Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4
Results 61 to 72 of 72
  1. #61
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,609
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "Rigged" election?

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    The constitution is a primary document as would be the documents mentioned in the article I posted - "Documents unearthed last week showed that the Republican Party’s top gerrymandering expert, Tom Hofeller, was behind the decision to add a controversial question about US citizenship to the 2020 census, a move he wrote would be “advantageous to Republicans and Non-Hispanic Whites.”"

    It would be. But you never directly cited the Constitution, you just incidentally referenced it. It would seem reasonable for you to post the specific clause you mean and detail why you think this section violates that clause. Nor did you (as you state as well) produce the documents listed in the article.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  2. #62
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,507
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "Rigged" election?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post

    It would be. But you never directly cited the Constitution, you just incidentally referenced it. It would seem reasonable for you to post the specific clause you mean and detail why you think this section violates that clause. Nor did you (as you state as well) produce the documents listed in the article.
    Sure, here's the clause:

    The "Census clause" or sometimes called the "Enumeration clause" is found in Article I, 1, § 2, cl. 3 of Constitution. After taking into account the removal and additions that have occurred with later amendments, that clause reads as follows: "Representatives . . . shall be apportioned among the several States . . . according to their respective Numbers . . . . 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." Further, Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment states that "Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed."
    I'm looking for the documents but am not sure they've been released yet. The story comes from a continuing case and the documents are quoted here.

    There's some redaction too.

    2015 Study - Exhibits C & D (?)
    DOJ Letter - Exhibit B (?)

    ---------- Post added at 07:51 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:21 AM ----------

    https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/...5073.140.3.pdf

    ---------- Post added at 07:56 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:51 AM ----------

    https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/...0Of%20Fact.pdf
    Last edited by CowboyX; June 13th, 2019 at 03:40 AM.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  3. #63
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,609
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "Rigged" election?

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Sure, here's the clause:

    Fantastic. Now, can you tie that language to your argument that the current census violates that text?
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  4. #64
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,507
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "Rigged" election?

    Sure, the first part is that the Constitution does not intend for the the census to be conducted, for the purposes of enumeration and assigning representation, on citizens only. This is important to get passed because sometimes the misguided wrongfully believe that the Constitution only applies to citizens.

    Second is the intent of those adding the citizenship question which, I believe, was to better allocate resources. I'd have to go back and look...I'm sure it is in that DOJ letter. They must have provided some rationale.

    Anyhoo, the allegation and the evidence - which it appears we don't have full access to yet but we do have it quoted - is that the question was inserted for nefarious purposes in that it they knew it would suppress responses which would be advantageous to republicans and disadvantageous to democrats (through a skewed enumeration which I believe they actually claimed the opposite would happen).

    (I'm also not sure if they're was a claim of a conspiracy or a violation of the VRA)

    But for here, the question becomes whether the supposed benefits to the public (whatever BS reason they dreamed up) overrides the constitution's mandate for a correct enumeration.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  5. #65
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,609
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "Rigged" election?

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Sure, the first part is that the Constitution does not intend for the the census to be conducted, for the purposes of enumeration and assigning representation, on citizens only.

    But this census is still going out to everyone right? They aren't proposing that it won't go to non-citizens or that non-citizens won't be counted in assigning representation. So I'm not sure why that section of the Constitution would prohibit asking for additional information.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  6. #66
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,507
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "Rigged" election?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post

    But this census is still going out to everyone right? They aren't proposing that it won't go to non-citizens or that non-citizens won't be counted in assigning representation. So I'm not sure why that section of the Constitution would prohibit asking for additional information.
    It would, by their own research, suppress responses (it's true intent) and therefore produce an inaccurate enumeration not in agreement with the spirit of the clause.

    I suppose you could say so what, if they fail to respond them they have no one to blame but themselves for their lack of representation. But the inaccuracy would also negatively effect those that did respond and positively enrich those of a certain political leaning.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  7. #67
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,609
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "Rigged" election?

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    It would, by their own research, suppress responses (it's true intent) and therefore produce an inaccurate enumeration not in agreement with the spirit of the clause.

    I suppose you could say so what, if they fail to respond them they have no one to blame but themselves for their lack of representation. But the inaccuracy would also negatively effect those that did respond and positively enrich those of a certain political leaning.
    Two questions then. We know that almost any additional question would lower response rate (that is pretty common in public polling, longer poll questions don't get many respondents), so does that mean any question is de facto unconstitutional in your reading?

    Second question, given that this question has been on the Census survey since the early 1800s, are you maintaining that all of those surveys were unconstitutional as well?
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  8. #68
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,507
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "Rigged" election?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Two questions then. We know that almost any additional question would lower response rate (that is pretty common in public polling, longer poll questions don't get many respondents), so does that mean any question is de facto unconstitutional in your reading?
    If the intent was to create an inaccurate enumeration then yes.

    ---------- Post added at 12:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:31 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Second question, given that this question has been on the Census survey since the early 1800s, are you maintaining that all of those surveys were unconstitutional as well?
    My understanding is that it hasn't been on the census in this manner.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  9. #69
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,609
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "Rigged" election?

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    If the intent was to create an inaccurate enumeration then yes.
    So is it your contention that every census since the first one in 1790 has been unconstitutional then? They all asked additional questions after all (and most, if not all, had a citizenship or resident status question on them as well).

    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    My understanding is that it hasn't been on the census in this manner.
    Well there will definitely be those that quibble with whether those citizenship questions were the same or different, but yes they have been on essentially every Census since the 1790s.

    https://cis.org/Richwine/History-Cen...ions-One-Table

    It is interesting how any particular researcher determines if they consider a question about citizenship or not. We can say that the link here should be considered a pretty bare minimum given its particular bent and it has 20 of 24 having some form of citizenship question on it.

    What is interesting, imo, is that the first three also had a way of backing out citizenship (historical researchers use this data for example), because it asked individual's status. I won't quibble with this researcher's interpretation for now, but sufficed to say, this is a well established and pretty robustly litigated precedent.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  10. #70
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,507
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "Rigged" election?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    So is it your contention that every census since the first one in 1790 has been unconstitutional then? They all asked additional questions after all (and most, if not all, had a citizenship or resident status question on them as well).
    If anything was done to create an inaccurate enumeration, then yes.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  11. #71
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,609
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "Rigged" election?

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    If anything was done to create an inaccurate enumeration, then yes.
    Any insight into why multiple supreme courts have disagreed with you? I mean we've had additional questions on every single census since we wrote the Constitution, right? So how has no one felt this was an issue?
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  12. #72
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,507
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "Rigged" election?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Any insight into why multiple supreme courts have disagreed with you? I mean we've had additional questions on every single census since we wrote the Constitution, right? So how has no one felt this was an issue?
    Was that the case? Where the intent was to create an inaccurate enumeration?
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

 

 
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4

Similar Threads

  1. Election 2008 Rigged?
    By Wukong in forum Conspiracies
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: February 2nd, 2009, 09:52 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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