User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 22

Thread: 2 SCOTUS decisions coming that will impact the 2020 elections

  1. #11
    Original Ranter
    Points: 538,529, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 92.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    428714
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    161,269
    Points
    538,529
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    95,034
    Thanked 79,694x in 53,764 Posts
    Mentioned
    2236 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by DGUtley View Post
    Kavanaugh and Gorsuch have revealed themselves to be fairly independent. We have seen that they will follow the law, not dogma.
    But that does not line up with the DNC/media agenda.
    ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Please visit my blog http://thepoliticalforums.com/blogs/peter/
    (If a post link does not work, see the archives- it should work there.)

  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Peter1469 For This Useful Post:

    DGUtley (06-13-2019),MMC (06-13-2019)

  3. #12
    Points: 34,555, Level: 45
    Level completed: 41%, Points required for next Level: 895
    Overall activity: 24.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsSocialVeteran
    Standing Wolf's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    304152
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    12,507
    Points
    34,555
    Level
    45
    Thanks Given
    2,184
    Thanked 10,256x in 5,909 Posts
    Mentioned
    301 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    The Constitution does not direct that only citizens be enumerated, but it doesn't prohibit that practice, either.

    The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.
    Granted, those last nine words rather leave the door open as far as the details are concerned. The fact that some non-citizens, i.e. slaves, were to be enumerated as well - even if only counted as three-fifths of a person - is instructive, as is the use of the term "free persons" rather than "citizens". In today's social and political climate, asking the question WILL result in a major under-count of those "free persons", which defeats the census' stated purpose.

    More important as a legal argument, I believe, is that advocates of the scheme to add the citizenship question clearly do not have "clean hands" in the matter. There exists documented evidence - and there will be more when the Trump administration is forced to release it - that the addition of the question was motivated primarily, if not solely, by a desire to augment the political power of Republican and White voters, which would constitute proof that those persons who initiated it were acting unethically and in bad faith. (The situation is similar to that in which legislators in some states collected research as to which forms of ID were most frequently used by citizens of color, and then crafted legislation that would exclude as unacceptable those exact forms of ID.)

    As for political districts, I have long been an advocate of their being drawn by a computer program, taking into account no factor whatsoever except for the number of registered voters within a geographic area. Drawing the boundaries by Party affiliation, race, or any other consideration is just wrong.
    “Inside of me there are two dogs. One is mean and evil and the other is good and they fight each other all the time. When asked which one wins I answer, the one I feed the most.”

    - attributed to Sitting Bull

    "I live by two words: tenacity and gratitude. Tenacity gets me where I want to go, and gratitude keeps me from being angry on the way." - Henry Winkler

  4. #13
    Points: 34,555, Level: 45
    Level completed: 41%, Points required for next Level: 895
    Overall activity: 24.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsSocialVeteran
    Standing Wolf's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    304152
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    12,507
    Points
    34,555
    Level
    45
    Thanks Given
    2,184
    Thanked 10,256x in 5,909 Posts
    Mentioned
    301 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by DGUtley View Post
    Kavanaugh and Gorsuch have revealed themselves to be fairly independent. We have seen that they will follow the law, not dogma.
    As you and I both know, most judges do.
    “Inside of me there are two dogs. One is mean and evil and the other is good and they fight each other all the time. When asked which one wins I answer, the one I feed the most.”

    - attributed to Sitting Bull

    "I live by two words: tenacity and gratitude. Tenacity gets me where I want to go, and gratitude keeps me from being angry on the way." - Henry Winkler

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to Standing Wolf For This Useful Post:

    DGUtley (06-13-2019)

  6. #14
    Points: 16,359, Level: 30
    Level completed: 91%, Points required for next Level: 91
    Overall activity: 11.0%
    Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points
    Hoosier8's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    3710
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    4,950
    Points
    16,359
    Level
    30
    Thanks Given
    333
    Thanked 3,701x in 2,473 Posts
    Mentioned
    31 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    This question was on the census until the 1950's. Not sure how it would be considered illegal.
    I was going to sell my guns to the government but you wouldn’t believe what came up during the background check

  7. #15
    Original Ranter
    Points: 204,202, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 92.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassOverdriveTagger First Class50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    MMC's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    45862
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Posts
    51,703
    Points
    204,202
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    20,132
    Thanked 14,857x in 11,307 Posts
    Mentioned
    108 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Here is Eastman taking on Wolf the leftist scholar. Eastman smokes him with facts and the law. Wolf even tried to lie about the question being on the Long form. Then like most leftists wanted to get to what Ross's motives were. Which has no bearing on the case.




    Eastman:
    [00:05:16] Sure. Well, I would take issue a little bit with the phrasing of Justice Ginsburg question as Tom correctly noted. The citizenship question had been in place from 1820 to 1950 on the census form. What the Eisenhower administration did leading up to the 1960 census was separate the forms out to the short form that would go to every single household and the long form that would go to a subset of households, but they were both still census forms. They were both still aimed at obtaining the enumeration as required by the constitution every ten years. The long form continued to ask the citizenship question all the way up until 2000, and then that citizenship question was also added to the American Community Survey in 2006 under George W. Bush's administration, but not asked on the short form, long form either in 2010 under the Obama administration.


    So what we have is the removal of the citizenship question entirely from the census forms for the first time in 2010. Secretary Ross has restored it to what it had been historically from 1820 all the way up until 2000 on one of the two enumeration census forms.



    Well, I think so, but there's a preliminary question as well, and the Administrative Procedure Act more broadly also says that there is no, not even judicial review for any action, quote, “Committed to agency discretion by law,” close quote, and both the constitution, which sets out the Enumeration Clause in article one, section two, that there has to be an actual enumeration, quote, “In such manner as they, Congress, shall by law direct.” Then Congress has, by law, directed the enumeration under Title 13, Section 141 of the US code. They have delegated to the Secretary of Commerce the authority to conduct the census in such form and content as he may determine and quote, “To obtain such other census information as necessary.”


    So the question is, is the elected head of the agency, or the duly appointed head of the agency by the elected president to make the decision, or is he bound by advice coming from unelected bureaucrats that are in the agency before he got there? This is a very important question for self-governance, because if the secretary can't reject the advice he's getting from unelected bureaucrats in the agency he's appointed the head, the elections don't matter anymore.



    What we have here is a vintage non-delegation issue. I'm happy. If the court wants to strike down what the Secretary has done here because the statute itself is unconstitutionally delegating lawmaking power from Congress to the executive and revive the non-delegation doctrine as a separation of powers, important doctrine, then I'd be all for that. But look, the Supreme Court last struck down a statute for over-delegating lawmaking power to the executive in 1936, and it has indicated no willingness to revisit the death of the non-delegation doctrine since.


    So what we have here is on the current law, did Congress delegate the power to Secretary of Commerce to decide what to ask on the census, and it clearly did in the statute I quoted earlier, Section 141 of Title 13. That's pretty unambiguous a delegation of power, and the Administrative Procedure Act is also pretty unambiguous. We don't even allow judicial review if the action was committed by Congress to agency discretion by law, which is pretty clearly the case here. I think that's one of the reasons why several of the Justices were saying, don't we owe a great deal of deference to the Secretary's determination here? In fact, under the APA, maybe so much deference that we ought not to even be considering this case.



    The notion, though, that we can't ask about citizenship for who is going to be, for apportionment on who's going to decide our government really does completely alter the very nature of our republican institutions of government, which are grounded in consent, not on consent of the people the world over, but on consent that are people who are citizens in this body politic. The notion that that's somehow unconstitutional or ought to be problematic under the statute really shows how far the parties are removed from each other on the question of basic citizenship.


    Well, and I noticed Tom didn't cite the statute that I cited earlier. The Enumeration Clause in Article 1, Section 2 says there should be an actual enumeration, quote, “In such manner as they, Congress, shall by law direct.” I think it's important to look at the law, which very unambiguously delegates the authority to determine how to conduct a census to the Secretary of Commerce, “In such form and content as he may determine.” That's a direct quote from the statute. So what he's done is add back in a question here about the content, and the content includes citizenship.


    I think further proof of that is the other subclause in that constitutional text “Excluding Indians not taxed.” Now, that's a very odd way of getting there, but what they're talking about is we've got some people amongst our midst who are not part of our body politic, and we're not going to count them in the census. That was the example at the time. They put this specific rather than the general exception in, but I think the specific indicates that the numbers of the states were not intended to include people who were just merely passing through if they just happened to be here on the day the census takers came around.


    So I'm fairly confident after listening to the oral argument and reading the briefs and knowing what the constitutional requirement is as well as the history of the census bureau, that the Supreme Court is going to uphold Secretary Ross's decision, and we'll have a census that will get back in the business of asking not just how many people are here, but are you here permanently or temporarily? We may like to try to figure that out as well, because I think it's critical, and also are you here as a member of our body politic, a citizen, or are you here as a non-citizen, because that's important for our policy judgments as well......snip~


    https://constitutioncenter.org/debat...constitutional
    Last edited by MMC; 06-13-2019 at 10:25 AM.
    Don't only Practice your Art, but force your way into its Secrets, For it and Knowledge can Raise men to the Divine!!!!! Ludwig Van Beethoven ~

  8. #16
    Points: 34,555, Level: 45
    Level completed: 41%, Points required for next Level: 895
    Overall activity: 24.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsSocialVeteran
    Standing Wolf's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    304152
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    12,507
    Points
    34,555
    Level
    45
    Thanks Given
    2,184
    Thanked 10,256x in 5,909 Posts
    Mentioned
    301 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by MMC View Post
    Here is Eastman taking on Wolf the leftist scholar. Eastman smokes him with facts and the law. Wolf even tried to lie about the question being on the Long form. Then like most leftists wanted to get to what Ross's motives were. Which has no bearing on the case.
    Who is this "Wolf" whom you claim lied about something? As to the motives of those who want to restore the question to the form having "no bearing" - that may be your opinion, but it is not in keeping with American legal principles and precedents, which I believe is far more important. Ask DGUtley, if you can't bring yourself to believe me.
    Last edited by Standing Wolf; 06-13-2019 at 11:45 AM.
    “Inside of me there are two dogs. One is mean and evil and the other is good and they fight each other all the time. When asked which one wins I answer, the one I feed the most.”

    - attributed to Sitting Bull

    "I live by two words: tenacity and gratitude. Tenacity gets me where I want to go, and gratitude keeps me from being angry on the way." - Henry Winkler

  9. #17
    Points: 132,265, Level: 87
    Level completed: 89%, Points required for next Level: 385
    Overall activity: 95.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsSocialVeteranTagger First Class
    MisterVeritis's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    289980
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Madison
    Posts
    61,608
    Points
    132,265
    Level
    87
    Thanks Given
    48,303
    Thanked 21,347x in 16,349 Posts
    Mentioned
    238 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by DGUtley View Post
    Kavanaugh and Gorsuch have revealed themselves to be fairly independent. We have seen that they will follow the law, not dogma.
    I want them to follow the Constitution as it was written and amended. Not the law. Many times the laws are unconstitutional.
    Call your state legislators and insist they approve the Article V convention of States to propose amendments.


    I pledge allegiance to the Constitution as written and understood by this nation's founders, and to the Republic it created, an indivisible union of sovereign States, with liberty and justice for all.

  10. #18
    Original Ranter
    Points: 204,202, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 92.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassOverdriveTagger First Class50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    MMC's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    45862
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Posts
    51,703
    Points
    204,202
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    20,132
    Thanked 14,857x in 11,307 Posts
    Mentioned
    108 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Standing Wolf View Post
    Who is this "Wolf" whom you claim lied about something? As to the motives of those who want to restore the question to the form having "no bearing" - that may be your opinion, but it is not in keeping with American legal principles and precedents, which I believe is far more important. Ask DGUtley, if you can't bring yourself to believe me.
    Did you read the link Wolfman.


    John Eastman is the Henry Salvatori Professor of Law & Community Service at Chapman University’s Fowler School of Law. He is also a Senior Fellow and Director of the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence at the Claremont Institute.


    Tom Wolf is Counsel with the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center, where his work focuses on redistricting and the census. He was previously a member of the Supreme Court & Appellate group at Mayer Brown LLP, where his practice focused on constitutional litigation and legal strategy. He recently published “A Critical History of the United States Census and Citizenship Questions” in the Georgetown Law Journal.


    He tried to say the question wasn't on the long form citing dates from early 19th Century. Then Eastman brought him back to reality from 1950 to present day. But then it is in keeping with legal principles and precedents. That Eastman brings forth.



    Eastman: [00:17:03] Well, I think so, but there's a preliminary question as well, and the Administrative Procedure Act more broadly also says that there is no, not even judicial review for any action, quote, “Committed to agency discretion by law,” close quote, and both the constitution, which sets out the Enumeration Clause in article one, section two, that there has to be an actual enumeration, quote, “In such manner as they, Congress, shall by law direct.” Then Congress has, by law, directed the enumeration under Title 13, Section 141 of the US code. They have delegated to the Secretary of Commerce the authority to conduct the census in such form and content as he may determine and quote, “To obtain such other census information as necessary.”


    Now, both of those things are pretty clearly committing to agency discretion the determination of what to include on the census. So under the APA, there might not even be the opportunity for judicial review. But let's get over that hurdle. One of the things that came out in the oral argument at the Supreme Court was whether we should be deposing Secretary Ross to find out what his true motives were or whether the review is limited to what he actually said in the record. I think the court came down pretty clearly that on an Administrative Procedure Act review, we look at what the record is. We don't look behind to a legislator's motives or anything like that. That would be opening up a hornet's nest that the Supreme Court has repeatedly shied away from. I think they're going to do that here as well.


    So the question is, is the elected head of the agency, or the duly appointed head of the agency by the elected president to make the decision, or is he bound by advice coming from unelected bureaucrats that are in the agency before he got there? This is a very important question for self-governance, because if the secretary can't reject the advice he's getting from unelected bureaucrats in the agency he's appointed the head, the elections don't matter anymore.



    So I think it's an extremely important question, and just judging from the questions we heard at oral argument, I suspect the Supreme Court at least a five member majority of the Supreme Court, perhaps more, is going to side with Secretary Ross here and say, look. You had some input from the bureaucrats in your department that said this might lead to a lower response rate, but you weighed that lower response rate with the ability to mitigate against that by more aggressive efforts on second and third tries to get the information the enumeration needs, and the importance of gathering information about citizenship and where citizens are located so that if any jurisdiction actually wants to based their reapportionment on citizens, which by the way, the consent theory of government set out in the Declaration of Independence would seem to require, then we ought to be able to do that. I think that's where the court's going to lead, and I think under any standard under APA review, the reasons he gave, the formal reasons he gave for the decision here easily pass muster......snip~
    Last edited by MMC; 06-13-2019 at 11:57 AM.
    Don't only Practice your Art, but force your way into its Secrets, For it and Knowledge can Raise men to the Divine!!!!! Ludwig Van Beethoven ~

  11. #19
    Points: 53,185, Level: 56
    Level completed: 34%, Points required for next Level: 1,265
    Overall activity: 2.0%
    Achievements:
    1 year registeredTagger Second Class50000 Experience PointsSocial
    Captdon's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    8081
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    24,914
    Points
    53,185
    Level
    56
    Thanks Given
    42,195
    Thanked 8,085x in 6,498 Posts
    Mentioned
    121 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I won't answer it anyway. It's not a big deal.
    Liberals are a clear and present danger to our freedom and our society and our morals.

  12. #20
    Points: 132,265, Level: 87
    Level completed: 89%, Points required for next Level: 385
    Overall activity: 95.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsSocialVeteranTagger First Class
    MisterVeritis's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    289980
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Madison
    Posts
    61,608
    Points
    132,265
    Level
    87
    Thanks Given
    48,303
    Thanked 21,347x in 16,349 Posts
    Mentioned
    238 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Standing Wolf View Post
    Who is this "Wolf" whom you claim lied about something? As to the motives of those who want to restore the question to the form having "no bearing" - that may be your opinion, but it is not in keeping with American legal principles and precedents, which I believe is far more important. Ask DGUtley, if you can't bring yourself to believe me.
    Your goal is to give your team an unbreakable edge in the electoral college and in the legislature. It seems you are okay with using illegal aliens to accomplish your evil goal.

    I see no reason to continue as the united States.
    Call your state legislators and insist they approve the Article V convention of States to propose amendments.


    I pledge allegiance to the Constitution as written and understood by this nation's founders, and to the Republic it created, an indivisible union of sovereign States, with liberty and justice for all.

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Single Sign On provided by vBSSO