Obama Administration “Rigging” US Census By Counting Illegal Aliens

[Bro. Curtis]

More on this....

First, the United States Constitution did not create the Census Bureau, or even the Department of Commerce, of which the Census Bureau is a part. Thus, the Constitution vests no power directly in the Census Bureau. Rather, the Census Bureau is a creature of the United States Congress. As such, its powers and duties are determined by statute, not by the Constitution. Even then, the law establishing the Census Bureau must itself be “made in pursuance” of the Constitution in order for it to be the law of the land. See U.S. Constitution, Art. VI, Cl. 2.

Further, the Constitution does not require, or even authorize, a census “count [of] everyone living in this country.” Rather, Article I, Section 1, Clause 3, as amended by Section 2 of the 14th Amendment, authorizes a targeted decennial census of the “respective numbers” of the People of the several States, not a wholesale count of the numbers of persons found “living” in the United States. Only by such a tailored count can the constitutionally authorized decennial census serve the purpose for which that census has been required — the apportionment of representation of the people of the several states in the U.S. House of Representatives.

http://www.lawandfreedom.com/

 

[Crabtownboy]

After reading the OP and the Amici curiae that comes up when the OP link is clicked that Baldwin is misrepresenting the truth in this matter, chiefly that it is Obama who is doing this. In the Amici curiae Obama is cited as agreeing that change needs to be made concerning immigration. This is just another example of Obama haters taking a topic, twisting it as an attack mechanism and not interested in the truth.

The Amici curiae asks one question as seen in the quote below.

QUESTION PRESENTED
Amici curiae
address the following question only:Whether unlawfully present aliens should becounted for purposes of apportioning seats in theUnited States House of Representatives and, in turn,the number of electors representing each State inthe Electoral College.

I think it is a good question and one to be addressed. But I believe it will be extremely difficult to determine how many illegal aliens are in the country and their distribution. They are not going to volunteer say, "Hey, I am illegal and should not be counted. How should the number of illegal aliens be determined? How should their distribution be determined?

In a like manner, how is the number of legal citizens who were missed to be determined? And how is their distribution to be determined?

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Haven't the electors already been apportioned for 2012?

 

[Bro. Curtis]

The answer is on page 6, last paragraph, Roger. (Page six of the original document....page eleven of the P.D.F.) I can't copy and paste it.

 

[Crabtownboy]

The answer is on page 6, last paragraph, Roger. (Page six of the original document....page eleven of the P.D.F.) I can't copy and paste it.

Drag your cursor over the text in the PDF file you want, right click and click on copy. You can then paste.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

The answer is on page 6, last paragraph, Roger. (Page six of the original document....page eleven of the P.D.F.) I can't copy and paste it.

Sorry, I am lost. Don't know the pdf you are talking about.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Sorry, I am lost. Don't know the pdf you are talking about.

Here is a P.D.F. of the suit. Twenty-four pages long.

http://www.lawandfreedom.com/site/constitutional/LouisianavBryson_amicus.pdf

Got lost in the shuffle. This seems to say they have not, and I cannot imagine Baldwin joining anything frivolous. He has an excellent judicial record, as far as his position goes.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

The Congressional delegations have taken their seats in Congress. Electors are based on the total congressional representation. This year is settled. Despite Baldwin's great record this lawsuit indeed seem frivolous.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

It also seems a bit presumptuous to know which states the president is going to win and which he is going to lose. I did not see any evidence anywhere that this was President Obama's scheme to get one electoral vote from Montana into a state like Florida that he is not sure to win.

I tend to like Baldwin. This just seems a bit wacky on his part.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

... Electors are based on the total congressional representation...

Including illegals ? Is it common practice to count illegals toward an electoral vote ? Should it be ? I don't think so.

The article makes a great argument that it is unconstitutional to do so, and explains how Montana will be affected.

You can follow the links and see the lawyers involved, and the petitions thay have filed.

And Fanning will have my vote for Governor.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Including illegals ? Is it common practice to count illegals toward an electoral vote ? Should it be ? I don't think so.

Who is to determine how many illegals there are in each state? How would this number be determined? I do not see how this can be done. If there is a way of doing this fairly then I would agree. I just do not see how the determination can be done.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Including illegals ? Is it common practice to count illegals toward an electoral vote ? Should it be ? I don't think so.

Electoral votes are not directly determined by a census. They are determined by the total size of a state's congressional representation.

Most of the states who lost electors in 2012 are states which President Obama will carry. States which voted Democrat in 2000, 2004, and 2008 lost six electoral votes. States which voted Republican in those three elections gained six electoral votes. Montana's representation was unchanged from the 2000 census.

I just don't understand Baldwin's point, except may publicity? Since Montana has 2 senators and 1 representative she will get 3 electoral votes in November. It is too late to change that.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

He IS running for Lt Governor....

 

[Crabtownboy]

Electoral votes are not directly determined by a census. They are determined by the total size of a state's congressional representation.

Most of the states who lost electors in 2012 are states which President Obama will carry. States which voted Democrat in 2000, 2004, and 2008 lost six electoral votes. States which voted Republican in those three elections gained six electoral votes. Montana's representation was unchanged from the 2000 census.

I just don't understand Baldwin's point, except may publicity? Since Montana has 2 senators and 1 representative she will get 3 electoral votes in November. It is too late to change that.

Excellent point C4K. Montana's representation cannot be cut. Two senators and 1 representative is the minimum number a state can have. It cannot be cut below that level.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Excellent point C4K. Montana's representation cannot be cut. Two senators and 1 representative is the minimum number a state can have. It cannot be cut below that level.

I think the idea was that Montana should have received another member of the House. Their growth was only about 7% which was not enough to qualify.

 

[Crabtownboy]

I think the idea was that Montana should have received another member of the House. Their growth was only about 7% which was not enough to qualify.

What was the time period of the 7%.

I just did a bit of research on recent years and it shows that Montana's population is growing at a slower rate than the US as a whole. Does this mean that they will never receive an additional representative if this trend continues?

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

What was the time period of the 7%.

I just did a bit of research on recent years and it shows that Montana's population is growing at a slower rate than the US as a whole. Does this mean that they will never receive an additional representative if this trend continues?

That was 2000-2010. Chance are unless they discover gold or oil they will forever have the 3 electoral votes

 

[billwald]

>Electoral votes are not directly determined by a census. They are determined by the total size of a state's congressional representation.

And a state's congressional representation is determined by the official 10 year census that is mandated by the Constitution. The census workers do not ask for birth certificates or SS numbers.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

>Electoral votes are not directly determined by a census. They are determined by the total size of a state's congressional representation.

And a state's congressional representation is determined by the official 10 year census that is mandated by the Constitution. The census workers do not ask for birth certificates or SS numbers.

That's why I used the word 'directly.'

It would be an awful mess if the Census Bureau ever tried to determine the citizenship, nationality, and legal status of everyone living in the US. The costs of such a census would be astronomical because every single person would have to produce documentation in person to a massive army of census takers. That, in turn, would lead to massive abuse of the system. I can't even imagine how long it would take to verify the legal status of over 300,000,000 people.