JUST IN: Supreme Court justices signal SUPPORT for Trump’s citizenship question!

There’s not a lot of substance to go on here yet, but from media reports it sounds like the Supreme Court may end up ruling in favor of Trump adding the citizenship question to the census.

Here’s what we know from Bloomberg:

Key U.S. Supreme Court justices seemed inclined to let the Trump administration add a question about citizenship to the 2020 census in a clash that will shape the allocation of congressional seats and federal dollars, Bloomberg News reports.

Hearing arguments in Washington, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh directed almost all their questions to the lawyers challenging the decision to ask about citizenship.

Kavanaugh said Congress gave the Commerce secretary “huge discretion” to decide what to ask on the census.



And from Reuters:

Conservative U.S. Supreme Court justices on Tuesday appeared sympathetic toward a bid by President Donald Trump’s administration to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census, a plan opponents have called a Republican effort to deter immigrants from taking part in the population count.

The court has a 5-4 conservative majority, and conservative justices signaled support toward the administration’s stance.

Chief Justice John Roberts challenged New York Solicitor General Barbara Underwood, whose state sued the administration over the plan to add the question, saying citizenship is critical information for enforcing the Voting Rights Act.

As I said there’s not much here yet. I was hoping for more on the questions they asked, but so far this is it.

The citizenship question that Trump wants on the census says “Is this person a citizen of the United States?”.

I KNOW! It’s such a white supremacist and racist question to ask! How dare Trump want to know who is a citizen and who isn’t???

So just a word of caution. Even though it appears the Supreme Court may support Trump on this, you never know how they are going to end up on the issue. To paraphrase an old axiom, don’t count your SCOTUS judges before they vote.

Comment Policy: Please read our comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.

To our ad-free users: I apologize for the ad below but unfortunately DISQUS requires this ad in order to use their commenting system and I cannot make it go away.

158 thoughts on “JUST IN: Supreme Court justices signal SUPPORT for Trump’s citizenship question!

  1. The census is YUGE in deciding the Electoral College which is based on population counts in the various states. Asking this question was on the census in previous counts so I don’t foresee the justices going against it at all and if they make a decision FOR adding the citizenship question………Democrats won’t be able to challenge it in the future. Fingers crossed!!!

  2. Built the wall! Add extra heavy duty razor sharp concertina wire, along with a few machine gun turrets! If you want to enter The Land of The Big PX, do so legally by the front door, assimilate, take classes that will lead to US citizenship and only then will I drop the “wtback” (and others like them) word, shake your hand and call you an American. God Bless America, Long Live The Republic!!

        1. I don’t think it’s racist for this reason: Something is only racist if it refers to someone’s race, which of course is something they cannot help. The term “wetback” refers to people who took a certain action, namely crossing the Rio Grande to get into this country. They had control over that, unlike someone’s race.

          1. Yea, and n*gger refers to a bundle of stick and f*g has to do with cigarettes.

            Give me a break. We all know who you’re talking about with that term. Don’t piss down my back and tell me it’s raining.

  3. …..what difference does it make, every one who trashes their Census questionaire will still find a way to vote or others will find a way for him /her to vote

  4. Considering only citizens should even answer the damn thing, it’s really too bad if illegals are scared to answer it or not.
    The constitution doesn’t take into account illegals unfortunately because they didn’t see this one coming so unfortunately, this would be a big win if they allowed it.
    If you do go by the letter of the constitution as conservative strict constructionists should, then illegals should be counted.

    “Why Jefferson, Madison and the Founders Enshrined the Census in our Constitution

    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.) “…[I]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).”

  5. As Hillary would say ” at this point what difference does it make? ” The demoncrats will just tell them to lie or not respond to the Census.

  6. Hmmmm, this is going to be a tough one to answer for the invaders. Maybe they’ll just chuck the questionnaire into the trash, then we’ll get a closer Congressional count.

    1. It is a crime to refuse to answer a census question and/or provide false information.

  7. It’s not enough to “hope” they’ll do the right thing. As for me I’m going to pray they do.

  8. Maybe common sense and the law will prevail over political correctness and Trump Derangement Syndrome for once in the Judiciary.

  9. The next thing is to define which “persons” should be counted when it comes to allocating congressional districts/seats and federal dollars…

    The Founding Fathers inferred persons as those who may vote in elections… therefore, US Citizens should be the only ones who should be counted. California should have between 42-45 seats; when you subtract the 8-12 million illegals.

    1. Incorrect.

      The original writing of the constitution included the Three Fifths clause which partially counted slaves toward apportioned House seats. Partially, because a full counting and apportionment would have created a South-heavy representation, much like we have today with illegals being counted.

      I also challenge the 8-12 million number. 11 million was quoted all 8 years of the Obama administration. An estimated 900k – 1.2 million illegally enter each year, which would put the number at a minimum of 21 million illegals nationwide.

    1. That’s actually a really interesting moral question.

      Do we believe that all men are created equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among those being life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Or do we believe that only Americans are created that way?

      Because if we believe that for all men, and the Constitution is what we created to guarantee those rights – would it not also follow that a moral society, such as ours (on paper, at least), would ultimately want to see the Constitution apply to everybody?

      And if so, does that not also mean that we should regard all men as deserving of the protections of the Constitution?

      1. You and your logical thought processes. I had a bunch of counters but had to delete them all because your comment still applies to them.

        Wait. I have one. “does that not also mean that we should regard all men as deserving of the protections of the Constitution?” You didn’t say mankind (technicality) which makes you hateful to women AND supports a ban on abortions against males since they would be protected and……yeah…..dang you and your logic.

          1. I know but AT’s argument is a rabbit hole but in essence partly why America has gone abroad to fight for freedom and liberty of others. Not to put words in his mouth.

            1. Why did we fight slavery, and nazism, and communism? Because they were wrong. Because the people oppressed by those horrific atrocities deserve better. Were we overly-ambitions in our attempts at world-building? Perhaps. But were we wrong to wrong to bring freedom and liberty to others?

              A moral man can’t say no.

            2. Going abroad was primarily to protect our shores against Nazism, jihadism and communism. Freeing other people is secondary.

          2. Yes, but it’s a moral document just as much as it is a civil one.

            Are all men created equally or not? Does an American deserve his inherent liberty protected more than persecuted Congolese women, or North Korean work slaves – simply by virtue of having been born in the right coordinates?

            Shouldn’t all accused be afforded due process before being punished by their State? Is that only a civic notion, or is it a moral one as well? Is punishing someone without due process merely unconstitutional, or is it also immoral as well?

            Adams said it was for a moral and religious people. Can we really call ourselves such a thing, if we didn’t wish for and support and fight for freedom and liberty and the rights of every man, woman and child on this planet?

          3. Also, in your typical fallacious way, you ignore and sidestep the actual discussion – you know, the one that requires a little bit of critical thinking.

            It wasn’t a “does” question. It was a “should” question.

        1. Should it be?

          It’s the greatest document ever written, right? The most perfect form of government, no? Why shouldn’t we want the world to embrace our way of life and governance?

            1. Should its moral tenets – if we, as Americans, truly stand for them as such – apply to all humankind?

              An American is free to practice his religion and speak freely in America. A North Korean will be locked up and executed without trial for it in NK. Is what North Korea does it to North Koreans moral or immoral?

          1. Other peoples/countries are free to adopt our constitution or some version of it, but I don’t think too many Americans think we should go on crusade to make the world adopt it.

            1. I didn’t say make them.

              But if you could apply Constitutional protections to oppressed and persecuted people around the world, wouldn’t you?

      2. “would ultimately want to see the Constitution apply to everybody?”

        There are multiple problems with your argument:
        1. The USA is farther away from its Declaration than ever. We really don’t live it and in some ways never did. Talking about absolutist ideals of liberty for everyone who wants to barge in here when we don’t even have it for ourselves is a non-starter. But assuming we were a virtuous nation of individual liberty…
        2. If we believe that our freedoms apply to all people then that would include people outside our borders. We would have the moral duty to destroy every government in the world not just like ours (or better liberty-wise) and give them their life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness good and hard – whether they wanted it or not.
        3. A country with individual liberty is actually a rare and tenuous thing. Destroying all borders to try to give life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to everyone in the world actually takes it away from everyone. Liberty must be nurtured and protected. It isn’t immune to changing as outside influences are allowed to overwhelm it. So your notion that we could just accept all comers from around the world and give everyone liberty is paradoxical.

        1. We would have the moral duty to destroy every government in the world not just like ours (or better liberty-wise) and give them their life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness good and hard – whether they wanted it or not.

          If you could, would you?

          Destroying all borders to try to give life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to everyone in the world actually takes it away from everyone.

          Nobody said anything about destroying borders. The question is whether Constitutional rights are, in any part, a moral concept.

          Hypothetical: An American is charged with a crime in America and summarily executed without evidence or trial. A Chinese tourist is charged with a crime in America and summarily executed without evidence or trial. Was one right and the other wrong? Or were they both wrong – and why?

          1. “If you could, would you?”

            My sense of fairness would want to offer it to each living being, but I’m not at all convinced that every person is made for liberty. There’s a part of each person that needs to fight for it, or they probably didn’t understand it in the first place and will just throw it away at the first opportunity.

            “Was one right and the other wrong? Or were they both wrong – and why?”

            Given our current society and the constraints of the world in which we exist, they are both wrong.

            1. My sense of fairness would want to offer it to each living being, but I’m not at all convinced that every person is made for liberty. There’s a part of each person that needs to fight for it, or they probably didn’t understand it in the first place and will just throw it away at the first opportunity.

              Well that’s true of many Americans, isn’t it. Look at Doc Strange, perfect example. That dude hates liberty, and loves State Authority. And yet, our Constitution protects him in a civil and moral sense. Should it? He’s clearly not made for liberty – but should he have it anyway, under our Constitution?

              The answer is yes. Supporting his liberty, even though he despises it, is the moral thing to do.

              Given our current society and the constraints of the world in which we exist, they are both wrong.

              Why?

              The most likely answer is that summary execution without due process is immoral – regardless of whether you’re an American or not. That is to say, the Constitutional protection isn’t about your citizenship – it’s about right and wrong.

              That morality is reflected in our Constitution. So shouldn’t we, as moral people (and certainly morally superior to the Chinese), offer it to the Chinese guy – whether his nation would or not? Whether he was “made for it” or not?

              1. Supporting his liberty, even though he despises it, is the moral thing to do.

                C’mon, AT, we’re *almost* having an intelligent and civil conversation here and you’re starting to throw off strawman attacks at Doc for some inexplicable reason.

                That is to say, the Constitutional protection isn’t about your citizenship – it’s about right and wrong.

                I’m typically pretty precise in how I answer questions like the one you posed. I used the words I did for your specific question for a reason. Don’t try to generalize on that answer to think it means that I would give the same answer to every question that you think is similar.

                For example, if you see a child starving, about to die, and you give that child your $5 Big Mac meal you were about to eat, that’s a moral good and most “moral” people would do the same. Does that mean that you should then go drain your bank account and sell off your possessions to save every child in the world who is starving and could use a meal? Or you’re not a moral person?

                I take a practical view of morality. Is it right to give some Chinese guy due process? Sure, we can handle doing that. Is it right to give every person in the world US citizenship so they can all have our freedoms? Uh, no. It’s not our moral duty to destroy ourselves in the name of trying to achieve something that is not at all realistically achievable in the name of absolute morality.

                Sure, if the scenario is that you’re god and can do whatever you want with infinite ability, knock yourself out. My answers aren’t in the “make a wish and be god” context.

      3. There is only one moral option then, America must rule the entire planet.

        By the constitution of course.

        1. It’s not the worst idea, bringing in as many as we can under our banner – and stamping out those who would oppress the individual and deprive him of liberty. I don’t know how practically realistic it is, but it certainly seems the right thing to do.

          (I’ve often mused that we should offer statehood to Israel. I don’t know if they’d take it, but making them one with us, rather than just allies, would be great.)

    2. None of us can.

      The constitution represents The States, not the individual. And it is a limiting, instructional document for the Federal Government, not one that limits the individual.

  10. According to Napolitano, you can’t force anyone to answer the question, and the information won’t change anything pertaining to congressional districts.

    1. @debw Yes, but many illegals will be afraid to fill it out, denying the Dem’s the warm bodies that they crave.

    2. Is this the same Napolitano who was claiming Trump could be guilty of obstruction or collusion?

      1. Maybe it’s the Napolitano who was dead certain that Hillary was being indicted by the original Comey investigation because there was no way that her underlings were being given immunity deals unless they were turning over solid evidence in her case.

  11. Built the wall! Add extra heavy duty razor sharp concertina wire, along with a few machine gun turrets! If you want to enter The Land of The Big PX, do so legally by the front door, assimilate, take classes that will lead to US citizenship and only then will I drop the “wtback” (and others like them) word, shake your hand and call you an American. God Bless America, Long Live The Republic!!

        1. I don’t think it’s racist for this reason: Something is only racist if it refers to someone’s race, which of course is something they cannot help. The term “wetback” refers to people who took a certain action, namely crossing the Rio Grande to get into this country. They had control over that, unlike someone’s race.

          1. Yea, and n*gger refers to a bundle of stick and f*g has to do with cigarettes.

            Give me a break. We all know who you’re talking about with that term. Don’t piss down my back and tell me it’s raining.

            1. Give ME a break. I don’t even use the term except to make a point such as the one I made to you but you apparently didn’t get.

              1. I get it – you can use the term.

                Doesn’t mean you should. Doesn’t mean anyone should. It’s a slur, regardless of how it’s rationalized.

  12. …..what difference does it make, every one who trashes their Census questionaire will still find a way to vote or others will find a way for him /her to vote

  13. The census is YUGE in deciding the Electoral College which is based on population counts in the various states. Asking this question was on the census in previous counts so I don’t foresee the justices going against it at all and if they make a decision FOR adding the citizenship question………Democrats won’t be able to challenge it in the future. Fingers crossed!!!

  14. As Hillary would say ” at this point what difference does it make? ” The demoncrats will just tell them to lie or not respond to the Census.

  15. That the very essence of sovereignty should be up for debate shows how close we have drifted to dissolution.

  16. Democraps have been abusing this for years

    If a state wants the illegals then they should come up with a way to pay for them….

    Citizens should only be counted and Fed funded for and properly represented!

  17. Considering only citizens should even answer the damn thing, it’s really too bad if illegals are scared to answer it or not.
    The constitution doesn’t take into account illegals unfortunately because they didn’t see this one coming so unfortunately, this would be a big win if they allowed it.
    If you do go by the letter of the constitution as conservative strict constructionists should, then illegals should be counted.

    “Why Jefferson, Madison and the Founders Enshrined the Census in our Constitution

    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.) “…[I]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).”

  18. How much trust should be placed in Roberts? I ain’t putting much, but there’s always hope.

  19. Confession here: I haven’t answered the census in three decades. I believe the gooberment has enough information on us. If they need anymore they can ask Facebook or Google.

  20. The Left is afraid the citizenship question will have a chilling effect on responses from….. who? NON-citizens who shouldn’t be used for vote apportionment anyways?! I hope they’re right!

  21. Well, since we know illegal aliens never lie, this will be a sure-fire way to catch them all. /s

    1. It’s not even about catching them. Democrats don’t even want the number of illegals counted!

  22. Hmmmm, this is going to be a tough one to answer for the invaders. Maybe they’ll just chuck the questionnaire into the trash, then we’ll get a closer Congressional count.

    1. It is a crime to refuse to answer a census question and/or provide false information.

  23. That the very essence of sovereignty should be up for debate shows how close we have drifted to dissolution.

  24. It’s not enough to “hope” they’ll do the right thing. As for me I’m going to pray they do.

    1. That’s actually a really interesting moral question.

      Do we believe that all men are created equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among those being life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Or do we believe that only Americans are created that way?

      Because if we believe that for all men, and the Constitution is what we created to guarantee those rights – would it not also follow that a moral society, such as ours (on paper, at least), would ultimately want to see the Constitution apply to everybody?

      And if so, does that not also mean that we should regard all men as deserving of the protections of the Constitution?

      1. You and your logical thought processes. I had a bunch of counters but had to delete them all because your comment still applies to them.

        Wait. I have one. “does that not also mean that we should regard all men as deserving of the protections of the Constitution?” You didn’t say mankind (technicality) which makes you hateful to women AND supports a ban on abortions against males since they would be protected and……yeah…..dang you and your logic.

          1. I know but AT’s argument is a rabbit hole but in essence partly why America has gone abroad to fight for freedom and liberty of others. Not to put words in his mouth.

            1. Why did we fight slavery, and nazism, and communism? Because they were wrong. Because the people oppressed by those horrific atrocities deserve better. Were we overly-ambitions in our attempts at world-building? Perhaps. But were we wrong to wrong to bring freedom and liberty to others?

              A moral man can’t say no.

            2. Going abroad was primarily to protect our shores against Nazism, jihadism and communism. Freeing other people is secondary.

              1. We don’t just protect our shores – we protect our way of life against immoral ideologies that cannot coexist with Constitutional morality. With the goal being to assert Constitutional morality as the dominant ideology on the planet, and wipe all those other shitbags off the map.

          2. Yes, but it’s a moral document just as much as it is a civil one.

            Are all men created equally or not? Does an American deserve his inherent liberty protected more than persecuted Congolese women, or North Korean work slaves – simply by virtue of having been born in the right coordinates?

            Shouldn’t all accused be afforded due process before being punished by their State? Is that only a civic notion, or is it a moral one as well? Is punishing someone without due process merely unconstitutional, or is it also immoral as well?

            Adams said it was for a moral and religious people. Can we really call ourselves such a thing, if we didn’t wish for and support and fight for freedom and liberty and the rights of every man, woman and child on this planet?

          3. Also, in your typical fallacious way, you ignore and sidestep the actual discussion – you know, the one that requires a little bit of critical thinking.

            It wasn’t a “does” question. It was a “should” question.

        1. Should it be?

          It’s the greatest document ever written, right? The most perfect form of government, no? Why shouldn’t we want the world to embrace our way of life and governance?

          1. Other peoples/countries are free to adopt our constitution or some version of it, but I don’t think too many Americans think we should go on crusade to make the world adopt it.

            1. I didn’t say make them.

              But if you could apply Constitutional protections to oppressed and persecuted people around the world, wouldn’t you?

            1. Should its moral tenets – if we, as Americans, truly stand for them as such – apply to all humankind?

              An American is free to practice his religion and speak freely in America. A North Korean will be locked up and executed without trial for it in NK. Is what North Korea does it to North Koreans moral or immoral?

              1. What N Korea does to it’s people is beyond horrible. Should the US go over there, fight Kim, maybe kill him and then what? Install our constitution?

                1. *shrug* Dunno.

                  I just asked whether it was moral or immoral.

                  Would it be better if the North Korean people had our Constitution to protect their rights? If we can’t morally tolerate such things happening to an American, can we tolerate such things happening to a North Korean?

      2. “would ultimately want to see the Constitution apply to everybody?”

        There are multiple problems with your argument:
        1. The USA is farther away from its Declaration than ever. We really don’t live it and in some ways never did. Talking about absolutist ideals of liberty for everyone who wants to barge in here when we don’t even have it for ourselves is a non-starter. But assuming we were a virtuous nation of individual liberty…
        2. If we believe that our freedoms apply to all people then that would include people outside our borders. We would have the moral duty to destroy every government in the world not just like ours (or better liberty-wise) and give them their life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness good and hard – whether they wanted it or not.
        3. A country with individual liberty is actually a rare and tenuous thing. Destroying all borders to try to give life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to everyone in the world actually takes it away from everyone. Liberty must be nurtured and protected. It isn’t immune to changing as outside influences are allowed to overwhelm it. So your notion that we could just accept all comers from around the world and give everyone liberty is paradoxical.

        1. We would have the moral duty to destroy every government in the world not just like ours (or better liberty-wise) and give them their life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness good and hard – whether they wanted it or not.

          If you could, would you?

          Destroying all borders to try to give life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to everyone in the world actually takes it away from everyone.

          Nobody said anything about destroying borders. The question is whether Constitutional rights are, in any part, a moral concept.

          Hypothetical: An American is charged with a crime in America and summarily executed without evidence or trial. A Chinese tourist is charged with a crime in America and summarily executed without evidence or trial. Was one right and the other wrong? Or were they both wrong – and why?

          1. “If you could, would you?”

            My sense of fairness would want to offer it to each living being, but I’m not at all convinced that every person is made for liberty. There’s a part of each person that needs to fight for it, or they probably didn’t understand it in the first place and will just throw it away at the first opportunity.

            “Was one right and the other wrong? Or were they both wrong – and why?”

            Given our current society and the constraints of the world in which we exist, they are both wrong.

            1. My sense of fairness would want to offer it to each living being, but I’m not at all convinced that every person is made for liberty. There’s a part of each person that needs to fight for it, or they probably didn’t understand it in the first place and will just throw it away at the first opportunity.

              Well that’s true of many Americans, isn’t it. Look at Doc Strange, perfect example. That dude hates liberty, and loves State Authority. And yet, our Constitution protects him in a civil and moral sense. Should it? He’s clearly not made for liberty – but should he have it anyway, under our Constitution?

              The answer is yes. Supporting his liberty, even though he despises it, is the moral thing to do.

              Given our current society and the constraints of the world in which we exist, they are both wrong.

              Why?

              The most likely answer is that summary execution without due process is immoral – regardless of whether you’re an American or not. That is to say, the Constitutional protection isn’t about your citizenship – it’s about right and wrong.

              That morality is reflected in our Constitution. So shouldn’t we, as moral people (and certainly morally superior to the Chinese), offer it to the Chinese guy – whether his nation would or not? Whether he was “made for it” or not?

              1. Supporting his liberty, even though he despises it, is the moral thing to do.

                C’mon, AT, we’re *almost* having an intelligent and civil conversation here and you’re starting to throw off strawman attacks at Doc for some inexplicable reason.

                That is to say, the Constitutional protection isn’t about your citizenship – it’s about right and wrong.

                I’m typically pretty precise in how I answer questions like the one you posed. I used the words I did for your specific question for a reason. Don’t try to generalize on that answer to think it means that I would give the same answer to every question that you think is similar.

                For example, if you see a child starving, about to die, and you give that child your $5 Big Mac meal you were about to eat, that’s a moral good and most “moral” people would do the same. Does that mean that you should then go drain your bank account and sell off your possessions to save every child in the world who is starving and could use a meal? Or you’re not a moral person?

                I take a practical view of morality. Is it right to give some Chinese guy due process? Sure, we can handle doing that. Is it right to give every person in the world US citizenship so they can all have our freedoms? Uh, no. It’s not our moral duty to destroy ourselves in the name of trying to achieve something that is not at all realistically achievable in the name of absolute morality.

                Sure, if the scenario is that you’re god and can do whatever you want with infinite ability, knock yourself out. My answers aren’t in the “make a wish and be god” context.

                1. You were the one who posited the notion of being “made for liberty,” suggesting that non-Americans aren’t. But then, many Americans aren’t either. I simply gave you an example of one.

                  The point being, whether or not one is “made for liberty” is irrelevant to the notion of whether they should have it.

                  For example, if you see a child starving, about to die, and you give that child your $5 Big Mac meal you were about to eat, that’s a moral good

                  Is it? I’d say that’s an act of charity, with no moral quality whatsoever. Had you given him nothing, it wouldn’t be an act of immorality after all. You owe him nothing in the first place.

                  Makes you nice. Not necessarily good.

                  I take a practical view of morality. Is it right to give some Chinese guy due process? Sure, we can handle doing that. Is it right to give every person in the world US citizenship so they can all have our freedoms?

                  Nobody said anything about giving everyone citizenship.

                  The issue was: if we recognize a right under our Constitution as a moral tenet, and we say that all men are created equal – should we not treat everyone as if they were protected by our Constitution, regardless of their nationality? (For example, you recognize the moral goodness of freedom of speech, right? So, on a moral level, you would agree that everyone – American, British, Chinese, etc – should have freedom of speech as a moral ideal, right? Not just Americans because they have a Constitution that enshrines it.)

                  Also, the issue was: if we recognize a wrong with treating an American unconstitutionally, because we recognize a moral wrong in unconstitutional acts, doesn’t that also mean it’s wrong to treat non-Americans in a way that would be unconstitutional under our Constitution? (For example, you wouldn’t deny someone – like, an Iranian terrorist – due process, right? Because honoring due process is a moral good – whether the Iranian believes it or not.)

                  Sure, if the scenario is that you’re god and can do whatever you want with infinite ability, knock yourself out.

                  You’re overcomplicating it.

                  Here, let’s go simple: should every man, woman, and child have an inherent right to life when they’re born? Or just the American ones?

                  Answer that, then ask yourself why.

      3. There is only one moral option then, America must rule the entire planet.

        By the constitution of course.

        1. It’s not the worst idea, bringing in as many as we can under our banner – and stamping out those who would oppress the individual and deprive him of liberty. I don’t know how practically realistic it is, but it certainly seems the right thing to do.

          (I’ve often mused that we should offer statehood to Israel. I don’t know if they’d take it, but making them one with us, rather than just allies, would be great.)

    2. None of us can.

      The constitution represents The States, not the individual. And it is a limiting, instructional document for the Federal Government, not one that limits the individual.

  25. The next thing is to define which “persons” should be counted when it comes to allocating congressional districts/seats and federal dollars…

    The Founding Fathers inferred persons as those who may vote in elections… therefore, US Citizens should be the only ones who should be counted. California should have between 42-45 seats; when you subtract the 8-12 million illegals.

    1. Incorrect.

      The original writing of the constitution included the Three Fifths clause which partially counted slaves toward apportioned House seats. Partially, because a full counting and apportionment would have created a South-heavy representation, much like we have today with illegals being counted.

      I also challenge the 8-12 million number. 11 million was quoted all 8 years of the Obama administration. An estimated 900k – 1.2 million illegally enter each year, which would put the number at a minimum of 21 million illegals nationwide.

  26. According to Napolitano, you can’t force anyone to answer the question, and the information won’t change anything pertaining to congressional districts.

    1. Is this the same Napolitano who was claiming Trump could be guilty of obstruction or collusion?

      1. Maybe it’s the Napolitano who was dead certain that Hillary was being indicted by the original Comey investigation because there was no way that her underlings were being given immunity deals unless they were turning over solid evidence in her case.

    2. @debw Yes, but many illegals will be afraid to fill it out, denying the Dem’s the warm bodies that they crave.

  27. How is it not pertinent to ask a person’s citizenship status? If a person is not a legal citizen then they have no business meddling in our local and federal politics. Such meddling by such persons is, frankly, in my mind as bad as interference by any other foreign power or representatives of a foreign power. (And the Dems wanted to scream about “Russian Collusion”?!!) Flooding the US with non-citizens and giving them the power to influence our elections is treasonous to the max and the Dems are the party the most responsible for this. Several Republicans are too and they should be ashamed of themselves. Wanting cheap labor is one thing but aiding and abetting illegal entrance to our country in order to get it is not only shameful but shortsightedly treasonous as well. Are we really THAT cheap that we’d sell out our own country just to save a few pennies on vegetables that we can honestly grow ourselves.

      1. I understand that . What I’m questioning is why there was a question about asking the question at all. We do need to know exactly how many are illegal but the Dems are fighting it because they don’t want anyone to know how the illegal population is large enough now to pose a real existential threat to our sovereignty. It is all a part of their plan to get in power and stay there.

        1. @philliesthoughts There is a difference between US Citizens, legal residents, and illegal invaders. The question is to determine the legal voters. The Dems and radical left want all bodies counted for their agenda and game plan.

  28. Conservative U.S. Supreme Court justices … The court has a 5-4 conservative majority, and conservative justices signaled support toward the administration’s stance.

    And that is how you undermine SCOTUS. (“Liberal/Progressive” does the same thing.)

    Which is why it’s not really a Supreme Court anymore. It’s an oligarchy that controls the Constitution.

    1. …no, not really.

      I get you’re upset that the SCOTUS has been completely politicized and turned into the law-making battlefield that Congress is supposed to be, but the labels are accurate. There are conservative Justices and liberal Justices, there’s nothing wrong with calling them such.

      1. There should only be impartial Constitutional justices. Having a social/political slant that influences your decisions kind of defies the point. They’re supposed to be above such considerations, at least when interpreting the Constitution.

  29. It’s what happens when we have a congress who for years have ignored or skirted the laws we / they have in place. Had they enforced the law, this would not be a topic….

  30. Maybe common sense and the law will prevail over political correctness and Trump Derangement Syndrome for once in the Judiciary.

  31. Let’s see how the Progressive/Communist undermine the ruling. Eric Holder probably has a game plan ready.

  32. Democraps have been abusing this for years

    If a state wants the illegals then they should come up with a way to pay for them….

    Citizens should only be counted and Fed funded for and properly represented!

    1. If the census can ask how many tv’s a home has, citizenship doesn’t seem like a stretch.

  33. How much trust should be placed in Roberts? I ain’t putting much, but there’s always hope.

  34. Confession here: I haven’t answered the census in three decades. I believe the gooberment has enough information on us. If they need anymore they can ask Facebook or Google.

  35. The Left is afraid the citizenship question will have a chilling effect on responses from….. who? NON-citizens who shouldn’t be used for vote apportionment anyways?! I hope they’re right!

  36. Well, since we know illegal aliens never lie, this will be a sure-fire way to catch them all. /s

    1. It’s not even about catching them. Democrats don’t even want the number of illegals counted!

  37. How is it not pertinent to ask a person’s citizenship status? If a person is not a legal citizen then they have no business meddling in our local and federal politics. Such meddling by such persons is, frankly, in my mind as bad as interference by any other foreign power or representatives of a foreign power. (And the Dems wanted to scream about “Russian Collusion”?!!) Flooding the US with non-citizens and giving them the power to influence our elections is treasonous to the max and the Dems are the party the most responsible for this. Several Republicans are too and they should be ashamed of themselves. Wanting cheap labor is one thing but aiding and abetting illegal entrance to our country in order to get it is not only shameful but shortsightedly treasonous as well. Are we really THAT cheap that we’d sell out our own country just to save a few pennies on vegetables that we can honestly grow ourselves.

      1. I understand that . What I’m questioning is why there was a question about asking the question at all. We do need to know exactly how many are illegal but the Dems are fighting it because they don’t want anyone to know how the illegal population is large enough now to pose a real existential threat to our sovereignty. It is all a part of their plan to get in power and stay there.

        1. @philliesthoughts There is a difference between US Citizens, legal residents, and illegal invaders. The question is to determine the legal voters. The Dems and radical left want all bodies counted for their agenda and game plan.

  38. Conservative U.S. Supreme Court justices … The court has a 5-4 conservative majority, and conservative justices signaled support toward the administration’s stance.

    And that is how you undermine SCOTUS. (“Liberal/Progressive” does the same thing.)

    Which is why it’s not really a Supreme Court anymore. It’s an oligarchy that controls the Constitution.

    1. …no, not really.

      I get you’re upset that the SCOTUS has been completely politicized and turned into the law-making battlefield that Congress is supposed to be, but the labels are accurate. There are conservative Justices and liberal Justices, there’s nothing wrong with calling them such.

      1. There should only be impartial Constitutional justices. Having a social/political slant that influences your decisions kind of defies the point. They’re supposed to be above such considerations, at least when interpreting the Constitution.

  39. It’s what happens when we have a congress who for years have ignored or skirted the laws we / they have in place. Had they enforced the law, this would not be a topic….

  40. Let’s see how the Progressive/Communist undermine the ruling. Eric Holder probably has a game plan ready.

Comments are closed.