California court rules it’s ‘unconstitutional & undemocratic’ to count citizens during census

Aka
The truth
Would hurt too much

Gotta hide those numbers man, can't have people waking up to facts now lol.

They don't want only legal citizens counted because they will lose congressional seats electoral votes and federal money.

shut up 14th amendment citizen slave, the illegals have more rights to the social programs you paid into, and more right to vote.

Truth is anathema to liberalism... too many frauds revealed when light shines in.

The answer to this is quite simple. Don’t fill out the Census. If Citizens en mass do not fill out the form, then they lose seat, not gain..

There are more ways to starve tperson that I loveast, just ask and I will tell you another.

We do not have a country anymore, if you haven’t noticed.

The U.S. Constitution empowers the Congress to carry out the census in "such manner as they shall by Law direct" (Article I, Section 2). The Founders of our fledgling nation had a bold and ambitious plan to empower the people over their new government. The plan was to count every person living in the newly created United States of America, and to use that count to determine representation in the Congress.

Enshrining this invention in our Constitution marked a turning point in world history. Previously censuses had been used mainly to tax or confiscate property or to conscript youth into military service. The genius of the Founders was taking a tool of government and making it a tool of political empowerment for the governed over their government.

They accomplished that goal in 1790 and our country has every 10 years since then. In 1954, Congress codified earlier census acts and all other statutes authorizing the decennial census as Title 13, U.S. Code. Title 13, U.S. Code, does not specify which subjects or questions are to be included in the decennial census. However, it does require the Census Bureau to notify Congress of general census subjects to be addressed 3 years before the decennial census and the actual questions to be asked 2 years before the decennial census.

Questions beyond a simple count are Constitutional
It is constitutional to include questions in the decennial census beyond those concerning a simple count of the number of people. On numerous occasions, the courts have said the Constitution gives Congress the authority to collect statistics in the census. As early as 1870, the Supreme Court characterized as unquestionable the power of Congress to require both an enumeration and the collection of statistics in the census. The Legal Tender Cases, Tex.1870; 12 Wall., U.S., 457, 536, 20 L.Ed. 287. In 1901, a District Court said the Constitution's census clause (Art. 1, Sec. 2, Clause 3) is not limited to a headcount of the population and "does not prohibit the gathering of other statistics, if 'necessary and proper,' for the intelligent exercise of other powers enumerated in the constitution, and in such case there could be no objection to acquiring this information through the same machinery by which the population is enumerated." United States v. Moriarity, 106 F. 886, 891 (S.D.N.Y.1901).

The census does not violate the Fourth Amendment. Morales v. Daley, 116 F. Supp. 2d 801, 820 (S.D. Tex. 2000). In concluding that there was no basis for holding Census 2000 unconstitutional, the District Court in Morales ruled that the 2000 Census and the 2000 Census questions did not violate the Fourth Amendment or other constitutional provisions as alleged by plaintiffs. (The Morales court said responses to census questions are not a violation of a citizen's right to privacy or speech.) "…t is clear that the degree to which these questions intrude upon an individual's privacy is limited, given the methods used to collect the census data and the statutory assurance that the answers and attribution to an individual will remain confidential. The degree to which the information is needed for the promotion of legitimate governmental interests has been found to be significant. A census of the type of Census 2000 has been taken every ten years since the first census in 1790. Such a census has been thought to be necessary for over two hundred years. There is no basis for holding that it is not necessary in the year 2000."

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the District Court decision on October 10, 2001, 275 F.3d 45. The U.S. Supreme Court denied petition for writ of certiorari on February 19, 2002, 534 U.S. 1135. No published opinions were filed with these rulings.

These decisions are consistent with the Supreme Court's recent description of the census as the "linchpin of the federal statistical system … collecting data on the characteristics of individuals, households, and housing units throughout the country." Dept. of Commerce v. U.S. House of Representatives, 525 U.S. 316, 341 (1999).

The Amazing Apportionment Machine
How does apportionment actually work? Through animation, the U.S. Census Bureau uses this video to help explain how the apportionment formula is used to ensure equal representation for all, just like the Founding Fathers planned. Running time: 1:52

Like a California Court would know what is and
what is not Constitutional !

A good census count could be done by counting
the turds on the sidewalks.

The national census is racist to begin ..

This is a state where anyone having sex with someone who is intoxicated at all is guilty of rape, where purposefully and secretly giving someone HIV is a misdemeanor,shooting an ounce of dope on the sidewalk is legal, but selling someone a gram of legal weed on the street is a crime. A state where it's illegal to defend yourself if you are American but can commit murder and get away with it if you are an illegal immigrant. Cali is fubar

A state like California that is putting 49 other states at risk with its policies should be removed from the Union. There should be zero tolerance for BS.

Born in Landstuhl, Germany, Seeborg earned a Bachelor of Arts in history summa cum laude from Yale University in May 1978 and then earned a Juris Doctor from Columbia Law School in 1981.

Yeah those Columbia commies continually forcing Cultural Marxism on Americans.

CA Judge Deems Case in Which Jewish Woman Was Rammed with Shopping Cart 'Free Speech

Remember folks, if you smash a shopping cart into this judge it’s protected free speech. He said so.

[link to www.theblaze.com (secure)]

Last Edited by DeplorableOldMan on 03/07/2019 08:50 AM

It's bad. born and raised in norcal. There are WHOLE SECTIONS OF CITY THAT ARE MEXICAN! NOT ENGLISH NOT TRYING TO ASSIMILATE! THESE MOTHAFUCKAS ARE ILLEGAL ALL DAY LONG!

ROSELAND CA LOOK IT UP

This is so sad....then based upon the Constitution should we be asking if they are Indians (and define this) and if they are taxed? This is clearly stated in the Constitution?

cen·sus Dictionary result for census
/ˈsensəs/Submit

noun
an official count or survey of a population, typically recording various details of individuals.

You're racist. Dumbass.

Thanks for the pin.

THIS FUCKING BULLSHIT HAS GOT TO STOP.

DEPORT THEM ALL!

If you count citizens and do not count non citizens that would be an accurate count. Who are these people trying to fool?

None of you understand the point of the ruling. The census counts everyone in the country, not just citizens. The citizenship question is a bs attempt to suppress accurate census taking. And since the census counts ALL people, not just citizens, there's no reason for it. So it doesn't matter if there are entire portions of cities full of Mexicans who don't want to assimilate; they still need to be counted.

There is nothing new under the sun.

In the early days of the republic, democrats in the southern states wanted slaves (who did not have the right to vote) counted so that the slave states could have more representation in Congress.

The northern states took the position that slaves (who could not vote) should not be counted to diminish the power of the south, with the goal of ending slavery because the south would lose in Congress.

Thus was born the 3/5 compromise for slaves to ratify the Constitution.

If the democrats in the south had won the debate and non voting slaves were counted, we would still have slavery today.

Democrats today want to count illegal aliens and non citizens (who can’t vote) to artificially inflate the socialist caucus vote so that they can impose socialist policies on the heartland where married couples (a man and a woman who breed) still live in reality.

Here, we have a California judge who just took us a step closer to Civil War II.

In order to preserve the republic - the Siren Song of socialist dogma must be opposed.

:350:

So you don't think a government has a right to know how many people are there legally and illegally?

I don't trust the government's intentions with that question. They know people here illegally won't answer the census, and it will also affect people who are here legally and but not citizens. Therefore, the question itself is meaningless. It's just a suppression tactic.

Uh, hello??

Why should people in the country illegally have representation?

We have been and are continually being invaded and no one does a thing.

We know enough Mexican language to get by, just keep your weapon close and know how to use it for the evil ones being shipped in.

This is so they can get away with not requiring photo I'd to vote and letting illegal immigrants vote.