and, under the question, the ostensible fears of the “illegal alien” community are imaginary – because the legal status of the respondent is not asked. And as to precedent – just imagine the mischief this decision unleashes – could it mean that any question on any government form could be invalidated if “there is insufficient pretext for it”? This could perhaps easily transform into restrictions over the private sector as well.
The basic problem here came about because the drafters of the Census Act of 1790 called for a count, not of “citizens” but of “persons resident within [their] districts.” This was not because they wanted to count aliens, legal or otherwise or to exclude them, but because at that time, the idea that residents would be citizens was unquestioned. People could not vote in places they were not entitled to vote, so why should they be counted in those places? Besides, the qualifications for voting were left up to the states, and the vote was pretty much restricted to those free (non-slaves), white (with some exceptions), males, who owned property. The very idea that massive numbers of non-citizens would be included was unimaginable. Today it is a reality, and each district drawn to include non-citizens effectively reduces the power of citizens. It is also interesting that in a 2002 decision, Justice Breyer, in his majority opinion, stated that the Founding Fathers “did not write detailed census methodology into the Constitution.” They did not leave it up to judges, either, although that is apparently where Justice Breyer now feels the power should lie, as he also was in the majority in the case under discussion.
President Trump strongly disagreed with the court’s recent decision, and sought to satisfy its objections by clarifying its reasons for including the question, but at the last moment threw in the towel and said it would not seek to add the question. However, the administration has decided to use other means to determine citizenship status, by compiling information from almost all other agencies of the Federal Government.
Canada, our neighbor to the north, asks respondents to its Census if they are native-born citizens, naturalized citizens, or non-citizens. We think that is very sensible and doesn’t seem to have raised many objections in Canada. The United Nations guidelines recommend that nations ask the citizenship question on their census forms. Also, very sensible. Neither Canada nor the UN are bulwarks of Trumpism. Seems odd that they are allowed to ask about citizenship status, but the US is not. Could the real reason be that the US is not allowed to ask the question because the progressive establishment and the Democrat party do not want the question asked. It was their objections in the first place that led to the current situation. Why would the Democrats object to asking about citizenship? Likely for the same reason they object to asking voters to show ID – they suspect, or know, that many of their voters are illegal, and do not want them to be kept from voting. Similarly, they know many of their constituents are not citizens, and they want them included in the Census count. Moreover, the Census form would only have asked the status of the respondent, and would not have discarded information from non-citizens, so under the question they would not have been ignored, only differentiated (much as “males” and “females” or “children” and “adults” are differentiated). But suppose illegal aliens WERE excluded from the population count for Congressional districts. It could mean the loss of several Democrat-majority Congressional districts – just as including them perhaps has meant the loss of several Republican-majority Congressional districts.
Therein is the political issue underlying all if this: and political questions, according to the Court, should be decided by the legislative and executive branches, not the judicial branch. The question in today’s title was once employed under different circumstances, but it applies very well to the citizenship question today. The government is not allowed to ask it, and the non-citizens are not required to answer it, at least on Census forms. This harms citizens at the expense of non-citizens.
We will close with a quote from a famous elected official: “People who enter the United States without permission are illegal aliens and illegal aliens should not be treated the same as people who entered the United States legally.” Donald Trump? Calvin Coolidge? Ronald Reagan? John C. Calhoun? No, it was US Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat from New York. He said it in 2009. We would like to ask him why he believed it then (or said he did); and why he doesn’t believe it now.
And recall that in a decision announced at about the same time as the citizenship question decision, the court ruled that”gerrymandering” cases are best addressed legislatively, not judicially; yet here the court expressly involves itself in a question designed to help protect the rights of citizens and to assure that their votes are not diluted by those of non-citizens. In the citizenship question case, the Court did more or less say that if the administration came up with the proper justification, the question could be included.
And let us also remember what the question was – “Are you a citizen?” Not “are you an illegal alien?” There are many legal-resident non-citizens in this country, and, under the question, the ostensible fears of the “illegal alien” community are imaginary – because the legal status of the respondent is not asked. And as to precedent – just imagine the mischief this decision unleashes – could it mean that any question on any government form could be invalidated if “there is insufficient pretext for it”? This could perhaps easily transform into restrictions over the private sector as well.
The basic problem here came about because the drafters of the Census Act of 1790 called for a count, not of “citizens” but of “persons resident within [their] districts.” This was not because they wanted to count aliens, legal or otherwise or to exclude them, but because at that time, the idea that residents would be citizens was unquestioned. People could not vote in places they were not entitled to vote, so why should they be counted in those places? Besides, the qualifications for voting were left up to the states, and the vote was pretty much restricted to those free (non-slaves), white (with some exceptions), males, who owned property. The very idea that massive numbers of non-citizens would be included was unimaginable. Today it is a reality, and each district drawn to include non-citizens effectively reduces the power of citizens. It is also interesting that in a 2002 decision, Justice Breyer, in his majority opinion, stated that the Founding Fathers “did not write detailed census methodology into the Constitution.” They did not leave it up to judges, either, although that is apparently where Justice Breyer now feels the power should lie, as he also was in the majority in the case under discussion.
President Trump strongly disagreed with the court’s recent decision, and sought to satisfy its objections by clarifying its reasons for including the question, but at the last moment threw in the towel and said it would not seek to add the question. However, the administration has decided to use other means to determine citizenship status, by compiling information from almost all other agencies of the Federal Government.
Canada, our neighbor to the north, asks respondents to its Census if they are native-born citizens, naturalized citizens, or non-citizens. We think that is very sensible and doesn’t seem to have raised many objections in Canada. The United Nations guidelines recommend that nations ask the citizenship question on their census forms. Also, very sensible. Neither Canada nor the UN are bulwarks of Trumpism. Seems odd that they are allowed to ask about citizenship status, but the US is not. Could the real reason be that the US is not allowed to ask the question because the progressive establishment and the Democrat party do not want the question asked. It was their objections in the first place that led to the current situation. Why would the Democrats object to asking about citizenship? Likely for the same reason they object to asking voters to show ID – they suspect, or know, that many of their voters are illegal, and do not want them to be kept from voting. Similarly, they know many of their constituents are not citizens, and they want them included in the Census count. Moreover, the Census form would only have asked the status of the respondent, and would not have discarded information from non-citizens, so under the question they would not have been ignored, only differentiated (much as “males” and “females” or “children” and “adults” are differentiated). But suppose illegal aliens WERE excluded from the population count for Congressional districts. It could mean the loss of several Democrat-majority Congressional districts – just as including them perhaps has meant the loss of several Republican-majority Congressional districts.
Therein is the political issue underlying all if this: and political questions, according to the Court, should be decided by the legislative and executive branches, not the judicial branch. The question in today’s title was once employed under different circumstances, but it applies very well to the citizenship question today. The government is not allowed to ask it, and the non-citizens are not required to answer it, at least on Census forms. This harms citizens at the expense of non-citizens.
We will close with a quote from a famous elected official: “People who enter the United States without permission are illegal aliens and illegal aliens should not be treated the same as people who entered the United States legally.” Donald Trump? Calvin Coolidge? Ronald Reagan? John C. Calhoun? No, it was US Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat from New York. He said it in 2009. We would like to ask him why he believed it then (or said he did); and why he doesn’t believe it now.
And recall that in a decision announced at about the same time as the citizenship question decision, the court ruled that”gerrymandering” cases are best addressed legislatively, not judicially; yet here the court expressly involves itself in a question designed to help protect the rights of citizens and to assure that their votes are not diluted by those of non-citizens. In the citizenship question case, the Court did more or less say that if the administration came up with the proper justification, the question could be included.
And let us also remember what the question was – “Are you a citizen?” Not “are you an illegal alien?” There are many legal-resident non-citizens in this country, and, under the question, the ostensible fears of the “illegal alien” community are imaginary – because the legal status of the respondent is not asked. And as to precedent – just imagine the mischief this decision unleashes – could it mean that any question on any government form could be invalidated if “there is insufficient pretext for it”? This could perhaps easily transform into restrictions over the private sector as well.
The basic problem here came about because the drafters of the Census Act of 1790 called for a count, not of “citizens” but of “persons resident within [their] districts.” This was not because they wanted to count aliens, legal or otherwise or to exclude them, but because at that time, the idea that residents would be citizens was unquestioned. People could not vote in places they were not entitled to vote, so why should they be counted in those places? Besides, the qualifications for voting were left up to the states, and the vote was pretty much restricted to those free (non-slaves), white (with some exceptions), males, who owned property. The very idea that massive numbers of non-citizens would be included was unimaginable. Today it is a reality, and each district drawn to include non-citizens effectively reduces the power of citizens. It is also interesting that in a 2002 decision, Justice Breyer, in his majority opinion, stated that the Founding Fathers “did not write detailed census methodology into the Constitution.” They did not leave it up to judges, either, although that is apparently where Justice Breyer now feels the power should lie, as he also was in the majority in the case under discussion.
President Trump strongly disagreed with the court’s recent decision, and sought to satisfy its objections by clarifying its reasons for including the question, but at the last moment threw in the towel and said it would not seek to add the question. However, the administration has decided to use other means to determine citizenship status, by compiling information from almost all other agencies of the Federal Government.
Canada, our neighbor to the north, asks respondents to its Census if they are native-born citizens, naturalized citizens, or non-citizens. We think that is very sensible and doesn’t seem to have raised many objections in Canada. The United Nations guidelines recommend that nations ask the citizenship question on their census forms. Also, very sensible. Neither Canada nor the UN are bulwarks of Trumpism. Seems odd that they are allowed to ask about citizenship status, but the US is not. Could the real reason be that the US is not allowed to ask the question because the progressive establishment and the Democrat party do not want the question asked. It was their objections in the first place that led to the current situation. Why would the Democrats object to asking about citizenship? Likely for the same reason they object to asking voters to show ID – they suspect, or know, that many of their voters are illegal, and do not want them to be kept from voting. Similarly, they know many of their constituents are not citizens, and they want them included in the Census count. Moreover, the Census form would only have asked the status of the respondent, and would not have discarded information from non-citizens, so under the question they would not have been ignored, only differentiated (much as “males” and “females” or “children” and “adults” are differentiated). But suppose illegal aliens WERE excluded from the population count for Congressional districts. It could mean the loss of several Democrat-majority Congressional districts – just as including them perhaps has meant the loss of several Republican-majority Congressional districts.
Therein is the political issue underlying all if this: and political questions, according to the Court, should be decided by the legislative and executive branches, not the judicial branch. The question in today’s title was once employed under different circumstances, but it applies very well to the citizenship question today. The government is not allowed to ask it, and the non-citizens are not required to answer it, at least on Census forms. This harms citizens at the expense of non-citizens.
We will close with a quote from a famous elected official: “People who enter the United States without permission are illegal aliens and illegal aliens should not be treated the same as people who entered the United States legally.” Donald Trump? Calvin Coolidge? Ronald Reagan? John C. Calhoun? No, it was US Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat from New York. He said it in 2009. We would like to ask him why he believed it then (or said he did); and why he doesn’t believe it now.