Is this what Executive Orders are for?

[This_person]

According to NBC News…

President Donald Trump is expected to announce an executive action on getting the citizenship question added to the census, according to an administration official.
Trump announced on Twitter Thursday morning that he will hold a press conference in the afternoon to discuss his latest efforts at including the citizenship question as part of the census.​

In my opinion, yes, this is what executive orders are used for. Conducting the census is a function of the executive branch to find out how to apportion congressional representatives, and therefore citizenship is a valid question (do you count tourists, for example).

The law directing the census states "In connection with any such census, the Secretary is authorized to obtain such other census information as necessary." The only requirement in the law for what questions shall be on there states,
(f) With respect to each decennial and mid-decade census conducted under subsection (a) or (d) of this section, the Secretary shall submit to the committees of Congress having legislative jurisdiction over the census—

(1) not later than 3 years before the appropriate census date, a report containing the Secretary’s determination of the subjects proposed to be included, and the types of information to be compiled, in such census;
(2) not later than 2 years before the appropriate census date, a report containing the Secretary’s determination of the questions proposed to be included in such census; and
(3) after submission of a report under paragraph (1) or (2) of this subsection and before the appropriate census date, if the Secretary finds new circumstances exist which necessitate that the subjects, types of information, or questions contained in reports so submitted be modified, a report containing the Secretary’s determination of the subjects, types of information, or questions as proposed to be modified.​

I searched all I could, and "get approval from Congress or the courts" is not a part of the law.

This is just another in an almost infinite list of things Congress did that fuct itself by giving all Congressional authority to the executive with virtually no oversight or control (most people would say, "they take no responsibility for the things they order"). There's not a single good argument to stop the executive from doing what it wants when Congress says the executive "is authorized to obtain such other census information as necessary." It does not define who deems it necessary, or how that is determined, but leaves that authority to the executive branch.

Not to mention, it simply makes sense to do.

 

[Kyle]

As someone else pointed out, and were cheered, he has a phone and a pen.

 

[transporter]

There's not a single good argument to stop the executive from doing what it wants when Congress says the executive "is authorized to obtain such other census information as necessary." It does not define who deems it necessary, or how that is determined, but leaves that authority to the executive branch.

Um....just to point out what should be stunningly obvious...the courts are the arbiter. The courts ultimately would decide what is deemed "necessary".

 

[This_person]

Um....just to point out what should be stunningly obvious...the courts are the arbiter. The courts ultimately would decide what is deemed "necessary".

The law does not give that authority to the courts, it give it to "the secretary". That is so obvious they wrote it a few times in the law.

For the court to be involved, there would have to be a reason it is not legal to do. They do not get to decide what is necessary when the law gives that authority to the executive.

But, that's the actual stunningly obvious thing - so I'm not surprised you don't get it.

 

[awpitt]

According to NBC News…

President Donald Trump is expected to announce an executive action on getting the citizenship question added to the census, according to an administration official.​

Trump announced on Twitter Thursday morning that he will hold a press conference in the afternoon to discuss his latest efforts at including the citizenship question as part of the census.​

In my opinion, yes, this is what executive orders are used for. Conducting the census is a function of the executive branch to find out how to apportion congressional representatives, and therefore citizenship is a valid question (do you count tourists, for example).

The law directing the census states "In connection with any such census, the Secretary is authorized to obtain such other census information as necessary." The only requirement in the law for what questions shall be on there states,
(f) With respect to each decennial and mid-decade census conducted under subsection (a) or (d) of this section, the Secretary shall submit to the committees of Congress having legislative jurisdiction over the census—

(1) not later than 3 years before the appropriate census date, a report containing the Secretary’s determination of the subjects proposed to be included, and the types of information to be compiled, in such census;​

(2) not later than 2 years before the appropriate census date, a report containing the Secretary’s determination of the questions proposed to be included in such census; and​

(3) after submission of a report under paragraph (1) or (2) of this subsection and before the appropriate census date, if the Secretary finds new circumstances exist which necessitate that the subjects, types of information, or questions contained in reports so submitted be modified, a report containing the Secretary’s determination of the subjects, types of information, or questions as proposed to be modified.​

I searched all I could, and "get approval from Congress or the courts" is not a part of the law.

This is just another in an almost infinite list of things Congress did that fuct itself by giving all Congressional authority to the executive with virtually no oversight or control (most people would say, "they take no responsibility for the things they order"). There's not a single good argument to stop the executive from doing what it wants when Congress says the executive "is authorized to obtain such other census information as necessary." It does not define who deems it necessary, or how that is determined, but leaves that authority to the executive branch.

Not to mention, it simply makes sense to do.

If the Congress has no authority here, then why does the Secretary have to even bother submitting to the committees of Congress having legislative jurisdiction over the census— ????

 

[Ken King]

If the Congress has no authority here, then why does the Secretary have to even bother submitting to the committees of Congress having legislative jurisdiction over the census— ????

Seems to me it would be because after reviewing what the Secretary submits the Congress could explicitly change existing law to disallow the question via the normal legislative process, failing that the question would be good to go.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

That's right, Mr. Law and Order. Defy that pesky Supreme Court!

The law does not give that authority to the courts, it give it to "the secretary". That is so obvious they wrote it a few times in the law...

I searched all I could, and "get approval from Congress or the courts" is not a part of the law.

No law gives authority to the courts. The courts decide the constitutionality/legality of certain laws and SCOTUS ruled that the Secretary basically lied about his reasoning and didn't have a good enough reason to include the question.

They didn't find that he couldn't ask the question, just that based on the goals of the census, his reasoniong is counter to the census goals.

 

[This_person]

If the Congress has no authority here, then why does the Secretary have to even bother submitting to the committees of Congress having legislative jurisdiction over the census— ????

It's perhaps a misnomer on my part to say "no authority". Their authority would be via changing the law that abdicates their authority to the executive. The reason for reporting to the subcommittees, I'm sure, is so Congress can decide whether or not it wants to change the law.

 

[This_person]

That's right, Mr. Law and Order. Defy that pesky Supreme Court!



No law gives authority to the courts. The courts decide the constitutionality/legality of certain laws and SCOTUS ruled that the Secretary basically lied about his reasoning and didn't have a good enough reason to include the question.

They didn't find that he couldn't ask the question, just that based on the goals of the census, his reasoniong is counter to the census goals.

No, there's no reason to defy. There's no reason for the Court to even be involved, quite frankly, beyond they want to be.

The right answer for the Executive is, "because we deem it necessary, and the laws says we should ask whatever questions we deem necessary. If there's a reason NOT to add it, feel free to point that out, but we deem it necessary and we have that authority".

THEN, if they interject in some way that is beyond their jurisdiction (their "standing" is equally in question when there's no potential violation of law or constitution) it would be appropriate to defy them. Imagining that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of all questions is a pretty serious flaw in thought (at least, that was Thomas Jefferson's belief, and he knew a little bit about the Constitution and what things meant). But, if they have a reason to be involved, they should be.

As of yet, I have not heard a compelling reason they should be involved.

 

[This_person]

No law gives authority to the courts.

It is good that you noted this. It's inaccurate, of course, but not often enough or significantly enough most of the time to argue the point.

The reason it is good that you noted this is that means you understand the only time the courts should get involved in when the laws are violated or suspect for constitutionality.

In this case, neither of those is true, so there's really no justifiable reason to be at the court.

I just wanted to add that for clarity's sake.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

It is good that you noted this. It's inaccurate, of course, but not often enough or significantly enough most of the time to argue the point.

The reason it is good that you noted this is that means you understand the only time the courts should get involved in when the laws are violated or suspect for constitutionality.

In this case, neither of those is true, so there's really no justifiable reason to be at the court.

I just wanted to add that for clarity's sake.

No. They (specifically SCOTUS) get involved when lower courts differ.

In this case, the government appealed to SCOTUS to take up the case. The reasonable justifiable reason is the govt. wanted SCOTUS to look at the case.

 

[SamSpade]

I seriously don't get what the kerfuffle is over this. Yes, I have heard and read what people SAY.

But - the purpose of the Census is to count people in order to apportion representation in Congress.
It's why people working at the Census - like myself - know that they won't eliminate the agency, because its purpose is spelled out in the Constitution.
They're kind of proud of that - right in the main lobby, it's spelled out in large words.

Now - it IS true that lots of OTHER things follow the count - well good for them. But if they want a LEGAL argument, try to find one.
Is it without precedent? Hell no. It's been in many previous forms and to my knowledge, never an objection or lawsuit brought to bear on it.
No SCOTUS scrutiny to see if it's permitted - because it was.

Is it because other people were counted, in the past? That MIGHT work - as we know, slaves were counted as citizens as 3 for every 5.
But they weren't non-residents. In most instances they were in fact born here and didn't gain full citizenship until the 14th Amendment.

So - where is the reasoning for COUNTING people who are NOT citizens? Please, MAKE that argument. Cite nations around the world that
count non-citizens or non-residents as part of their census.

Dems want to concoct all kinds of reasons why the question should be included on the part of Republicans (which would be great if the news
media were honest and say the question is RESTORED, because it is). They suggest it would result in an undercount - something that DOES not happen with the long form in the past (please, I KNOW the long form and/or the ACS is not a census, which by definition is a complete count of the universe from which a survey is drawn. But they don't create undercounts. See, one of the great things about a census is, you can VALIDATE if the survey is representative of the whole - because - you HAVE it. You HAVE the total count, and you can prove your survey is accurate. So - they can TELL you there isn't an undercount).

Why MIGHT it result in an undercount, you say. GREAT question. Why would someone - who IS a citizen - refuse to answer? Why might someone who ISN'T a citizen, refuse to answer? Well that's the point, right? We're not supposed to count them. What it comes down to is, fear that data from the Census might be shipped over to law enforcement and immigration. And it won't. I won't cite all of the laws but - the Census is a privileged agency in that it's a black hole for data, so to speak - data comes IN to us from elsewhere, but it's not allowed to go out unless we publish it by normal means, and we are strictly not allowed to publish private data.

Basically - there's no reason to object. If Trump loses this, it's because someone is ignoring the law and the Constitution.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

As of yet, I have not heard a compelling reason they should be involved.

Because they wanted them to be. See above.

Look at the case and you'll see that the court doesn't dispute the Secretary has the right or ability to ask the question.

 

[This_person]

No. They (specifically SCOTUS) get involved when lower courts differ.

In this case, the government appealed to SCOTUS to take up the case. The reasonable justifiable reason is the govt. wanted SCOTUS to look at the case.

Well, there's no reason for the lower courts to be involved, either.

As for "the government" - who? For what reason? The law is clear - the secretary has the authority. I linked to the law.

 

[This_person]

Because they wanted them to be. See above.

Look at the case and you'll see that the court doesn't dispute the Secretary has the right or ability to ask the question.

Then, there's the answer. Sounds like they've already answered what is clearly well-understood by anyone who reads the law, so why is there still any question?

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Basically - there's no reason to object. If Trump loses this, it's because someone is ignoring the law and the Constitution.

If Trump loses, it's Wilbur Ross' fault for trying to dupe the court.

Thomas Hofeller, a Republican redistricting strategist, played a key role in adding the question because it would have provided white people and Republicans an advantage.
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.491254/gov.uscourts.nysd.491254.587.0.pdf

 

[This_person]

If Trump loses, it's Wilbur Ross' fault for trying to dupe the court.

Look at your post - #13 in this thread. If they have the authority to add it (which, clearly they do), then what difference does ANYTHING else about it make? Why wasn't that the singular answer from SCOTUS? The legal question should only be whether or not they have the authority to add the question, and you admit they do. What else is there, legally, to discuss? I get there's more politically to discuss, but that's not the business of the court, so what is the court doing involved (or, still involved, if you will)?

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Then, there's the answer. Sounds like they've already answered what is clearly well-understood by anyone who reads the law, so why is there still any question?

Because Ross lied to the court.

There were 5 parts to the case.

1. Facts and procedural history.
2. Legal standing to bring on the suit.
3. Did the question violate the enumeration clause. Here, Roberts (including Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh) makes it clear that the enumeration clause "permits Congress, and by extension the Secretary, to inquire about citizenship on the census questionnaire.”

4a. If the Census Act gives cart blanche to Ross ("the Secretary"). The opinion noted that that the census has not been “traditionally committed” to whatever the agency wants. It's reasonable that Ross would want to add the question, despite census bureau's recommendation to the contrary. It was either this, or use administrative records. Neither approach is perfect.
4b. Reversed a district court decision that said Ross violated the Census Act which required the use of admin records. The court agreed that those records may not provide accurate and complete data.
5. Ross' "official" reasoning for adding the question was a pretext for the actual reason.

The evidence showed [Ross] was determined to reinstate a citizenship question from the time he entered office; instructed his staff to make it happen; waited while Commerce officials explored whether another agency would request census-based citizenship data; subsequently contacted the Attorney General himself to ask if DOJ would make the request; and adopted the Voting Rights Act rationale late in the process.

We share the District Court’s conviction that the decision to reinstate a citizenship question cannot be adequately explained in terms of DOJ’s request for improved citizenship data to better enforce the Voting Rights Act.

 

[This_person]

Because Ross lied to the court.

So what? Prosecute him for contempt or something, but that has nothing to do with the merits of the case if the secretary has the authority to add the question.

There's no legal question left, according to your point that the court said he has the authority. There's no difference between, "cuz I'm curious" and "I want to do it to help out with legal accuracy for apportionment of congressional representation" if he has the authority.

If there's a reason it should NOT be asked, then the court would still have a legal reason to be involved. If the court has stated he has the authority to do so, what is the legal question left?

 

[Chris0nllyn]

So what? Prosecute him for contempt or something, but that has nothing to do with the merits of the case if the secretary has the authority to add the question.

There's no legal question left, according to your point that the court said he has the authority. There's no difference between, "cuz I'm curious" and "I want to do it to help out with legal accuracy for apportionment of congressional representation" if he has the authority.

If there's a reason it should NOT be asked, then the court would still have a legal reason to be involved. If the court has stated he has the authority to do so, what is the legal question left?

The court stated a reason it shouldn't be asked.

The states in the lawsuit demonstrated (as pointed out in #2 above) that if households don't reply due to fear of retribution, loss of federal funding can occur. The government's own numbers showed that if the question was included, 6.5 million people won’t respond to the census.

The Census Act doesn't give comeplete discretion to Ross and nothing in that Act nor the Administrative Procedure Act says that courts can't review Ross' decisions.