John Roberts Decides To Help the Enemy Hide The Number of Infiltrates in the US

[MisterVeritis]

You are, of course, free to comment on anything you choose, but if you want people to take you seriously when you bring up or comment on legal matters, it would behoove you to first obtain some legal education.

I laughed. What are your qualifications?

Legal education. I have read the Constitution. It is simple to understand. Of course, you have to want to.

[Beevee]

I laughed. What are your qualifications?

Legal education. I have read the Constitution. It is simple to understand. Of course, you have to want to.

Clearly that makes you an expert. Especially if you don't find any contradictions in the document.
And you evidently don't.
Time for the Supreme Court to retire.

[Peter1469]

LOL.
The only thing that will make deplorables happy is the total rape of America by those who yearn for total control of business and society.

What silliness. Business wants illegals to exploit. So do Dems.

[Peter1469]

The question was on the census for a very long time. I have lots of problems with the Census. It asks too many questions. It should ask one question: How many citizens or lawful permanent residents live at this address. No other question is needed to satisfy the Constitution.

[Cletus]

No, it isn't...but when evidence of bad intent and motives - in this case, an attempt to provide some advantage to one political Party by adding the question to the census - is presented to the Court, it is the Court's duty to consider that evidence in their deliberations, and in their final decision. Previous courts have already ruled on the sort of questions that can, for statistical purposes, be added to the census, and attempting to do so for partisan reasons has never been found to be acceptable.

Article 1, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution mandates an enumeration of "free Persons", and directs that Congressional representation should be based on those numbers. Nothing in that clause, or in the deliberations of the Founders, would indicate that citizenship should in any way be a factor to be considered in either procedure.

Are you sure an illegal alien, subject to arrest and deportation if captured constitutes a "free person"? I have asked the question before, maybe you can answer it... What harm is done from determining the number of actual citizens residing in the country? Why should it NOT be on the census?

[Peter1469]

SCOTUS did not apply the correct standard of government action under the Administrative Procedure Act. Not sure what they were thinking.

They got it right for partisan gerrymandering. They held that it was a political issue, not a judicial issue.

[Standing Wolf]

Are you sure an illegal alien, subject to arrest and deportation if captured constitutes a "free person"? I have asked the question before, maybe you can answer it... What harm is done from determining the number of actual citizens residing in the country? Why should it NOT be on the census?

Some proponents of asking the question suggest that it would only deter residents who are not citizens from participating...but that is clearly not the case. They forget (or ignore the fact) that census forms are filled out and submitted for entire households - not individuals (unless, of course, they live alone). If I am a legal citizen and there are members of my household who are not, and I read that there are penalties (although rarely administered) for answering any question on the form untruthfully, I may choose to play it safe and just not fill it out at all. In fact, demographers and other social scientists have concluded that this is exactly what will happen if the citizenship question is added to the form - resulting in a serious under count of certain groups, which is - according to all the evidence - exactly what the Administration sought to accomplish.

[Cletus]

Some proponents of asking the question suggest that it would only deter residents who are not citizens from participating...but that is clearly not the case. They forget (or ignore the fact) that census forms are filled out and submitted for entire households - not individuals (unless, of course, they live alone). If I am a legal citizen and there are members of my household who are not, and I read that there are penalties (although rarely administered) for answering any question on the form untruthfully, I may choose to play it safe and just not fill it out at all. In fact, demographers and other social scientists have concluded that this is exactly what will happen if the citizenship question is added to the form - resulting in a serious under count of certain groups, which is - according to all the evidence - exactly what the Administration sought to accomplish.

So, because somebody might break the law and lie on the census, the question should be excluded. I am thinking someone didn't really think that through.

What is more important... How many citizens live in your house or how many televisions do you own?

[Common]

This is my Opinion and only opinion. John Roberts is friends GWBush who appointed him. GWBush and his Brother Jeb is all in for illegal immigration and making them all citizens, they also hate trump. I think Roberts favors the Bushs leanings.

Having said that I wouldnt mind if Roberts resigned

[Sergeant Gleed]

I don't know why anyone would oppose determining how many people residing in the US are actually citizens.

To hide the severity of the problem until it becomes terminal.

That's the only reason the people who won a plurality of votes in 2016 using illegal alien votes has.