Trump Poised to Remove Illegals from Census Calcuations

Let's take a break from today's Supreme Court decisions to talk about future Supreme Court decisions.

As you know, the Democrats insist on counting illegal aliens in their blue sanctuary states. This results in blue states and blue cities having more representation in Congress than a count of their legal US citizen-voters would dictate.

Some people estimate that this overcount of "citizens" results in Democrats having up to 27 representatives they're not entitled to.

Trump is ready to reverse this, says Ben Weingarten at Real Clear Investigations.

Following a years-long surge in illegal immigration, the Trump administration is poised to challenge a longstanding but legally fraught practice: counting illegal aliens in the U.S. census.
President Trump tried to end the practice during his first term, but President Biden overturned his predecessor's policy before it was implemented. Now, buoyed by red state attorneys general and Republican legislators, the second Trump administration is determined "to clean up the census and make sure that illegal aliens are not counted," White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy Stephen Miller said last month.
What Miller didn't mention are the political implications of the administration's move. It could have significant political implications because the census count is used to apportion House seats, determine the number of votes each state gets in the Electoral College for selecting the president, and drive the flow of trillions of dollars in government funds.
Some immigration researchers project that including noncitizens in the census count disproportionately benefits Democratic states with large illegal alien populations. A recent study counters that, based on 2020 census figures, there would have been a negligible shift to the political map had the U.S. government excluded noncitizens from that count. But looking backward, those researchers found, red states would have benefited under the administration's desired census counting shift. Had authorities excluded such migrants from the 2010 census, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Ohio and North Carolina all would have gained one seat in the House, while California would have lost three seats, and Texas and Florida would have each lost one seat -- with the total number of Electoral College votes allotted each state changing accordingly.
...
Trump's first term hints at what is to come if his administration vigorously pursues a citizen-centric census policy. In July 2020, when the president issued a memorandum to exclude illegal migrants from the census, blue states and immigration groups challenged it in court almost immediately.
Those challenges rose all the way to the Supreme Court. But it did not rule on the merits -- whether all residents must be counted and if the president has the authority to exclude nonresidents -- setting the stage for a battle over immigration and presidential power.
The census issue hinges on the Constitution's language, which calls for apportioning House seats among the states "according to their respective Numbers." Those "Numbers" originally included "free Persons" and "three-fifths of all other Persons" -- namely slaves, a result of the states' compromise. The framers excluded "Indians not taxed" -- Native Americans who were members of sovereign tribal nations, not citizens -- from the count.
After the Civil War, Congress passed the 14th Amendment to recognize the rights of the formerly enslaved. It states that congressional representation "shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State," again excluding Indians not taxed. Under the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, this population would be granted citizenship.
...
Echoing arguments against birthright citizenship, critics on the right say that the 14th Amendment aimed to address the status of former slaves, not masses of illegal migrants. They assert that including this population in the census artificially skews political power, effectively disenfranchises citizens, and incentivizes states to adopt sanctuary policies protecting people here illegally.
"...[R]espect for the law and protection of the integrity of the democratic process warrant the exclusion of illegal aliens from the apportionment base, to the extent feasible and to the maximum extent of the President's discretion under the law," President Trump wrote in the 2020 memorandum.

I think the Supreme Court will, unfortunately, rule against Trump. Conservatives like Thomas and Alito are textualists, meaning they rule on, get this, what the law actually says and not what liberal justices wish it said. And in this case, the law speaks of counting "Persons," not "Citizens."

But give it a try.

And we really need to get the amendment process moving on both counting illegals as citizens and on birthright citizenship.

Weingarten has another recent article worth reading -- how Democrats are judge-shopping in their lawfare against Trump.

Most federal courts have a mix of judges appointed by Democrats and Republicans. The plaintiff's goal in forum shopping is to launch their suit in a district where they are more likely to draw a sympathetic justice -- ideally, this district would also include an appellate court stacked with like-minded judges.
To see whether Trump's adversaries are engaging in forum shopping, RealClearInvestigations analyzed 350 cases brought against the administration. We found that plaintiffs have brought 80% of those cases before just 11 of the nation's 91 district courts. While Democrat presidents have appointed roughly 60% of all active district court judges, each of the 11 district courts where the anti-Trump challenges have been clustered boasts an even higher percentage of Democrat appointees. In several of these venues, the administration's challengers are almost guaranteed that a judge picked by Joe Biden, Barack Obama, or Bill Clinton will preside over their case.
The analysis of these 350 cases, which covers all those identified in popular litigation trackers and RCI's independent research as of this week, lends credence to claims that anti-Trump litigants may be strategically filing suit in courts where they are most likely to receive a favorable ruling -- a practice that has been both pursued and decried by Democrats and Republicans.
RCI also analyzed three dozen cases in which judges imposed the most extreme restraint on the Trump administration by entering a nationwide or universal injunction -- prohibiting the administration from enforcing its policy not only against the party bringing the case, but anyone, everywhere. The analysis shows that these injunctions have disproportionately emerged from Democrat-leaning courts where plaintiffs have brought the lion's share of suits, and that Democrat-appointed judges are overwhelmingly responsible for ordering them.

Posted by: Ace at 04:10 PM

Comments

(Jump to bottom of comments)

1 sdebt46th7 7

Posted by: Blonde Morticia at June 27, 2025 04:12 PM (HuRzZ)

2 close!

Posted by: DanMan at June 27, 2025 04:13 PM (8uzBS)

3 Yes! Do that.

Posted by: Case at June 27, 2025 04:14 PM (ilX37)

4 I think the Supreme Court will, unfortunately, rule against Trump. Conservatives like Thomas and Alito are textualists, meaning they rule on, get this, what the law actually says and not what liberal justices wish it said. And in this case, the law speaks of counting "Persons," not "Citizens."

========

I think it's worth noting that Trump's original effort was working its way up the court challenge process, and it was losing pretty consistently.

It got dropped in the courts because Biden reversed it.

Just an added wrinkle.

Posted by: TheJamesMadison, reflecting on change and permanence with Ozu at June 27, 2025 04:14 PM (GBKbO)

5 Democrat-appointed judges are overwhelmingly responsible for ordering festive little hats.

Posted by: Commissar of plenty and festive little hats at June 27, 2025 04:14 PM (4UFEr)

6 @1/Blonde Morticia (or possibly her cat walking on her keyboard): "sdebt46th7 7"

You don't say.

Posted by: Grumpy and Recalcitrant at June 27, 2025 04:17 PM (O7YUW)

7 I suppose it's worth asking if foreign visitors were counted in censuses in the early 19th century. Who was excluded in those counts?

Posted by: TheJamesMadison, reflecting on change and permanence with Ozu at June 27, 2025 04:18 PM (GBKbO)

8 I thinks Presdent obama shoolds dew somthing about Trump nit letting persins of coller be counted for the census.

Posted by: Mary Cloginsein from Brattlebor, Vt at June 27, 2025 04:18 PM (q/j2W)

9
Why the pessimism about the birthright citizenship case? Just all-purpose pessimism -- which I'm okay with -- or a solid argument upholding it?

Posted by: Blonde Morticia at June 27, 2025 04:18 PM (HuRzZ)

10 The vast majority of illegal aliens are not taxed, either. Just to be clear.

Posted by: Thomas Paine at June 27, 2025 04:19 PM (Vfq+S)

11 I wouldn't be suprised if the SC does rule against him but this is one of the hidden reasons for getting illegals out of the country. It's not just because they are obviously breaking the law by being here, taking resources from citizens and breaking other laws once they get here, it's because their very presence gives Democrats an electoral advantage they don't deserve.

It's also why Democrats fight so hard to keep them here. Deport everyone that is here illegally. No exceptions. Go home.

Posted by: JackStraw at June 27, 2025 04:20 PM (viF8m)

12 DJT will now cram all of this right up their squeakhole.

Posted by: Mr Aspirin Factory, red heifer owner at June 27, 2025 04:20 PM (dR6yv)

13 Cruz is also of the opinion that it would take a constitutional amendment.

Posted by: polynikes at June 27, 2025 04:21 PM (VofaG)

14
You don't say.
Posted by: Grumpy and Recalcitrant

============

I got letters AND numbers from both sides of the keyboard today, plus a space. The judges say this is an extraordinary routine and it sets a standard.

Posted by: Blonde Morticia at June 27, 2025 04:21 PM (HuRzZ)

15 I am not tired of winning.

Posted by: nurse ratched at June 27, 2025 04:21 PM (1avBY)

16 Let's take a break from today's Supreme Court decisions to talk about future Supreme Court decisions.
===

I truly laughed out loud. Good thing I didn't have a sip of beer in my mouth.

Posted by: Jukin the Deplorable a Clear and Present Danger at June 27, 2025 04:21 PM (17s+e)

17 It kind of amazes me that so many people in this country benefit so much by breaking the laws.

Posted by: Thomas Paine at June 27, 2025 04:21 PM (Vfq+S)

18 Can I have a festive little hat, please?

Posted by: nurse ratched at June 27, 2025 04:22 PM (1avBY)

19 Let's take a break from today's Supreme Court decisions to talk about future Supreme Court decisions.

=======

I looked through the list of cases due in the October term, including their descriptions.

My eyes crossed multiple times and I couldn't even begin to tell you which were going to be important and which were going to be stupid little procedural questions no one ever talks about.

Posted by: TheJamesMadison, reflecting on change and permanence with Ozu at June 27, 2025 04:22 PM (GBKbO)

20 By the "persons" standard, then the census is obligated to count people staying in hotels, passing through airports, visiting Disney World, etc. Many people will get counted multiple times, since the Census Bureau makes zero effort to check census forms against each other (to preven multiple instances of counting the same person).

It's completely unworkable, and without any governing standard other than "hey, they were right there when I asked".

Posted by: Huck Follywood at June 27, 2025 04:22 PM (9iGvM)

21
I propose a remedy to the census debate. I call it the "0/5 Compromise."

Posted by: Semi-Literate Thug at June 27, 2025 04:22 PM (PquBa)

22 $20 like in town?

12 DJT will now cram all of this right up their squeakhole.
Posted by: Mr Aspirin Factory, red heifer owner at June 27, 2025 04:20 PM (dR6yv

Posted by: Hokey Pokey at June 27, 2025 04:22 PM (QSrLX)

23 didn't we hear sometime in 2022 or 2023 that it was acknowledged the numbers for apportioning representatives was flawed because of miscounts? and the response "oh well, we'll clean it up in the next census"?

Posted by: DanMan at June 27, 2025 04:22 PM (8uzBS)

24 Birthright citizenship is actually a flawed interpretation from a flawed case. It doesn't hold up, and was a SCOTUS error, which should be fixed. On the other issue, I see the point, unless you can show that there had been a specific effort to count only citizens in the past. It sounds as if this smoking gun does not exist or there would have been more success in the first go round.

Posted by: Black JEM at June 27, 2025 04:23 PM (GZYu7)

25 Nooded.

Posted by: NemoMeImpuneLacessit at June 27, 2025 04:23 PM (NWqJf)

26 "I think the Supreme Court will, unfortunately, rule against Trump. Conservatives like Thomas and Alito are textualists, meaning they rule on, get this, what the law actually says and not what liberal justices wish it said. And in this case, the law speaks of counting "Persons," not "Citizens." But give it a try."

Ace, I agree. But it's not unreasonable to think that "Persons" had a specific meaning -- freed American slaves -- and not any old random scumbag who wandered illegally into the country.

Sadly, it's another law -- like the birthright citizen "law" -- written at a time when nobody could have conceived that, a 150 years later, drooling armies of illegals would be allowed to flood the country.

I would bet any amount of money if you asked the dudes who wrote and enacted these laws whether they applied to illegals, the answer would be in two parts: (1) "you fucking idiots allowed drooling armies of illegals to flood the country?" and (2) "FUCK NO!"

Posted by: Elric The (One and Only) Blade at June 27, 2025 04:23 PM (iFTx/)

27 I got letters AND numbers from both sides of the keyboard today, plus a space. The judges say this is an extraordinary routine and it sets a standard.
Posted by: Blonde Morticia at June 27, 2025 04:21 PM (HuRzZ)
----
Now look who's judge shopping...

Posted by: "Perfessor" Squirrel at June 27, 2025 04:23 PM (7fElN)

28 >>>Trump is ready to reverse this

Yes, leftists, we voted for this.

Posted by: Comrade Flounder, Disinformation Demon at June 27, 2025 04:23 PM (i24o9)

29 @7

>>I suppose it's worth asking if foreign visitors were counted in censuses in the early 19th century. Who was excluded in those counts?

Let's be real, most of what goes into the census is from existing data, estimates and extrapolations.

I have never in my life been interviewed by a census taker.

Posted by: Thomas Bender at June 27, 2025 04:24 PM (XV/Pl)

30 Ths idiots in my little part of the city are all in on a “Take Back the Flag” ralley tomorrow.

I wonder what flag they are talking about.

Posted by: nurse ratched at June 27, 2025 04:24 PM (1avBY)

31 "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." gives a certain degree of latitude to Congress and the Executive in determining how the federal government engages in "counting the whole number of persons in each State".

Posted by: My Ridiculously Circuitous Plan at June 27, 2025 04:24 PM (AxcO7)

32 Article III makes copious references to "citizens". Does that mean that the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over illegal aliens?

Posted by: LazyGepid at June 27, 2025 04:25 PM (oiYMF)

33
I'm just as ticked about illegal aliens getting citizenship for their kids as I am these birth tourists. I knew a "Palestinian" woman overseas who was heavily pregnant, probably would rather not have traveled at all, who was on her way to America to give birth. She didn't even have a doctor lined up in America. Not an ideal way for a woman to have a baby to begin with, but she was gonna get that kid the papers by Allah. I wonder if the whole family is in America by now, bitching about America and enjoying their bennies.

Posted by: Blonde Morticia at June 27, 2025 04:25 PM (HuRzZ)

34 STOP ALL THE #WINNING -- I WANNA GET OFF!

Posted by: ShainS -- Stop All The #Winning -- I Wanna Get Off! [/u at June 27, 2025 04:25 PM (exeT2)

35 The Democrats are pretty keen on the "5/3 compromise" where each illegal alien in their district counts for 5/3 of a normal American citizen.

Posted by: "Perfessor" Squirrel at June 27, 2025 04:25 PM (7fElN)

36 Doesn't Trump have an easier way of clawing back representation from blue states just by declaring the last census was fucked up in favor of blue states -- which even the census itself admits -- and doing it again?

Posted by: Elric The (One and Only) Blade at June 27, 2025 04:25 PM (iFTx/)

37 >>I have never in my life been interviewed by a census taker.

Normally you just get the forms. It's pretty rare to have a Census Worker check on them in my experience.

Posted by: garrett at June 27, 2025 04:25 PM (ASFuz)

38 The once every ten year census for apportionment is a minimum, not a max.

Posted by: toby928 at June 27, 2025 04:25 PM (jc0TO)

39 More good news on Friday: DOJ forced UVA President to resign over playing tricks to keep DEI rampant at UVA.

Posted by: Mad Max in VA at June 27, 2025 04:25 PM (8iNlE)

40 One way to game the census is to persuade vast numbers of right-wingers to visit Texas or Florida during census counting. If everyone present at the time counts, then I say schedule a big party at the time, draw in attendees from all over the country, and have everyone fill out census forms. Get Elon to buy everyone their first drink.

Posted by: Huck Follywood at June 27, 2025 04:25 PM (9iGvM)

41 Make it so, Daddy!

Posted by: Peaches at June 27, 2025 04:25 PM (14URa)

42 Census takers are good with fava beans.

And a nice chianti.

Posted by: TheJamesMadison, reflecting on change and permanence with Ozu at June 27, 2025 04:26 PM (GBKbO)

43 I have twelve different personalities. Does that mean twelve people live in the state I reside in?

This is a fucking joke.

Posted by: Jukin the Deplorable a Clear and Present Danger at June 27, 2025 04:26 PM (17s+e)

44 Trump Poised to Remove Illegals from Census Calcuations

"Trump Poised To Launch A Thousand Aneurysms"

Keep stabbing at the heart, Donald!

Posted by: t-bird at June 27, 2025 04:26 PM (Vngri)

45 You know the Census Clause doesn't limit the census to only once every 10 years?

It only says, at least once every 10 years.

The first census was 3 years after the Constitution was adopted.

Imagine the shitstorm if Trump calls a census next year, not to exclude illegals--but to force an accurate count of how many illegals there are?

Posted by: People's Hippo Voice at June 27, 2025 04:27 PM (GnVQ5)

46 It kind of amazes me that so many people in this country benefit so much by breaking the laws.
Posted by: Thomas Paine at June 27, 2025 04:21 PM

If crime didn't pay, people wouldn't do it.

Posted by: toby928 at June 27, 2025 04:27 PM (jc0TO)

47 I think the Supreme Court will, unfortunately, rule against Trump. Conservatives like Thomas and Alito are textualists, meaning they rule on, get this, what the law actually says and not what liberal justices wish it said. And in this case, the law speaks of counting "Persons," not "Citizens."

Yeah BUT... there are persons specifically excluded in the constitution for different things (slaves, native tribes), which strongly suggests that they didn't mean "just whoever is living in the borders"

That plus a careful examination of the horribly-written 14th amendment would lead me to rule against non-citizen, non-voter representation in the census.

Posted by: Christopher R Taylor at June 27, 2025 04:27 PM (dfIr7)

48 >>I have never in my life been interviewed by a census taker.

I was. Once. Rum and baked beans are a better combo than fava beans and cianti.

Posted by: JackStraw at June 27, 2025 04:28 PM (viF8m)

49 IIRC under both Obama and *biden there was some serious hanky-panky going on with the Census. Both got a stab at dicking with the numbers...

And I think there was an effort to utilize the Census takers as a Democrat GOTV system.

Posted by: Martini Farmer at June 27, 2025 04:28 PM (Q4IgG)

50 Some people estimate that this overcount of "citizens" results in Democrats having up to 27 representatives they're not entitled to.

Take heart, Lefties, elections still aren't legitimate and certifiable. That number will eventually climb.

Posted by: t-bird at June 27, 2025 04:28 PM (Vngri)

51 Well I guess that's the biggest reason the leftists are up in arms about deportations. If as you say that it will likely lose in court the only other recourse is to deport deport deport.

Posted by: Farquad at June 27, 2025 04:28 PM (YkGND)

52 45 You know the Census Clause doesn't limit the census to only once every 10 years?

It only says, at least once every 10 years.

The first census was 3 years after the Constitution was adopted.

Imagine the shitstorm if Trump calls a census next year, not to exclude illegals--but to force an accurate count of how many illegals there are?
Posted by: People's Hippo Voice at June 27, 2025 04:27 PM (GnVQ5)

=======

Not as much of a shitstorm as Trump ordering reapprotionment right now based on the Census' corrected 2020 numbers.

6 seats shifted, mostly from blue states to red states.

Expand the GOP majority by 12 seats in one move.

Posted by: TheJamesMadison, reflecting on change and permanence with Ozu at June 27, 2025 04:28 PM (GBKbO)

53 One way to game the census is to persuade vast numbers of right-wingers to visit Texas or Florida during census counting. If everyone present at the time counts, then I say schedule a big party at the time, draw in attendees from all over the country, and have everyone fill out census forms. Get Elon to buy everyone their first drink.
Posted by: Huck Follywood at June 27, 2025 04:25 PM

Just do what I did, say there are eight people at your house.

Posted by: toby928 at June 27, 2025 04:28 PM (jc0TO)

54 Can I have a festive little hat, please?
Posted by: nurse ratched
......

Did you bring a present for my grand daughter?

Posted by: wth at June 27, 2025 04:28 PM (v0R5T)

55 So if someone sneaks across the border and plants their ass in this country the census counter has to count them? When they are not supposed to be here? That makes no sense at all. ICE should be there to chunk the illegal out before the census taker can say "one".

Posted by: Case at June 27, 2025 04:28 PM (ilX37)

56 Just text? No pictures.

bummer.

Posted by: Ketanji Laquisha Jumanji Brown at June 27, 2025 04:29 PM (m5cDg)

57 Palestinian" woman overseas who was heavily pregnant, probably would rather not have traveled at all, who was on her way to America to give birth.

Biological weapon.

Posted by: Commissar of plenty and festive little hats at June 27, 2025 04:29 PM (2qbYS)

58 Article III makes copious references to "citizens". Does that mean that the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over illegal aliens?

Posted by: LazyGepid at June 27, 2025 04:25 PM (oiYMF)
**********

Article III does mention "citizens or subjects of any foreign state", as amended by XI, and already contained "foreign states, Citizens or subjects" before being amended.

Posted by: My Ridiculously Circuitous Plan at June 27, 2025 04:29 PM (AxcO7)

59 Hopefully Trump is sh*t canning all of those census bureau pukes now. Didn't they "make mistakes" costing red states 5 - 7 electoral votes after the last census? Doesn't much matter.if the dame people are counting next time around.

Posted by: Seagrams and sprite at June 27, 2025 04:30 PM (oaPfe)

60
Hubby and I are being hassled by the census people.

Some woman showed up here 3 months ago and informed us our address was "chosen" for some shit they dreamed up which involves them coming here every month for a day for six months.

They say the survey is one of the many things they do in the 9 years they aren't actually doing the census.

We are having the best time avoiding the people, lol. They call, text and show up here.

We never gave them our phone numbers, but we figured they are the government already has them.

Posted by: four seasons at June 27, 2025 04:30 PM (3ek7K)

61 A recent study counters that, based on 2020 census figures, there would have been a negligible shift to the political map had the U.S. government excluded noncitizens from that count.

---------------

Riiiiiiiiiiight ... because everybody knows that there have only been a total of 12 the little Alien Invaders who have come here since Reagan's amnesty -- with 8 of those welcomed in by F. Joe Mugabe and his AutoPen Empire.

Posted by: ShainS -- Stop All The #Winning -- I Wanna Get Off! [/u at June 27, 2025 04:30 PM (+dFEC)

62 48 >>I have never in my life been interviewed by a census taker.

I was. Once. Rum and baked beans are a better combo than fava beans and cianti.

Posted by: JackStraw at June 27, 2025 04:28 PM (viF8m)

The only time I've been interviewed was for the 2020 census.

Posted by: Farquad at June 27, 2025 04:30 PM (YkGND)

63 When they are not supposed to be here? That makes no sense at all.

Of course they count! We represent their interests, don't we?

Posted by: The Dems at June 27, 2025 04:30 PM (4I7kI)

64 Trump took their terrorist fund.

Trump is taking their brown slaves.

Now he's working on taking their misenfranchised Representatives.

Posted by: Comrade Flounder, Disinformation Demon at June 27, 2025 04:30 PM (i24o9)

65 Nurse, yes, you may have a festive little hat!

Posted by: Commissar of plenty and festive little hats at June 27, 2025 04:30 PM (2qbYS)

66 Can’t you hear the screaming when the wind’s in the right direction?

Posted by: Eromero at June 27, 2025 04:30 PM (jgmnb)

67
Normally you just get the forms. It's pretty rare to have a Census Worker check on them in my experience.
Posted by: garrett at June 27, 2025 04:25 PM (ASFuz)

Here in Canada, us too.

In our last census, I CREATED A NEW GENDER!

You ask stupid questions, get stupid answers.

President Trump is taking questions. "Biden didn't even know he was alive."

Posted by: Stateless BUT NOT HOMELESS MAYBE.. 51% - mental state clawing up from 10%, shit happened, clawing ba at June 27, 2025 04:30 PM (jvJvP)

68 *12 ILLEGAL Alien Invaders ... damn auto-cucumber!

Posted by: ShainS -- Stop All The #Winning -- I Wanna Get Off! [/u at June 27, 2025 04:31 PM (+dFEC)

69 Imagine the shitstorm if Trump calls a census next year, not to exclude illegals--but to force an accurate count of how many illegals there are?

Posted by: People's Hippo Voice at June 27, 2025 04:27 PM (GnVQ5)

That is Stephen Miller level brilliant!

Posted by: Peaches at June 27, 2025 04:31 PM (14URa)

70 I didn't read the post because I got willowed twice in a row.

So now that I feel better I'll go read it. Unlike KBJ.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at June 27, 2025 04:31 PM (rvwwT)

71 >>So if someone sneaks across the border and plants their ass in this country the census counter has to count them? When they are not supposed to be here? That makes no sense at all. ICE should be there to chunk the illegal out before the census taker can say "one".

As I've been saying this is one of the motivations behind Trump's deportation efforts and the left's resistance.

The dirty little secret is Democrats know this helps them enormously.

Posted by: JackStraw at June 27, 2025 04:31 PM (viF8m)

72
More good news on Friday: DOJ forced UVA President to resign over playing tricks to keep DEI rampant at UVA.
Posted by: Mad Max in VA

============

I hope this has a chilling effect on proponents of academic freedom everywhere, and cuts the legs out from our universities' mission to promote opportunity for all. I also hope it sends an ominous signal to those who are trying to protect the rights of diverse students throughout the nation.

Posted by: Blonde Morticia at June 27, 2025 04:32 PM (HuRzZ)

73 Sadly, it's another law -- like the birthright citizen "law" -- written at a time when nobody could have conceived that, a 150 years later, drooling armies of illegals would be allowed to flood the country.

I would bet any amount of money if you asked the dudes who wrote and enacted these laws whether they applied to illegals, the answer would be in two parts: (1) "you fucking idiots allowed drooling armies of illegals to flood the country?" and (2) "FUCK NO!"
Posted by: Elric The

Likewise, I think they always thought it would be a Christian country. Had they known muslims were immigrating and running for office they would have made that clear too.

Posted by: Ketanji Laquisha Jumanji Brown at June 27, 2025 04:32 PM (m5cDg)

74 "shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State,"

Depends on the definition of "in".

Posted by: New Name at June 27, 2025 04:32 PM (/lPRQ)

75 @38 The once every ten year census for apportionment is a minimum, not a max.
Posted by: toby928 at June 27, 2025 04:25 PM (jc0TO)
========================

If you mean to say the census could be taken more frequently I think that is wrong. The ten year separation from one census to the next is a stipulated event (ie, it is both the maximum and the minimum). One census, taken every ten years, as Congress shall direct. The 14th amendment required "persons" to be counted, to get around the idiots still arguing a former slave was not a citizen of a particular state. Courts have expanded the term "persons" to include illegal immigrants.

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.

Posted by: Huck Follywood at June 27, 2025 04:33 PM (Frm+l)

76 Would the founders have approved of counting the Hessians as part of the population?

Posted by: toby928 at June 27, 2025 04:33 PM (jc0TO)

77 75 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.
Posted by: Huck Follywood at June 27, 2025 04:33 PM (Frm+l)

======

"within" is the key word there.

Trump could order a new census today, and it would be constitutional because it's within the ten years. Ten years is a max.

Posted by: TheJamesMadison, reflecting on change and permanence with Ozu at June 27, 2025 04:34 PM (GBKbO)

78 I see the point, unless you can show that there had been a specific effort to count only citizens in the past. It sounds as if this smoking gun does not exist or there would have been more success in the first go round.
Posted by: Black JEM at June 27, 2025 04:23 PM (GZYu7)

Indians, not taxed... ie Non Citizens on US soil were not counted.

Remember, back then there was no Income Tax, taxes were Enumerated and the Fed Gov was funded via Tariffs and Excise Taxes (taxes on specific goods).

I postulated years ago that the Battle Cry of the Second American Revolution would be 'No Representation without Taxation'...

Posted by: Romeo13 at June 27, 2025 04:34 PM (mP0Kj)

79 The first census was 3 years after the Constitution was adopted.

Imagine the shitstorm if Trump calls a census next year, not to exclude illegals--but to force an accurate count of how many illegals there are?
Posted by: People's Hippo Voice at June 27, 2025 04:27 PM (GnVQ5)

Well, it is known that there are a large number of mistakes in the current census costing blue AND red states new districts.

You might be able to fix that error before 2030

Posted by: Oldcat at June 27, 2025 04:34 PM (8avO+)

80 Here in Canada, us too.
In our last census, I CREATED A NEW GENDER!
You ask stupid questions, get stupid answers.
Posted by: Stateless

HA!

I hope it's listed as one of the default choices on the next census form.

Posted by: mikeski at June 27, 2025 04:34 PM (DgGvY)

81 I hope this has a chilling effect on proponents of academic freedom everywhere, and cuts the legs out from our universities' mission to promote opportunity for all. I also hope it sends an ominous signal to those who are trying to protect the rights of diverse students throughout the nation.

Posted by: Blonde Morticia at June 27, 2025 04:32 PM (HuRzZ)
==
If only our universities were in fact doing that.

Posted by: Black JEM at June 27, 2025 04:35 PM (GZYu7)

82 I postulated years ago that the Battle Cry of the Second American Revolution would be 'No Representation without Taxation'...
Posted by: Romeo13

GMTA. I've used that phrase myself.

Posted by: mikeski at June 27, 2025 04:35 PM (DgGvY)

83
I was visited by a census taker once. The census form came in the mail, but it looked like an ad and I set it down somewhere and ignored it. I heard in the news that a bunch of people thought it was an ad and threw it away.

It's fascinating to look at images of those old census counts that were taken by human beings who went door to door. You can literally trace their steps up one side of a street and down the other. All hand-written, too.

Posted by: Blonde Morticia at June 27, 2025 04:35 PM (HuRzZ)

84 I think that Jumanji Brown's dissent, and it's overwrought attack on textualism is wrong.

I don't think the majority opinion was textualism as much as originalism:
They spent most of the decision reviewing what were the equitable powers of the courts at the time of the passing of the first Judiciary Act--did courts of equity have the power to issue such broad injunctions?

To me, that's the "original intent" of the law at the time it was passed.

Which, to here, would mean, "when the Constitution was passed, was it common to count noncitizens (or those ineligible to vote) in the census?"
Of course not.
So, the only expansions of the census count must have specific statutory enactment.

Meaning, if there was no law passed saying "count everyone" then we're limited to the count method at the time the Constitution was passed.

Posted by: People's Hippo Voice at June 27, 2025 04:35 PM (GnVQ5)

85 We are having the best time avoiding the people, lol. They call, text and show up here.

We never gave them our phone numbers, but we figured they are the government already has them.

Posted by: four seasons

----------
They get paid big federal bucks for every visit -- cut that shit short: Tell them you are already registered in another state and filled out all the forms. This is your vacation home and you are only there for a few weeks a year. Tell them it is a federal crime to fill out multiple forms for one person and if they come back you will call police.

Posted by: Ketanji Laquisha Jumanji Brown at June 27, 2025 04:35 PM (m5cDg)

86 Trump Poised to Remove Illegals from Census Calcuations
—Ace

Best. President. In. My. Lifetime.

Posted by: Darrell Harris at June 27, 2025 04:36 PM (cH5uA)

87 65 Nurse, yes, you may have a festive little hat!
Posted by: Commissar of plenty and festive little hats at June 27, 2025 04:30 PM (2qbYS)

I want a BIG Hat!

Posted by: Captain Barbosa at June 27, 2025 04:36 PM (mP0Kj)

88 We are having the best time avoiding the people, lol. They call, text and show up here.

We never gave them our phone numbers, but we figured they are the government already has them.

Posted by: four seasons
========
They will impute aka pencil whip your responses based on other sources including local government and state sources as best that they can.

Posted by: whig at June 27, 2025 04:36 PM (ctrM5)

89 >> 'No Representation without Taxation'...

For decades I have been asserting that Taxes and Representation should begin closest to your home and move out from there:

County>
State>
Federal

You pay in at the local level first and get to vote there. As your income expands and allows you to pay into the next level you gain the vote there as well.

Posted by: garrett at June 27, 2025 04:36 PM (ASFuz)

90 > I have never in my life been interviewed by a census taker.
--------
I did a high school intern thing with the Census Bureau back in 1980. Mostly stacking boxes of forms by zip code. I can see how the demographic data could be fudged to give an advantage, politically, to one party or the other.

And, in 2010 I had a Census taker show up at our place in WV. It's so far off the beaten path that my first instinct was that the law, or ATF or whatever had been called on us for shooting guns on the property.

Dude was very nervous around us hicks.

Posted by: Martini Farmer at June 27, 2025 04:37 PM (Q4IgG)

91 84 To me, that's the "original intent" of the law at the time it was passed.

Which, to here, would mean, "when the Constitution was passed, was it common to count noncitizens (or those ineligible to vote) in the census?"
Of course not.
So, the only expansions of the census count must have specific statutory enactment.

Meaning, if there was no law passed saying "count everyone" then we're limited to the count method at the time the Constitution was passed.
Posted by: People's Hippo Voice at June 27, 2025 04:35 PM (GnVQ5)

=======

ACB's first couple of paragraphs of the national injunctions decision is about what common law practice was...in England pre-Revolution and then how the early founders applied common law to American jurisprudence.

If they can continue that line of thinking to birthright citizenship or counting of the census, both are slam dunks.

Will they?

Posted by: TheJamesMadison, reflecting on change and permanence with Ozu at June 27, 2025 04:37 PM (GBKbO)

92 Could one argue that illegal immigrants are similar to "Indians not taxed"? Often they don't pay taxes, after all.

Posted by: PG at June 27, 2025 04:37 PM (afPT4)

93 As we know illegals don't use government services so not counting them in the census shouldn't effect any states.

Posted by: toby928 at June 27, 2025 04:38 PM (jc0TO)

94 We spend billions on the census. It is another federal program that indoctrinates a certain class of worker for future electioneering work.

That needs to be fixed, but you hear no cries for making that online like they want for the vote.

Posted by: bob (moron incognitus) at June 27, 2025 04:38 PM (m5cDg)

95 Heyyyy~, DC~!!!

@rpyers 7m
JUST IN: San Francisco-area State Senator Scott Wiener files FEC paperwork to run for the #CA11 seat currently represented by Nancy Pelosi.

Posted by: weft cut-loop at June 27, 2025 04:38 PM (mlg/3)

96 Will the census takers be taking counts at Trumpcataz in CA and Alligator Alcatraz in FL? How about shelters and hotels that house illegals? Other detention centers?

Posted by: Cheri at June 27, 2025 04:38 PM (oiNtH)

97 This stuff is happening so regularly it almost goes without notice.

Rawanda and Congo have been fighting for 30 years.

>>@RapidResponse47
·
>>1m
Rwandan Foreign Minister Olivier Nduhungirehe tells
@POTUS "there has been many mediations, facilitation in the past but none of them succeeded and we believe it's because of your leadership and steadfast commitment to this process" that Rwanda and the DRC signed a historic peace agreement.

Posted by: JackStraw at June 27, 2025 04:38 PM (viF8m)

98 95 Heyyyy~, DC~!!!

@rpyers 7m
JUST IN: San Francisco-area State Senator Scott Wiener files FEC paperwork to run for the #CA11 seat currently represented by Nancy Pelosi.
Posted by: weft cut-loop at June 27, 2025 04:38 PM (mlg/3)

========

So, he's gonna end up in prison for something?

Posted by: TheJamesMadison, reflecting on change and permanence with Ozu at June 27, 2025 04:38 PM (GBKbO)

99
Trump could order a new census today, and it would be constitutional because it's within the ten years.

Posted by: TheJamesMadison

===============

And no nationwide injunctions to stop him. (sob)

Posted by: Blonde Morticia at June 27, 2025 04:38 PM (HuRzZ)

100 I was visited by a census taker once. The census form came in the mail, but it looked like an ad and I set it down somewhere and ignored it. I heard in the news that a bunch of people thought it was an ad and threw it away.

It's fascinating to look at images of those old census counts that were taken by human beings who went door to door. You can literally trace their steps up one side of a street and down the other. All hand-written, too.
Posted by: Blonde Morticia at June 27, 2025 04:35 PM (HuRzZ)

My mom when she worked at a library saw a lot of takers when they hung out there to avoid actually going down certain streets to count anyone.

Posted by: Oldcat at June 27, 2025 04:39 PM (8avO+)

101 Trump could order a new census today, and it would be constitutional because it's within the ten years. Ten years is a max.
Posted by: TheJamesMadison, reflecting on change and permanence with Ozu at June 27, 2025 04:34 PM (GBKbO)

as by Law directs... is there a law about the Census?

As there is a Census Department... there has to be.

Posted by: Romeo13 at June 27, 2025 04:39 PM (mP0Kj)

102 The part I never understood is that there are things called residences - homes, apts, etc. Every one of these dwellings has been approved by zoning. And yet they will count people in post office boxes, warehouses, vacant lots, and it so easy to check that these would be fake counts but the census for some reason can't figure it out.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at June 27, 2025 04:40 PM (rvwwT)

103 I think the Supreme Court will, unfortunately, rule against Trump. Conservatives like Thomas and Alito are textualists, meaning they rule on, get this, what the law actually says and not what liberal justices wish it said. And in this case, the law speaks of counting "Persons," not "Citizens."
---
Even with an abundance of victories, Ace's pessimism remains as strong as ever!

I just want to claim some vindication because this is exactly how I expected it to play out, and I said so earlier this week. By letting the cases expand and multiple, by refusing to defy them but doggedly citing all of their problems, Trump's people made this a slam dunk and Comey's option is one of the most savage I've ever read.

Ace is worried about states suing, but Comey did a good job of explaining how even if a state sues, it has to explain why other states need a remedy, and in any event, every involved state can't file its own lawsuit, seeking a national injunction. The door to that is now closed.

Posted by: Ace-Endorsed Author A.H. Lloyd at June 27, 2025 04:40 PM (ZOv7s)

104 I've avoided answering the census the last two cycles. Living in a deep blue area I don't want to give the dems any more headcount.

Posted by: Maj. Healey at June 27, 2025 04:40 PM (/U5Yz)

105 Census takers are the real heroes. And those people that drop off the phone book.

Posted by: toby928 at June 27, 2025 04:40 PM (jc0TO)

106 And in this case, the law speaks of counting "Persons," not "Citizens."
____________________________

Interesting. Well, since Florida receives a massive amount of foreign tourists in comparison to every other state. Does that mean we can label them as "persons" temporarily residing in Florida? Because failure to do so means that the nitty gritty of the allowance is now based on "residency." As far as I'm aware, there is no defined "residency" term. This is especially important because in order to rent a residence in every state you require an SS#. If you do not have one an ITN# is acceptable.

The problem is that most illegal immigrants (regardless of what the media says) don't have an ITN# because they are paid under the table. So, technically, they are not legally renting the residence and have the same qualifications as a tourist who visits the State of Florida for a week or two.

Posted by: Orson at June 27, 2025 04:40 PM (dIske)

107 JUST IN: San Francisco-area State Senator Scott Wiener files FEC paperwork to run for the #CA11 seat currently represented by Nancy Pelosi.

Posted by: weft cut-loop at June 27, 2025 04:38 PM (mlg/3)

He's mega scary, this one. Behind literally ever horrifying idea circulating in CA. So, I guess he's a shoo-in. Gawd.

Posted by: Peaches at June 27, 2025 04:40 PM (14URa)

108
The thing is it's some survey and has nothing to do with counting people. They want to know all about your lives. Apparently it is to help them get statistics on housing, etc.

You can opt out of the monthly visits by paying them $100. We're in our 70's and don't have much to do, lol, so we are having a good time avoiding them.

Posted by: four seasons at June 27, 2025 04:40 PM (3ek7K)

109 Daily Mail:

Lauren Sanchez stuns in demure Dolce & Gabbana gown alongside Jeff Bezos at her Venice wedding

https://tinyurl.com/yf9b2ucx

Posted by: redridinghood at June 27, 2025 04:41 PM (NpAcC)

110 95 Heyyyy~, DC~!!!

@rpyers 7m
JUST IN: San Francisco-area State Senator Scott Wiener files FEC paperwork to run for the #CA11 seat currently represented by Nancy Pelosi.
Posted by: weft cut-loop at June 27, 2025 04:38 PM (mlg/3)

Because our Quota of Weiners in the Government has been depleted over the last few years..

Posted by: Romeo13 at June 27, 2025 04:41 PM (mP0Kj)

111 Yeah BUT... there are persons specifically excluded in the constitution for different things (slaves, native tribes), which strongly suggests that they didn't mean "just whoever is living in the borders"

That plus a careful examination of the horribly-written 14th amendment would lead me to rule against non-citizen, non-voter representation in the census.
Posted by: Christopher R Taylor at June 27, 2025 04:27 PM (dfIr7)

I think a Congressional resolution on the matter might be helpful.

Posted by: mrp at June 27, 2025 04:41 PM (rj6Yv)

112 I'm pretty sure our country is legally required to collapse into the next Somalia.

Posted by: Tinfoil Dispenser at June 27, 2025 04:41 PM (ERYKL)

113
@rpyers 7m
JUST IN: San Francisco-area State Senator Scott Wiener files FEC paperwork to run for the #CA11 seat currently represented by Nancy Pelosi.
Posted by: weft cut-loop at June 27, 2025 04:38 PM (mlg/3)

========

So, he's gonna end up in prison for something?
Posted by: TheJamesMadison

----------------

Whadda joke. I really don't get why people do this. Remember that annoying Saikat Chakrabarti, he of the Justice Democrats who foisted AOC upon the nation? He's also running for that seat.

Posted by: Blonde Morticia at June 27, 2025 04:41 PM (HuRzZ)

114 Let's take a break from today's Supreme Court decisions to talk about future Supreme Court decisions.

Funny, and painfully true.

Posted by: bear with asymmetrical balls at June 27, 2025 04:42 PM (4/BuS)

115 The census should ONLY count actual, legal U.S. citizens. Not illegal aliens, not even foreign nationals who are perfectly fine and abiding by our laws and the terms of their visas. U.S. citizens only.

That this needs to be spelled out is sad to say the least.

Posted by: Cow Demon at June 27, 2025 04:42 PM (vm8sq)

116 I don't think the majority opinion was textualism as much as originalism:
They spent most of the decision reviewing what were the equitable powers of the courts at the time of the passing of the first Judiciary Act--did courts of equity have the power to issue such broad injunctions?

To me, that's the "original intent" of the law at the time it was passed.
Posted by: People's Hippo Voice
======
The difference between textualism and originalism is that a textualist like Scalia was interested in what was the common definition and understanding of the term in question at the time it was written. Scalia's opinion in Heller is a classic example: Scalia noted correctly that every time a right mentioned the 'people' then it was an individual right so " the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" meant an individual right rather than the leftist collectivist (state militia) right to bear arms.

Gorsuch is a textualist, Thomas less so tending toward original intent aka the whole of the document (see his opinion on no knock warrants) and Roberts is a political judge aka Obamacare case. Kavanaugh and ACB are more cyphers.

Posted by: whig at June 27, 2025 04:42 PM (ctrM5)

117 No way in hell roberts is going to agree to removing 27 dem congressmen.

Posted by: Aetius451AD work phone at June 27, 2025 04:42 PM (zZu0s)

118 I am proud to say I never responded to the last census. Screw New Jersey, it should have fewer Congresscritters.

Posted by: Huck Follywood at June 27, 2025 04:43 PM (U408m)

119 One way to game the census is to persuade vast numbers of right-wingers to visit Texas or Florida during census counting. If everyone present at the time counts, then I say schedule a big party at the time, draw in attendees from all over the country, and have everyone fill out census forms. Get Elon to buy everyone their first drink.
---
LOL, the "free state project" by the libertarians to flip VT, enters the chat.

Posted by: People's Hippo Voice at June 27, 2025 04:43 PM (GnVQ5)

120 1n the late '70s I got a temporary job working for the Census Bureau in their payroll department. I was fresh out of HS. The census takers and the people processing the forms were quite the group. I don't want to paint a broad brush and call them ignorant but they were pretty f'ing stupid.

Posted by: Cheri at June 27, 2025 04:43 PM (oiNtH)

121 Let's take a break from today's Supreme Court decisions to talk about future Supreme Court decisions.

This is the kind of innovative, bold approach we have come to love about the HQ

Posted by: Christopher R Taylor at June 27, 2025 04:43 PM (dfIr7)

122 Whadda joke. I really don't get why people do this. Remember that annoying Saikat Chakrabarti, he of the Justice Democrats who foisted AOC upon the nation? He's also running for that seat.
Posted by: Blonde Morticia at June 27, 2025 04:41 PM (HuRzZ)

Gets them exposure, or they get bought off. with more than one, the possibility of torpedoing a real challenger to dilute the ballot with lots of names is a possibility.

Posted by: Oldcat at June 27, 2025 04:43 PM (8avO+)

123 If they can continue that line of thinking to birthright citizenship or counting of the census, both are slam dunks.

Will they?
Posted by: TheJamesMadison, reflecting on change and permanence with Ozu at June 27, 2025 04:37 PM (GBKbO)
---
Yes, she spends a great deal of time dealing with the history of injunctions and their scope and highlights when they began to be broadened, even going so far as to note that even during the New Deal, no one attempted a national injunctiion via a district court.

This was a solid ruling and worth the wait. People had no business trashing her until they saw the end game.

Posted by: Ace-Endorsed Author A.H. Lloyd at June 27, 2025 04:44 PM (ZOv7s)

124 Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco in 1873 to Chinese parents, who while not U.S. citizens were legally resident in the country. A case could be made that children born to illegally resident parents do not receive birthright citizenship. That would still let some “slip in”, but would exclude the vast numbers of illegals trying to have an “anchor baby” to stay in the country. As to those who try to fly in late in their pregnancy, deny them visas. It’s our country, if we decide it’s not in our best interest to let pregnant non-citizens come here, that’s our right. And keep visa stays well under nine months!

Posted by: NemoMeImpuneLacessit at June 27, 2025 04:45 PM (EnO9j)

125 It's also why Democrats fight so hard to keep them here. Deport everyone that is here illegally. No exceptions. Go home.
Posted by: JackStraw at June 27, 2025 04:20 PM (viF8m)

This.

If you cannot be bothered to enter the country at a PoE where you present your passport to a CBP official, don't come here.

Posted by: Cow Demon at June 27, 2025 04:45 PM (vm8sq)

126 ICE should take the next census - the lefty head explosion would be heard 'round the world...

Posted by: Boswell at June 27, 2025 04:45 PM (BGfwC)

127 Daily Mail:

Lauren Sanchez stuns in demure Dolce & Gabbana gown alongside Jeff Bezos at her Venice wedding

https://tinyurl.com/yf9b2ucx
Posted by: redridinghood at June 27, 2025 04:41 PM (NpAcC)

Kind of a cross between a scuba suit and a wedding dress.

Eh, for her that about as demure and virginal as it gets.

Rich peoples' problems...they never get old do they?

Posted by: naturalfake at June 27, 2025 04:45 PM (iJfKG)

128 109 Daily Mail:

Lauren Sanchez stuns in demure Dolce & Gabbana gown alongside Jeff Bezos at her Venice wedding

https://tinyurl.com/yf9b2ucx
Posted by: redridinghood at June 27, 2025 04:41 PM (NpAcC)

I'll never understand these ultrarich guys' predilection for Denny's parking lot 4s.

Posted by: bear with asymmetrical balls at June 27, 2025 04:45 PM (4/BuS)

129 The cbc has Trump taking questions.

He's the best!

Posted by: Stateless BUT NOT HOMELESS MAYBE.. 51% - mental state clawing up from 10%, shit happened, clawing ba at June 27, 2025 04:45 PM (jvJvP)

130 "Birthright citizenship" case should be a slam dunk. Not aware there's actually anything at all to debate.

"Persons" vs. "citizens" probably a lost cause, as ace says. A pure case where the language of the constitution is wholly inadequate to governance now - because of course back then it was not even a concept that large numbers of non-citizens would live here. Or, well, anywhere they weren't citizens.

Apart from some mixing around in empires like the Roman and Ottoman, people historically not move around a whole lot (i.e. leave one political entity/state and take up residence in another) prior to the modern era. For lots of reasons.

Posted by: rhomboid at June 27, 2025 04:45 PM (1m82a)

131 Original intent is broader than simply reading the text as to the time, situation, and the writings outside of the Constitution itself by the Founders.

Regarding statutory interpretation, textualism normally rules the day for the Right. But, as even Scalia recognizes in his book, A Matter of Statutory Intepretation, that interpreting the Constitution and its Amendments often requires going beyond the text though because of the paucity of its language. Due process, for example, is a term packed with historical usage that does not lend itself to textualism for its sole determination.

Posted by: whig at June 27, 2025 04:46 PM (ctrM5)

132 It's fascinating to look at images of those old census counts that were taken by human beings who went door to door. You can literally trace their steps up one side of a street and down the other. All hand-written, too.
Posted by: Blonde Morticia

One of the tricks of genealogy searches is to look at neighbors, from the old home to the new.

Posted by: MkY at June 27, 2025 04:46 PM (cPGH3)

133 123 Yes, she spends a great deal of time dealing with the history of injunctions and their scope and highlights when they began to be broadened, even going so far as to note that even during the New Deal, no one attempted a national injunctiion via a district court.

This was a solid ruling and worth the wait. People had no business trashing her until they saw the end game.
Posted by: Ace-Endorsed Author A.H. Lloyd at June 27, 2025 04:44 PM (ZOv7s)

=======

Just because they do it once, doesn't mean they'll do it again.

We'll see.

I'm cautiously...cautious.

I've also never been an ACB hater. She's fine. Kavanaugh and Gorsuch are better (Gorsuch has that stupid Bostock thing which he's partially made up for with Skrmetti, but ACB bends to "letting the process play out" too much).

Posted by: TheJamesMadison, reflecting on change and permanence with Ozu at June 27, 2025 04:46 PM (GBKbO)

134 I hope this has a chilling effect on proponents of academic freedom everywhere, and cuts the legs out from our universities' mission to promote opportunity for all. I also hope it sends an ominous signal to those who are trying to protect the rights of diverse students throughout the nation.
Posted by: Blonde Morticia at June 27, 2025 04:32 PM (HuRzZ)

My hope is that it has a chilling effect on racist retards like you. Happy Friday!

Posted by: Cucker Tarlson at June 27, 2025 04:46 PM (8iNlE)

135 65 Nurse, yes, you may have a festive little hat!
Posted by: Commissar of plenty and festive little hats

*snoopy dance*

Posted by: nurse ratched at June 27, 2025 04:46 PM (VCFK5)

136 You people are so dumb. We need more brown dotted people in this country to do the mental work you moron POS can't do. I tell everyone of my fellow dots to respond to the census, it's the only way you dumb American's survive as a nation actually. Dumb fucks.

Posted by: Vivek at June 27, 2025 04:47 PM (/U5Yz)

137 Posted by: redridinghood at June 27, 2025 04:41 PM (NpAcC

It's quite elegant but I don't know that I'd exactly describe it as "demure." It's certainly form fitting. Which seems to be her particular style I hope that she and Jeff are happy.. she looks happy

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at June 27, 2025 04:48 PM (2GCMq)

138 I think a Congressional resolution on the matter might be helpful.

I agree, but there's no way in hell they would even attempt that, let alone pass it.

Posted by: Christopher R Taylor at June 27, 2025 04:48 PM (dfIr7)

139 I’m curious how we counted the Indian tribes for the census in 1800s? Maybe we never admitted a new state without first settling all business with the Indians there.

So it would make sense to count the reservation tribes as persons but not the still-warring tribes. The latter probably never came up as an issue.

Posted by: Jack Squat.Bupkis at June 27, 2025 04:48 PM (jYRYu)

140
Quite the payoff for sucking something. Which bald head would that be?

Posted by: four seasons at June 27, 2025 04:48 PM (3ek7K)

141 LOL, the "free state project" by the libertarians to flip VT, enters the chat.
Posted by: People's Hippo Voice at June 27, 2025 04:43 PM (GnVQ5)
---
LOL I remember that. What a joke. Proved that Libertarians are actually a tiny minority and incredibly lazy.

I think the number they wanted was less than a mid-sized football stadium and they couldn't even pull that off.

Probably too busy doing drugs and watching kiddie porn.

Posted by: Ace-Endorsed Author A.H. Lloyd at June 27, 2025 04:49 PM (ZOv7s)

142 Trump Poised to Remove Illegals from Census Calcuations

==

AWESOME!!

Posted by: runner at June 27, 2025 04:49 PM (g47mK)

143 From time to time, I like to point out that a secret ballot is not required by the Constitution.

Folks gathering in the town square and raising their hand to vote is just fine.

Imagine that today.

Posted by: People's Hippo Voice at June 27, 2025 04:50 PM (GnVQ5)

144 There is no joy in Truthville tonight.

New York Post@nypost
‘60 Minutes’ correspondents demand CBS News make Tanya Simon executive producer — or face ‘revolt’

Posted by: Anonosaurus Wrecks, Well, This Is Another Fine Mess You've Gotten Me Into at June 27, 2025 04:51 PM (L/fGl)

145 "Persons" vs. "citizens" probably a lost cause, as ace says. A pure case where the language of the constitution is wholly inadequate to governance now - because of course back then it was not even a concept that large numbers of non-citizens would live here.

I think its different than that. They were completely comfortable with the idea of a lot of people living in the nation who are not citizens, the entire process of becoming a citizen was not a legal thing, just more a "I'm an American now" kind of thing. The process and idea of citizens being a legal and official status was not a thing then for the USA.

Basically everyone who came to the USA and tried to become part of the country, was part of the country. That has changed, necessarily, as the nation was settled, structured, and bounded by its borders. I mean, when the constitution was written, Pennsylvania was largely wilderness.

Posted by: Christopher R Taylor at June 27, 2025 04:51 PM (dfIr7)

146 FWIW, the case against birthright citizenship for illegal aliens is pretty well established. Wong Ark Kim was a sloppy decision that gets part of British common law it cites incorrect (sojourners aka travelers did not magically become British subjects nor did their kids if born there). The majority opinion written by a very mediocre justice Horace Gray who was on a very bad Fuller Court that rendered such legal blunders as Plessy v. Ferguson, Pollock v. Pollock, EC Knight, and other such legal detritus.

Posted by: whig at June 27, 2025 04:52 PM (ctrM5)

147 This is wha I'd describe as a "demure" wedding dress:

https://tinyurl.com/2vf68th5

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at June 27, 2025 04:52 PM (2GCMq)

148 In his memoirs, U.S. Grant recalls being stationed in Michigan but refusing to become a citizen of Michigan because he preferred by counted as an Ohioan, even if he didn't live there.

I guess now we consider it nothing more than a voting registration, but states also had citizenship requirements.

Posted by: Ace-Endorsed Author A.H. Lloyd at June 27, 2025 04:52 PM (ZOv7s)

149 the law speaks of counting "Persons," not "Citizens."

==

the policy guys and the law guys must have something else up their sleeve that will impress the court

Posted by: runner at June 27, 2025 04:52 PM (g47mK)

150 " In several of these venues, the administration's challengers are almost guaranteed that a judge picked by Joe Biden, Barack Obama, or Bill Clinton will preside over their case."

But..but..but...we are always told there are no Biden judges, or Obama judges, or Clinton judges. Just fair minded judges calling balls and strikes.

Posted by: Frank Barone at June 27, 2025 04:53 PM (IifOV)

151 I'll never understand these ultrarich guys' predilection for Denny's parking lot 4s.

Posted by: bear with asymmetrical balls at June 27, 2025 04:45 PM (4/BuS)

Donald Trump is in the category of "ultrarich."

His current wife is a 9.5, and that's only because she isn't 30 anymore.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (with a beret and a Gauloises) at June 27, 2025 04:53 PM (L5An7)

152 It should be so simple to count the census, but it won't happen.

If I was king census, it would be to send a form to every zoned residence that says how many people live here and what are their SSN or ITN. Thank you.

If you want to fill out the separate form to help us with some statistics please do, if not please trash it.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at June 27, 2025 04:53 PM (rvwwT)

153 The plaintiff's goal in forum shopping is to launch their suit in a district where they are more likely to draw a sympathetic justice

When Newsom sued Trump over Federalizing the California National Guard, he didn't sue in the Federal judicial district in Los Angeles (where the Guard was used), or Sacramento (the state capital) - he sued in San Francisco, because there are no Republican appointees in the San Francisco Federal judicial district.

Posted by: The ARC of History! at June 27, 2025 04:53 PM (xTIDn)

154 149 the policy guys and the law guys must have something else up their sleeve that will impress the court
Posted by: runner at June 27, 2025 04:52 PM (g47mK)

=======

Historical example of how the American government treated visitors when taking the census, probably.

Posted by: TheJamesMadison, reflecting on change and permanence with Ozu at June 27, 2025 04:53 PM (GBKbO)

155 The money that they left skims from the federal government has been decreased because of the wreck of USAID and other grifts. The votes have to be knocked back like this and in court cases against states who let them vote. Keep fighting and they fight each other.

Posted by: Smell the Glove at June 27, 2025 04:53 PM (O8bOp)

156 FROM 2022
_________________________________
On Tuesday, the OIG published a redacted report detailing a recent “red team” exercise – where hired cybersecurity officials pose as hackers – and said the U.S. Census Bureau “did not have an effective cybersecurity posture in place to protect against a simulated real-world attack.”

According to the report, the red team gained unauthorized and undetected access to a Census Bureau domain administrator account and was able to obtain access to personally identifiable information of employees.

That information included hiring forms with Social Security numbers, first and last names, and home addresses.

Posted by: Orson at June 27, 2025 04:53 PM (dIske)

157 He's mega scary, this one. Behind literally ever horrifying idea circulating in CA. So, I guess he's a shoo-in. Gawd.
Posted by: Peaches at June 27, 2025 04:40 PM (14URa)
===

He is truly a piece of human garbage. I would not leave him alone with anyone under 18.

Posted by: San Franpsycho at June 27, 2025 04:53 PM (oXJtT)

158 I think based on the opinions and writings of the people who wrote and adopted the 14th amendment there should be no birthright citizenship. But that has been obviated by U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark. Now, the Supreme Court could decide that that case was wrongly decided, as they did with Roe vs. Wade, but I think IMHO that’s somewhat unlikely.

Posted by: NemoMeImpuneLacessit at June 27, 2025 04:54 PM (EnO9j)

159 I think the number they wanted was less than a mid-sized football stadium and they couldn't even pull that off.
---
Yeah, I feel like they thought 20,000 would do it.

And it was all, "yeah, let's do it! You guys go on ahead first."

Posted by: People's Hippo Voice at June 27, 2025 04:55 PM (GnVQ5)

160 My husband and I were Census workers, back in the Carter era. He got all the good stories. He went to one house and the cops were there, arresting everyone. But he told them he was the census taker, so they had one guy, in handcuffs,sit on the couch and answer the questions.

You get a visit or two if you decided to ignore turning in the form.

Posted by: Notsothoreau at June 27, 2025 04:55 PM (AcTAo)

161 I think its different than that. They were completely comfortable with the idea of a lot of people living in the nation who are not citizens, the entire process of becoming a citizen was not a legal thing, just more a "I'm an American now" kind of thing. The process and idea of citizens being a legal and official status was not a thing then for the USA.

Basically everyone who came to the USA and tried to become part of the country, was part of the country. That has changed, necessarily, as the nation was settled, structured, and bounded by its borders. I mean, when the constitution was written, Pennsylvania was largely wilderness.
Posted by: Christopher R Taylor

That is a severe distortion of the historical record. Simply put, the Founders put the power of immigration to Congress and figured that Congress could wax and wane on enforcement and that leaving 13+ states with their preexisting power would create a bad legal patchwork.

And as a result, immigration laws became more and more restrictive as the need for cheap foreign labor/settlement and soldiers to fight for the Union lessened.

Simply put, the power lies more with Congress than it does with the court.

Posted by: whig at June 27, 2025 04:55 PM (ctrM5)

162 I think based on the opinions and writings of the people who wrote and adopted the 14th amendment there should be no birthright citizenship. But that has been obviated by U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark. Now, the Supreme Court could decide that that case was wrongly decided, as they did with Roe vs. Wade, but I think IMHO that’s somewhat unlikely.
Posted by: NemoMeImpuneLacessit at June 27, 2025 04:54 PM

Or they could distinguish legal residents from illegal residents, as Trump views the issue.

Posted by: toby928 at June 27, 2025 04:55 PM (jc0TO)

163 FWIW, the case against birthright citizenship for illegal aliens is pretty well established. Wong Ark Kim was a sloppy decision that gets part of British common law it cites incorrect (sojourners aka travelers did not magically become British subjects nor did their kids if born there). The majority opinion written by a very mediocre justice Horace Gray who was on a very bad Fuller Court that rendered such legal blunders as Plessy v. Ferguson, Pollock v. Pollock, EC Knight, and other such legal detritus.

Posted by: whig at June 27, 2025 04:52 PM (ctrM5)
==
I don't think the case against birthright citizenship is a tough one to win either. Was confident someone would chime in with more detail.

Posted by: Black JEM at June 27, 2025 04:56 PM (GZYu7)

164 Simply put, the power lies more with Congress than it does with the court.
Posted by: whig at June 27, 2025 04:55 PM

This. The political branch needs to speak.

Posted by: toby928 at June 27, 2025 04:57 PM (jc0TO)

165 Historical example of how the American government treated visitors when taking the census, probably.
Posted by: TheJamesMadison, reflecting on change and permanence with Ozu at June 27, 2025 04:53 PM (GBKbO)

they might not focus on people/person/citizens minutia, but go in some other direction, like dilution of votes of actual citizens, disenfranchisement of actual citizens, something like that

Posted by: runner at June 27, 2025 04:57 PM (g47mK)

166 With the 14th, or something like it, where the intent was clear and there's plenty of legislative history and discussion literally on-topic for the allegedly controversial aspects, sure, go beyond the text.

Beyond that? Mmmm. Again, if there's contextual info (say, the meaning, at the time, of "well regulated militia") about the language, sure, but tread very carefully.

But the judiciary filling in blanks should be a rare absolute last resort. The unaccountable branch are glorified clerks - anything else and you've disassembled the constitutional system. The political branches should handle 99.5% of all disputes involving allegedly vague language. SCOTUS has long essentially referred matters back to Congress on matters directing them to fill in the blanks or resolve ambiguities, right? That should be almost the only headline we ever see.

Posted by: rhomboid at June 27, 2025 04:58 PM (1m82a)

167 158 I think based on the opinions and writings of the people who wrote and adopted the 14th amendment there should be no birthright citizenship. But that has been obviated by U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark. Now, the Supreme Court could decide that that case was wrongly decided, as they did with Roe vs. Wade, but I think IMHO that’s somewhat unlikely.
Posted by: NemoMeImpuneLacessit
======
My personal guess is that the Court will say that Trump does not have that power but Congress does. Plenty of explicit immigration cases explain Congress has plenary power over immigration.

Posted by: whig at June 27, 2025 04:58 PM (ctrM5)

168 "Which, to here, would mean, 'when the Constitution was passed, was it common to count noncitizens (or those ineligible to vote) in the census?' Of course not."

Hippo, with all due respect, but you're wrong. It was common - in fact, necessary - to count those ineligible to vote. When the Constitution was ratified, that class would include women, children, those without enough property to be a voter, and so on. The whole point of the three-fifths compromise was to determine how much weight should be given to the population of enslaved persons - none of whom were citizens or eligible to vote - in apportioning seats in the House and the Electoral College. In the present day, citizens ineligible to vote (for example, here in Wisconsin, imprisoned felons) are still counted as part of the population to be represented in Congress. And then as now, immigrants who were in the country legally but had not yet become citizens were also counted. I think this question is a lot more complicated than many of us believe.

Posted by: Nemo at June 27, 2025 04:58 PM (4RPgu)

169 Are Joint Congressional resolutions subject to filibuster in the Senate?

Posted by: toby928 at June 27, 2025 04:58 PM (jc0TO)

170 and yes, do they intent to count every tourist on a tourist visa in the census , or every worker on worker visa in the census ? there has to be a line , and that like is citizenship

Posted by: runner at June 27, 2025 04:59 PM (g47mK)

171 *eyes Abrams tank*

Dad, can I barrow the car tonight?

Posted by: Diogenes at June 27, 2025 04:59 PM (6X8wc)

172 If Trump is able to make it stick that only citizens are counted in the census it's literally game over for democrats and blue states.

It isn't just about the house of representatives and seats in congress, it's also about how all of that sweet federal $$$$$ gets handed out.

This is going to take years to work it's way through the courts because there will be multiple lawsuits from all of the blue states.

Posted by: Mister Scott (Formerly GWS) at June 27, 2025 04:59 PM (e5NfL)

173
One of the tricks of genealogy searches is to look at neighbors, from the old home to the new.
Posted by: MkY

==============

Interesting. I guess you also know the trick of taking a second look at kids born to parents who also have a late-teens, early-20s daughter at home.

Posted by: Blonde Morticia at June 27, 2025 05:00 PM (HuRzZ)

174 FWIW, the case against birthright citizenship for illegal aliens is pretty well established. Wong Ark Kim was a sloppy decision that gets part of British common law it cites incorrect (sojourners aka travelers did not magically become British subjects nor did their kids if born there). The majority opinion written by a very mediocre justice Horace Gray who was on a very bad Fuller Court that rendered such legal blunders as Plessy v. Ferguson, Pollock v. Pollock, EC Knight, and other such legal detritus.
---
While Sotomayor waves around the bloody flag of Dredd Scott to claim today's decision is just like denying slaves citizenship.

LOL.

I've seen some black get pissed at this comparison:
Our ancestors didn't choose to come here--they were forced here.
And they earned the right to become citizens.
At a very dear price.
Not merely "snuck across the border."

Posted by: People's Hippo Voice at June 27, 2025 05:01 PM (GnVQ5)

175 I've suggested counting illegals as 3/5 of a citizen. IYKTYK

Posted by: Bhedrick at June 27, 2025 05:02 PM (l5F91)

176 My personal guess is that the Court will say that Trump does not have that power but Congress does. Plenty of explicit immigration cases explain Congress has plenary power over immigration.

Posted by: whig at June 27, 2025 04:58 PM (ctrM5)
==
True, but the error was at the court level, not congress. The court completely misread the law. Trump asks only to apply that which should never have been overruled.

Posted by: Black JEM at June 27, 2025 05:02 PM (GZYu7)

177 Also we need 3/4 of states ( = 38 states) to ratify and the following will not agree to any amendment giving Republicans a national electoral advantage:
1. California
2. New York
3. Illinois
4. Washington
5. Oregon
6. Colorado
7. Massachusetts
8. Maryland
9. Connecticut
10. Rhode Island
11. Maine
12. Vermont
13. New Hampshire

and probably several others.

Still, a convention of the states is always worth a try, just to keep people on their toes.

Posted by: Jack Squat Bupkis at June 27, 2025 05:03 PM (jYRYu)

178 "Persons" is going to tie in very interestingly to the birthright citizenship debate, as it becaisally is going to come down to what it means to be a person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

In both the birthright case and the census case-to-be, the Trump argument will be that illegal immigrants are not persons subject to the jurisdiction because they hold allegiance to their home countries. As such, they should not be counted as citizens or residents for any purpose under the law.

Not sure it will get very far, but that's the theory.

Posted by: can of spam at June 27, 2025 05:03 PM (7oNMO)

179 If I was king census, it would be to send a form to every zoned residence that says how many people live here and what are their SSN or ITN. Thank you.

If you were King Census, you would already know. All you have to do is buy our data sets back from China.

Posted by: t-bird at June 27, 2025 05:04 PM (6keFU)

180 I think its different than that. They were completely comfortable with the idea of a lot of people living in the nation who are not citizens, the entire process of becoming a citizen was not a legal thing, just more a "I'm an American now" kind of thing. The process and idea of citizens being a legal and official status was not a thing then for the USA.

Posted by: Christopher R Taylor at June 27, 2025 04:51 PM (dfIr7)

Actually just went and looked... the early 1800s Naturalization Law? Be in the US for at least 5 years, and declare your intent to be a Citizen 3 years in advance.

Interesting.. did not know that prior to the Civil War, it was STATES who controlled who immigrated... there was no Federal Law at all about it until the COURTS got involved, and said it was clearly JUST a Federal Issue...

So, once again... it looks like a COURT created problem.

Posted by: Romeo13 at June 27, 2025 05:04 PM (mP0Kj)

181 I've suggested counting illegals as 3/5 of a citizen. IYKTYK
Posted by: Bhedrick at June 27, 2025 05:02 PM (l5F91)

Heh. And the dems are again on the exact same side of the issue. Lol.

Posted by: Aetius451AD work phone at June 27, 2025 05:04 PM (YUL+W)

182 they might not focus on people/person/citizens minutia, but go in some other direction, like dilution of votes of actual citizens, disenfranchisement of actual citizens, something like that
---
The Constitutional right to a republican form of government.

By counting noncitizens, they dilute the vote of citizens.
By noncitizens being disproportionally counted in some states, that dilutes the votes of citizens in other states

Posted by: People's Hippo Voice at June 27, 2025 05:04 PM (GnVQ5)

183 >>This. The political branch needs to speak.

What do you suppose the odds are that 60 Senators will vote to overturn birthright citizenship?

I put them at 0%.

Posted by: JackStraw at June 27, 2025 05:05 PM (viF8m)

184 In Evenwel, Thomas's Concurrence gives a long lecture on the issue.

It is much deeper than just illegals, since according to Thomas, the state can apportion based on eligible voters instead of "persons."

This applies to state's apportionment, so similar arguments can be made for federal. It gets complicated but the best short summary is in this quote:

"The problem is more fundamental. There is simply no way to make a principled choice between interpreting one person, one vote as protecting eligible voters or as protecting total inhabitants within a State. That is because, though those theories are noble, the Constitution does not make either of them the exclusive means of apportionment for state and local representatives."

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/578/14-940/

Posted by: bob (moron incognitus) at June 27, 2025 05:05 PM (m5cDg)

185 I don't think the case against birthright citizenship is a tough one to win either. Was confident someone would chime in with more detail.
Posted by: Black JEM

I've explained at length about it as I taught this particular decision for years among other con law cases. Essentially Gray distorts the law in order to rectify justice for a wronged individual. Wong Ark was born to legal residents and lived here until he visited China for a time and was denied readmission. Gray's decision skates around the Indians non-taxed being excluded from citizenship explicitly and instead makes a erroneous detour through old English Common Law (distorting it) and then various investigations of state practices (not necessary for citizenship after the Founding), ignoring the Dred Scott decision that created the need for the 14th natural born citizen wording (Taney declared that regardless of what states considered citizens, that Africans brought here were never to be considered citizens of the US and he used the Declaration of Independence to boot to claim that. ) So he comes to make the correct decision on very poor reasoning.

Posted by: whig at June 27, 2025 05:06 PM (ctrM5)

186 That is a severe distortion of the historical record. Simply put, the Founders put the power of immigration to Congress and figured that Congress could wax and wane on enforcement and that leaving 13+ states with their preexisting power would create a bad legal patchwork./i]

Definitely they limited and controlled immigration to some degree, but citizenship was still pretty vague and sketchy for a long time. People would show up, sign paperwork, and head into the country, and become part of the nation. They even voted in elections, there was no official process and oath for quite a while.

There was a law in 1795 for naturalization (including an oath), it wasn't until 1906 that it became more codified and official (even the oath wasn't exact).

And the founding fathers were writing in that context, not what we take for granted now.

Posted by: Christopher R Taylor at June 27, 2025 05:06 PM (dfIr7)

187 As I recall, last census, Trump tried just to get the question "Are you a US citizen" added to the form and I believe SCOTUS said no.

Good luck having them not counted for apportionment.

Posted by: WisRich at June 27, 2025 05:07 PM (G0vdT)

188 Re: 177

ME (especially) and NH still have a chance.

Posted by: City of Boston at June 27, 2025 05:07 PM (kCN82)

189 If you deport them all, you really don't have to worry about the census.

Posted by: bear with asymmetrical balls at June 27, 2025 05:08 PM (4/BuS)

190 Or they could distinguish legal residents from illegal residents, as Trump views the issue.
Posted by: toby928 at June 27, 2025 04:55 PM (jc0TO)

Yup, put em in the Indian Not Taxed Category... as they are not citizens, and not here legally.

Posted by: Romeo13 at June 27, 2025 05:08 PM (mP0Kj)

191 It is much deeper than just illegals, since according to Thomas, the state can apportion based on eligible voters instead of "persons."

This applies to state's apportionment, so similar arguments can be made for federal. It gets complicated but the best short summary is in this quote:
Posted by: bob (moron incognitus)
========
Counting non citizens for apportionment simply creates rotten boroughs that make a mockery of Baker v. Carr--one man, one vote.

Citizenship should matter regardless of what the cloud people think.

Posted by: whig at June 27, 2025 05:08 PM (ctrM5)

192 I saw the Miisenfranchised Representatives open for the Parliament Funkadelic at the Royale in '02.

Posted by: ShainS -- Stop All The #Winning -- I Wanna Get Off! [/u at June 27, 2025 05:09 PM (UKwZO)

193 toby, joint resolutions are the normal form of what we call "laws" - binding legislation.

In the Senate only "privileged matters" are not subject to filibuster, i.e. subject to unlimited debate. The Budget Act of 1974 creates two such items by statute, the Budget Resolution and the Reconciliation act (currently being worked on in the Senate, for example). These items have statutory limits on debate (30 hours, IIRC).

Certain nominations have been exempted from filibuster (in effect) and made privileged.

But any legislation that would address the question under discussion would almost certainly be subject to filibuster.

And whig makes an excellent point about Congress having the power to clarify/fix things in immigration. And many other areas. The constitutional trainwreck we live in is as much the fault of Congress refusing to do its job as it is the usurpation of the courts.

Posted by: rhomboid at June 27, 2025 05:09 PM (1m82a)

194 Lauren Sanchez stuns in demure Dolce & Gabbana gown alongside Jeff Bezos at her Venice wedding

https://tinyurl.com/yf9b2ucx
Posted by: redridinghood
.....

Ugh. Look at the last picture in the article, close up you can see her arms.
She looks like a claymation model.

Posted by: wth at June 27, 2025 05:09 PM (v0R5T)

195 The 3/5th rule in the original constitution supports the contention that illegal aliens should not be counted in the census. Slaves were, at least, legal residents of their states, yet were not to be fully counted in the census for obvious reasons. The same would apply to illegals, but more completely so.

Posted by: Angzarr the Cromulent at June 27, 2025 05:09 PM (XMwZJ)

196 I always throw the federal census garbage sent to me in the garbage. Sooner or later some weirdo dark hued census taker will drive by slowly and eyeball me on the property and you can tell they are saying to theyselves "Just Another Creepy Cracker" as they mark down 18 colored folks at living at my property.

Posted by: Fuck The Feds at June 27, 2025 05:10 PM (R/m4+)

197 184 cont.

That was 2016, and Alito mostly joined Thomas on Evenwel (I have not read Alito's Concurrence.)

So I think he is open to restricting illegals. Alito too, and maybe he can convince others. Either way, it will be a close run thing.

Posted by: bob (moron incognitus) at June 27, 2025 05:10 PM (m5cDg)

198 Can we force a state out of the Union.

Posted by: Dreamingrobot at June 27, 2025 05:10 PM (Xn549)

199 I was a census worker in 2010 and we were counting "persons".

Posted by: casual observer at June 27, 2025 05:11 PM (JqKhz)

200 I hope that after the study period, the Administration puts forth legislation for relatively quick naturalizations of law abiding anchor babies. I am willing to accept this as the price for denying the benefit going forward. This will make it a wedge issue between the born here and the brought here.

Posted by: toby928 at June 27, 2025 05:11 PM (jc0TO)

201 187 As I recall, last census, Trump tried just to get the question "Are you a US citizen" added to the form and I believe SCOTUS said no.

Good luck having them not counted for apportionment.
Posted by: WisRich
======
Different court and Roberts wrote the majority opinion based on the APA rather than the merits of such a question. Census Bureau purposefully played Trump by delay and obfuscation in that instance.

Posted by: whig at June 27, 2025 05:11 PM (ctrM5)

202 The original problem in the census was whether to count slaves in the census or not! The southern states wanted them counted because that would give them more clout in the House. The northern states did not wanted them counted because they did not want the southern states to have more say in the House. So the result was the 3/5 compromise where slaves, who were not citizens at that time, were counted as 3/5 of a person. This is why the census counts persons not citizens.

The thought just occurred to me: could we count non-citizens as 0/5 of a person? Fractional counting has been done before! Oh well! It won’t fly politically, and besides it would take a constitutional amendment, which no way we’re going to get!

Posted by: NemoMeImpuneLacessit at June 27, 2025 05:12 PM (EnO9j)

203 You get a visit or two if you decided to ignore turning in the form.

In 2000, I got the long form. I filled in names, DOBs, and SSNs and sent it back. I got a letter. Then I got a phone call. Then I got a visit. They asked if they could come into the house. I said no. They said they could fill in the missing data with their guesses. I said OK, just make sure you note that that's what you're doing so if you're wrong, it's not because I lied. I guess that's what they did because they didn't contact me again after that.

Posted by: Oddbob at June 27, 2025 05:12 PM (/y8xj)

204 Actually just went and looked... the early 1800s Naturalization Law? Be in the US for at least 5 years, and declare your intent to be a Citizen 3 years in advance

Right, and if someone managed to sneak into the country (really easy to do at the time), the states didn't pay much attention to that. You were there, you were part of the state, you became a citizen over time.

So this is a tough spot for guys like me who are constitutional purists: they just did not write the document for the situation we now find ourselves in nor I doubt could the even conceive of it.

Its not just the USA who was like this. Tens of thousands of people poured into London from around the world and just became part of the country without any official process around that time as well.

Posted by: Christopher R Taylor at June 27, 2025 05:13 PM (dfIr7)

205 200 I hope that after the study period, the Administration puts forth legislation for relatively quick naturalizations of law abiding anchor babies. I am willing to accept this as the price for denying the benefit going forward. This will make it a wedge issue between the born here and the brought here.
Posted by: toby928
======
If the court rules to end birthright citizenship, then it will be up to Congress to make the rules. But, it probably will not make such retroactive which is within their powers as to affect those here presently in that case.

Posted by: whig at June 27, 2025 05:13 PM (ctrM5)

206 toby, joint resolutions are the normal form of what we call "laws" - binding legislation.

There is a Sense of the Senate, right? And something similar for the House. Is there not a, err, joint declaration, or something for both?

Posted by: toby928 at June 27, 2025 05:13 PM (jc0TO)

207 195 The 3/5th rule in the original constitution supports the contention that illegal aliens should not be counted in the census. Slaves were, at least, legal residents of their states, yet were not to be fully counted in the census for obvious reasons. The same would apply to illegals, but more completely so.
Posted by: Angzarr the Cromulent at June 27, 2025 05:09 PM (XMwZJ)

It's such a peculiar clause because counting slaves as 5/5ths of a person would have given disproportionate political power to slaveowners. An anti-slavery person would have vigorously argued that slaves not be counted at all.

Posted by: Jack Squat Bupkis at June 27, 2025 05:13 PM (jYRYu)

208 What’s this dot guy on about? Isn’t that a kids picture book?

Posted by: H at June 27, 2025 05:13 PM (2gjbv)

209 >> All you have to do is buy our data sets back from China.

Google, Apple and Facebook have it all too now that you mention it.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at June 27, 2025 05:13 PM (rvwwT)

210 Hippo, with all due respect, but you're wrong. It was common - in fact, necessary - to count those ineligible to vote. When the Constitution was ratified, that class would include women, children, those without enough property to be a voter, and so on. The whole point of the three-fifths compromise was to determine how much weight should be given to the population of enslaved persons
---
Ah, that's right. Hotly contested.

So, it'll come down to how those early census treated guest workers (if there were such) and visitors.

Interesting wrinkle I'm looking at: During the 1810 census, were there any foreign mercenaries or troops in the US? If so, counted or excluded?

Posted by: People's Hippo Voice at June 27, 2025 05:14 PM (GnVQ5)

211 Different court and Roberts wrote the majority opinion based on the APA rather than the merits of such a question. Census Bureau purposefully played Trump by delay and obfuscation in that instance.
Posted by: whig at June 27, 2025 05:11 PM (ctrM5)
----------

Takes the stakes for 2028 election up a notch.

Posted by: WisRich at June 27, 2025 05:14 PM (G0vdT)

212
prior to the Civil War, it was STATES who controlled who immigrated... there was no Federal Law at all about it until the COURTS got involved, and said it was clearly JUST a Federal Issue...

So, once again... it looks like a COURT created problem.
Posted by: Romeo13

================

But surely it should be a federal matter, not up to the states to control who immigrates?

Posted by: Blonde Morticia at June 27, 2025 05:14 PM (HuRzZ)

213 18 Can I have a festive little hat, please?

/\

Posted by: anachronda at June 27, 2025 05:15 PM (sGtp+)

214 Angzarr the Cromulent -

I see great minds think alike!

Posted by: NemoMeImpuneLacessit at June 27, 2025 05:16 PM (EnO9j)

215 From time to time, I like to point out that a secret ballot is not required by the Constitution.

We went for over 250 years without it. I'm guessing they implemented a campaign of voter intimidation in the 1880's to bring about the secret ballot (to protect us from voter intimidation!). And then the election shenanigans started.

Posted by: t-bird at June 27, 2025 05:16 PM (Vngri)

216
So this is a tough spot for guys like me who are constitutional purists: they just did not write the document for the situation we now find ourselves in

Posted by: Christopher R Taylor

But they did. They included an amending method.

Posted by: Blonde Morticia at June 27, 2025 05:16 PM (HuRzZ)

217 "That every person whose usual place of abode shall be in any family on [August 4, 1800], shall be returned as of such family, and the name of every person, who shall be an inhabitant of any district or territory, but without a settled place of residence, shall be inserted in the column of the aforesaid schedule, which is allotted for the heads of families, in that division where he or she shall be on [August 4, 1800], and every person occasionally absent at the time of the enumeration, as belonging to that place in which he usually resides in the United States."

1800 Census law

Posted by: Romeo13 at June 27, 2025 05:17 PM (mP0Kj)

218 🥳

Posted by: vmom deport deport deport at June 27, 2025 05:17 PM (Gmq6N)

219 toby yes, concurrent resolutions are "sense of" resolutions and have no legal force. Joint resolutions are what become laws. I think there is one other sort of resolution besides "concurrent" that's symbolic, but forget.

Of course we referred to such as "senselessness of the Senate" resolutions.

Posted by: rhomboid at June 27, 2025 05:17 PM (1m82a)

220 It's such a peculiar clause because counting slaves as 5/5ths of a person would have given disproportionate political power to slaveowners. An anti-slavery person would have vigorously argued that slaves not be counted at all.
Posted by: Jack Squat Bupkis at June 27, 2025 05:13 PM (jYRYu)
----
Hence the "compromise" that slaves were to be counted as 3/5 of a whole person for representation. That way there was some level of parity between the populations of the slave-supporting states and anti-slavery states.

Posted by: "Perfessor" Squirrel at June 27, 2025 05:17 PM (7fElN)

221 Interesting. I guess you also know the trick of taking a second look at kids born to parents who also have a late-teens, early-20s daughter at home.
Posted by: Blonde Morticia

We do. Somewhere out there we have cuz's who descended from a 7 year old "black negro boy" residing in G-grampa's home in 1880.
No idea other than that. He had the same last name.
Know what's fun? His farm abutted my land as it stands now. Had no idea when I bought it.
Had no idea when I bought it.

Posted by: MkY at June 27, 2025 05:18 PM (cPGH3)

222 If you deport them all, you really don't have to worry about the census.

Posted by: bear with asymmetrical balls at June 27, 2025 05:08 PM (4/BuS)

----------------

OUT: The Gordian Knot.
IN: The Trumpian Knot.

STATUZZZ: Severed.

Posted by: ShainS -- Stop All The #Winning -- I Wanna Get Off! at June 27, 2025 05:18 PM (UKwZO)

223 The 3/5th rule in the original constitution supports the contention that illegal aliens should not be counted in the census

I think between that and the fact that for example "Indians not taxed" are excluded for congressional representation is a major clue how to handle this. Why were Indians not taxed excluded? Because they were treated as outside the USA, sovereign independent nations within the borders, and not citizens.

That, I think gives a clue how the census is supposed to work. Illegal immigrants are not part of the US body politic, and not to be counted for representation.

Posted by: Christopher R Taylor at June 27, 2025 05:19 PM (dfIr7)

224 204 Actually just went and looked... the early 1800s Naturalization Law? Be in the US for at least 5 years, and declare your intent to be a Citizen 3 years in advance
==========
You might also look at the 1798 Alien and Sedition Acts which had much longer periods for naturalization among other things. Basically, even then, Democrats were more for immigration than the Federalists were. While the Democrats attacked the Sedition act as unconstitutional, they really only fumed about the extension of the requirements of Aliens to be admitted.

That means that Congress has the power to wax and wane immigration--not the courts and certainly not the illegals entering.

Posted by: whig at June 27, 2025 05:19 PM (ctrM5)

225
🎩

Posted by: wth at June 27, 2025 05:20 PM (UjdFS)

226 198 Can we force a state out of the Union.
Posted by: Dreamingrobot

No one thought it would be enough of an issue to make a difference until fairly recently. (I wonder if Bracero workers were ever counted?)

Then by the 80s it was a growing problem but too political for intelligent legislation. Now it is so big it may be too late.

Posted by: bob (moron incognitus) at June 27, 2025 05:21 PM (m5cDg)

227 220 It's such a peculiar clause because counting slaves as 5/5ths of a person would have given disproportionate political power to slaveowners. An anti-slavery person would have vigorously argued that slaves not be counted at all.
Posted by: Jack Squat Bupkis at June 27, 2025 05:13 PM (jYRYu)
----
Hence the "compromise" that slaves were to be counted as 3/5 of a whole person for representation. That way there was some level of parity between the populations of the slave-supporting states and anti-slavery states.
Posted by: "Perfessor" Squirrel
======
The entire 3/5ths formula came from the Articles of Confederation Congress which was trying to apportion the costs of the federal government on the states. It was a fallback for the Convention because it was already used by the Articles Congress for apportioning requisitions from the states.

Posted by: whig at June 27, 2025 05:21 PM (ctrM5)

228 But they did. They included an amending method.

Technically accurate but practically not. I don't think we will ever see another amendment added to the constitution in our lifetimes, at least.

prior to the Civil War, it was STATES who controlled who immigrated

I think that is inaccurate, I believe it was the federal government who handled who got into the USA, the states controlled (very loosely) who got to be in their borders and were considered citizens.

Posted by: Christopher R Taylor at June 27, 2025 05:21 PM (dfIr7)

229 Somewhere out there we have cuz's who descended from a 7 year old "black negro boy" residing in G-grampa's home in 1880.

----------------

That was one fertile 7-year-old!

/

Posted by: ShainS -- Stop All The #Winning -- I Wanna Get Off! at June 27, 2025 05:21 PM (UKwZO)

230 If you want a festive little hat may I suggest:

Δ Δ Δ

Sorry, that would three festive little hats!

Posted by: NemoMeImpuneLacessit at June 27, 2025 05:22 PM (EnO9j)

231
👒

Posted by: wth at June 27, 2025 05:22 PM (UjdFS)

232 199 I was a census worker in 2010 and we were counting "persons".
Posted by: casual observer

in #226 I meant to be responding to this.

Posted by: bob (moron incognitus) at June 27, 2025 05:22 PM (m5cDg)

233 LOL, barely waiting for the ink to dry, the ACLU has filed a class action against Trump on the birthright citizenship EO.

Heh, too clever by half:
Because class certification is subject to interlocutory appeal.

And, as the dissents lamented, too difficult to get, too easily overturned.

Also, as I understand it, the whole tactic of these injunctions as they could play grab-ass with the law and do whatever they wanted.
Whereas, class actions have a whole shitload of detailed and precise requirements.

Posted by: People's Hippo Voice at June 27, 2025 05:23 PM (GnVQ5)

234 That means that Congress has the power to wax and wane immigration--not the courts and certainly not the illegals entering.

Yeah and that's the biggest problem we have right now with congress: they do not want to actually DO anything. They don't want to go on record, they don't want to be held accountable. So they let courts handle it all instead.

Posted by: Christopher R Taylor at June 27, 2025 05:23 PM (dfIr7)

235 But surely it should be a federal matter, not up to the states to control who immigrates?
Posted by: Blonde Morticia at June 27, 2025 05:14 PM (HuRzZ)

It looks like prior to about 1880... States did have specific fees and limits on immigration to their States... then the courts under the Congress controls NATURALIZATION clause, said that only the Feds control Immigration.

How we got from there to only Feds can enforce immigration law... I've yet to look at.

Posted by: Romeo13 at June 27, 2025 05:24 PM (mP0Kj)

236 The entire 3/5ths formula came from the Articles of Confederation Congress which was trying to apportion the costs of the federal government on the states. It was a fallback for the Convention because it was already used by the Articles Congress for apportioning requisitions from the states.

Posted by: whig at June 27, 2025 05:21 PM (ctrM5)

---------------

"I'll take 'Stuff I never learned in history or from reading before" for $64 trillion, Alex!"

/Thanks Professor whig ...

Posted by: ShainS -- Stop All The #Winning -- I Wanna Get Off! at June 27, 2025 05:25 PM (UKwZO)

237
👳

Posted by: wth at June 27, 2025 05:25 PM (UjdFS)

238 How we got from there to only Feds can enforce immigration law... I've yet to look at.

I am still fine with that, as long as states get to control who gets into their borders. OK you let them in the USA, but not Montana, buddy. Governors need to start enforcing and fighting for that kind of thing.

Posted by: Christopher R Taylor at June 27, 2025 05:26 PM (dfIr7)

239 We went for over 250 years without it. I'm guessing they implemented a campaign of voter intimidation in the 1880's to bring about the secret ballot (to protect us from voter intimidation!). And then the election shenanigans started.
Posted by: t-bird

It is more the reverse. Voter fraud was rampant in the 1840's to the 1900's and both the Whigs and GOP participated in it along with the Dems of course. It was the era of floaters, party line ballots that had symbols and colors for the illiterate, widespread payment of voters to vote either via liquor or cash, etc.

Turnouts of entire states were well close to 100 percent and not because those ballots represented people. Try to vote Dem in a GOP heavy precinct or vice versa, they might kick your ass out or beat your ass according and then substitute their party vote for yours.

The Australian or secret ballot plus voter registration, etc. came about for real reasons.

Posted by: whig at June 27, 2025 05:26 PM (ctrM5)

240 "I'll take 'Stuff I never learned in history or from reading before" for $64 trillion, Alex!"

/Thanks Professor whig ...
Posted by: ShainS
========
I studied the Articles and the period from 1776 because you cannot really understand why the Framers acted as they did until you understand what conditions they sought to correct.

Posted by: whig at June 27, 2025 05:27 PM (ctrM5)

241 I think that is inaccurate, I believe it was the federal government who handled who got into the USA, the states controlled (very loosely) who got to be in their borders and were considered citizens.
Posted by: Christopher R Taylor at June 27, 2025 05:21 PM (dfIr7)

Prior to the Civil War... I don't see any US Federal Law on immigration at all... looks like 1891 Immigration act was the first real Fed law on this... (at least with a quicky internet search... )

Wiki says States and individual Ports controlled entry... and even the Process of Naturalization (how to register your intent and such).

Posted by: Romeo13 at June 27, 2025 05:28 PM (mP0Kj)

242 Perhaps Whig should be on the supreme court, in place of Kunta Jackson Brown.

Posted by: Angzarr the Cromulent at June 27, 2025 05:28 PM (XMwZJ)

243 I was just thinking, I think ACB and KBJ meeting up at the lunchroom coffee pot just got really awkward. Good thing they don't have to see each other for a couple of months.

Posted by: WisRich at June 27, 2025 05:29 PM (G0vdT)

244 The Australian or secret ballot plus voter registration, etc. came about for real reasons.

Yeah we have bad voter fraud now but it was outrageous back then. What's funny is that a lot of cowboy movies show this pretty clearly as a regular joke and without any sort of condemnation.

Posted by: Christopher R Taylor at June 27, 2025 05:29 PM (dfIr7)

245 It is more the reverse. Voter fraud was rampant in the 1840's to the 1900's and both the Whigs and GOP participated in it along with the Dems of course. It was the era of floaters, party line ballots that had symbols and colors for the illiterate, widespread payment of voters to vote either via liquor or cash, etc.
---
The early history of this country was wild.

Another of my favorites is the story about Lincoln taking the jury to lunch during trial and basically winning the case by a call-back in closing to the joke he told them at lunch.

Now we act like jury sequestration is some holy sacred mandate.

Posted by: People's Hippo Voice at June 27, 2025 05:29 PM (GnVQ5)

246 215 From time to time, I like to point out that a secret ballot is not required by the Constitution.

We went for over 250 years without it. I'm guessing they implemented a campaign of voter intimidation in the 1880's to bring about the secret ballot (to protect us from voter intimidation!). And then the election shenanigans started.
Posted by: t-bird

-------------
Without a secret ballot you end up with vote buying -- it is unavoidable unless there is total strict secrecy. That gives you tribal voting like in most of M. E. and Africa and is way worse than anything we have here.

You also end up with mysterious murder of America's greatest author.

Posted by: bob (moron incognitus) at June 27, 2025 05:30 PM (m5cDg)

247 I recall reading when one man voted for Lincoln in Harrisonville, Cass Co, Mo, 1860 (?), he was forced to leave the County.
The secret ballot is both a blessing and a curse.

Posted by: MkY at June 27, 2025 05:30 PM (cPGH3)

248 That was one fertile 7-year-old!

Possible, but unlikely. Maybe a 17 year old, and it just got written down wrong? (Or his youth was exaggerated!)

Posted by: NemoMeImpuneLacessit at June 27, 2025 05:31 PM (EnO9j)

249 The early history of this country was wild.

Another of my favorites is the story about Lincoln taking the jury to lunch during trial and basically winning the case by a call-back in closing to the joke he told them at lunch.

Now we act like jury sequestration is some holy sacred mandate.
Posted by: People's Hippo Voice at June 27, 2025 05:29 PM (GnVQ5)

Yeah, its like the Modern view on the West... its all Cowboys and gunfights...

OK Coral is really famous... but was a real outlier... 3 dead, 3 wounded...

That's a Weekday in Chicago or New York...

Posted by: Romeo13 at June 27, 2025 05:33 PM (mP0Kj)

250 NOOD

Posted by: Helena Handbasket at June 27, 2025 05:35 PM (ULPxl)

251 Sorry. I assumed the 7 year old became a man, married, and had progeny. Declared black at birth. Maybe his progeny could pass?
Dunno.
Dunno shit, except what I posted prior...and maybe I posted it wrong.
His name was the same as the landholder (my G-G grandpa). First and last name the same. No middle name nor initial.
Maybe he was an orphan. Maybe one of the girls got knocked up. Maybe old George was the squire.
Dunno.
Census don't answer those questions.

Posted by: MkY at June 27, 2025 05:35 PM (cPGH3)

252 You also end up with mysterious murder of America's greatest author.

My first thought was that Samuel Clemens died of a ripe old age, and not murder. Then I remembered the peculiar circumstances surrounding Poe’s death. Ok, de gustibus non disputandem. And Poe was a great American writer. He might have been a fifth better if only he could have left the fifths alone.

Posted by: NemoMeImpuneLacessit at June 27, 2025 05:39 PM (EnO9j)

253 NemoMeImpuneLacessit

Good one.
Twain, "I rarely smoke while asleep, and seldom refrain while awake."
Lived to 87.

Posted by: MkY at June 27, 2025 05:40 PM (cPGH3)

254 Maybe the black 7-year-old was just a stand-in for the real father? If it was just on some county birth certificate who was going to do the sleuthing to point out it didn’t all add up? Columbo wasn’t there to say “Just one more question…”.

Posted by: NemoMeImpuneLacessit at June 27, 2025 05:44 PM (EnO9j)

255 The Dem-O-Rats will lose a lot of their Voters and supporters

Posted by: Tamaa the Drongo Bird at June 27, 2025 06:18 PM (wGqjj)

256 "And in this case, the law speaks of counting "Persons," not "Citizens."

That is a misreading. It says "person" then specifically excludes slaves and Indians, who are persons, not citizens. The law was then changed to make them citizens, at which point they were counted.

I think the founders would be up in arms at the thought of non-citizens having any rights, or being included in any way, in the census.

Posted by: El Mariachi - Attorney at Law at June 27, 2025 07:48 PM (D1vbu)

257 Nic Update

Posted by: ShainS -- Digital Arsonist (formerly Stochastic Terrorist) at June 27, 2025 09:11 PM (arzIt)

258 SCOTUS addressed the meaning of jurisdiction as required for birthright citizenship in Elk v Wilkins in 1884.

Two people who do not owe complete allegiance to the United States cannot produce a birthright citizen.

It is a short opinion, and the ruling is perfectly clear.

I do not understand why this is even a topic for discussion.

Posted by: Egg Shen, Bus Philosophiser at June 27, 2025 10:21 PM (uR4Tu)

Processing 0.04, elapsed 0.0493 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0127 seconds, 267 records returned.
Page size 171 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.