Government lawyers affirm administration will pursue adding citizenship question to 2020 Census, according to statement to judge

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...fJy?li=BBnb7Kz


The Justice Department affirmed Friday that it still is pursuing a path for adding a citizenship question to the 2020 Census, according to a filing in federal court in Maryland.

The filing followed statements earlier in the day from President Trump in which he said he is “thinking of” issuing an executive order to add the controversial question.
Government lawyers said in their filing Friday that the Justice and Commerce Departments had been “instructed to examine whether there is a path forward” for the question and that if one was found they would file a motion in the Supreme Court to try to get the question on the survey to be sent to every U.S. household.


Attorneys for the government and challengers to the addition of the question faced a 2 p.m. deadline set by U.S. District Judge George J. Hazel to lay out their plans.

Hazel said earlier this week that if the government stuck with a plan to try to add the question, he would move ahead on a case before him probing whether the government has discriminatory intent in wanting to ask about citizenship.
The Justice Department lawyers argued in Friday’s filing that there was no need to start producing information in that case since for now courts have barred the government from adding the question. But the government also agreed to follow a schedule to move ahead if that was laid out.
The government has begun printing the census forms without the question, and that process will continue, administration officials said.
© Evan Vucci/AP President Trump talks to reporters on the South Lawn of the White House before departing for his Bedminster, N.J. golf club, on Friday. Trump had raised the possibility that some kind of addendum could be printed separately after further litigation of the issue, a move would almost certainly carry additional costs and may not be feasible, according to census experts.
“We’ll see what happens,” Trump said. “We could start the printing now and maybe do an addendum after we get a positive decision. So we’re working on a lot of things, including an executive order.”
Census experts say that, among other concerns, such an addendum would likely violate the bureau’s strict rules on testing a question, which include considering how the placement of a question on the form affects respondents’ likelihood of filling it out.
Trump’s comments came as government lawyers scramble to find a legal path to carry out the president’s wishes despite their conclusions in recent days that no such avenue exists.
Census officials and lawyers at the Justice and Commerce departments scrapped holiday plans and spent Independence Day seeking new legal rationales for a citizenship question that critics say could lead to a steep undercount of immigrants, which could limit federal funding to some communities and skew congressional redistricting to favor Republicans.
“It’s kind of shocking that they still don’t know what they’re doing,” Thomas A. Saenz, president and general counsel of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund said. MALDEF is representing some of the plaintiffs in the case in Maryland." We’re in this posture because they don’t know what the real plan is.”
The question had seemed settled after the Supreme Court ruled last week against the Trump administration. As late as Tuesday evening, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, who oversees the census, said the administration was dropping its effort and was printing the census forms without the citizenship question.
But Trump, in tweets Wednesday and Thursday, said he was not giving up. He tweeted Thursday morning: “So important for our Country that the very simple and basic ‘Are you a Citizen of the United States?’ question be allowed to be asked in the 2020 Census. Department of Commerce and the Department of Justice are working very hard on this, even on the 4th of July!”
The reversal came after Trump talked by phone with conservative allies who urged him not to give up the fight, according to a senior White House official and a Trump adviser, who both spoke on the condition of anonymity.
In the Supreme Court’s splintered ruling last week, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said the government had provided a “contrived” reason for wanting the information, seemingly leaving open the door for the government to offer a new justification and see whether it satisfies the court. An executive order from Trump and a new rationale given by Ross on the basis of that order could give the administration something to take back to the justices.
Trump told reporters Friday that the White House was surprised by the Supreme Court decision and that he found it “very shocking” that the citizenship question could not be included.
Trump said he believes the rationale provided by Ross “can be expanded very simply.”
“He made a statement,” Trump said of Ross. “He wrote something out. The judge didn’t like it. I have a lot of respect for Justice Roberts. But he didn’t like it, but he did say come back. Essentially, he said come back.”
Saenz derided the idea that an executive order could brush aside the 15 months of litigation that culminated in the high court’s ruling.
“Despite what yesterday’s military show may have looked like, the United States is not a Soviet bloc dictatorship,” Saenz said, referring to the “Salute to America” event that Trump staged on Thursday. “Executive orders do not override decisions of the Supreme Court. Separation of powers remains, as it has been for over 200 years, a critical part of our constitutional scheme.”
Earlier Friday, Ken Cuccinelli, Trump’s acting U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services director, said during an appearance on Fox Business Network that there’s a “high chance” that Trump would find a way, either through executive order or “another administrative way, to ask the simple census question.”
Cuccinelli said he met with Trump this week and the president “was very determined about this.”
In litigation earlier this year, the government stressed that forms needed to go to the printer by July 1, prompting the Supreme Court to expedite its consideration of the question.
In a June filing to the court, Solicitor General Noel Francisco noted that witnesses at trial had said changes to the questionnaire after June 2019 “would impair the Census Bureau’s ability to timely administer the 2020 census,” and that a delay until October would be feasible only with “exceptional resources.”
tara.bahrampour@washpost.com
john.wagner@washpost.com
Colby Itkowitz contributed to this report.


I was surprised at the rationale of the SC on the issue, to state the "Least".
The DPST resistance to counting citizens is flagrant pandering to achieve voting status for illegals and non-citizens. Democrats - DPST's want that to boost their voting numbers.

When it happens - it is the death of America as a nation under the Law of the Constitution.

Thought ( YR will ridicule ) - Grass-roots - a write-in on the census form -" I am a US citizen."

Let every citizen who chooses ( under penalty of perjury if false) - write in their citizenship status.

The DPST's gonna go through and round up all who do so for their concentration camps??
I think Not.

They would be met with deadly force in many circumstances attempting that. Their leadership- if the write-in happens - will still bluster and threaten.
Fuck Them.
I will write in my citizenship status.

I invite all who agree to do so as well.

DPST's - You know who you are - welcome to not participate.

This action if approved will reduce government funding for various federal initiatives in communities where they are needed the most and enable politicians to literally pick their own voters for the next 10 years. This is significant because the federal government has other more efficient and accurate ways to determine the number of citizens that are in this country on a more frequent basis than the US Census.

This action if approved will reduce government funding for various federal initiatives in communities where they are needed the most and enable politicians to literally pick their own voters for the next 10 years. This is significant because the federal government has other more efficient and accurate ways to determine the number of citizens that are in this country on a more frequent basis than the US Census. Originally Posted by Whisky_1

Read the damn Constitution. The Census is not about appropriations. It's about apportionment.

The Constitution of this country is not the strong suit for DPST's.

They long to scrap it and rule by their "Fiat of Feelings" of how it ought to be.

The census is required. It is not optional. Local municipalities will be fine unless they want to spend money on illegals. That taxpayer money is for services for U.S. citizens. If they want to help illegals then ask the Koch brothers, George Soros, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, or Taylor Swift for money.

It’s a search and destroy mission for the Legion of Trump. He doesn’t like hearing no.

Not from Congress. Not from women. Not from the Supreme fucking Court.

What a megalomaniac douchenozzle.

No means no.

It’s a search and destroy mission for the Legion of Trump. He doesn’t like hearing no.

Not from Congress. Not from women. Not from the Supreme fucking Court.

What a megalomaniac douchenozzle.

No means no. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

You asked about reading the Constitution...DO IT!!
What do you know about Trumps nozzle??
Another Trump rant...way to go YR!!

The census is required. It is not optional. Local municipalities will be fine unless they want to spend money on illegals. That taxpayer money is for services for U.S. citizens. If they want to help illegals then ask the Koch brothers, George Soros, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, or Taylor Swift for money. Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn

True, the census is required. On the other hand, the addition of citizenship questions is not. Your statement seems to be emotional in nature. Emotionally derived policies generally tend to be inefficient, not cost effective and produce undesirable outcomes. A probable undesirable consequence of would be the under funding of government programs over the next ten years. Moreover, I suggest that taxpayer money is intended inpart to maintain American social institutions and national infrastructure which is for use by residents as well as citizens.

True, the census is required. On the other hand, the addition of citizenship questions is not. Your statement seems to be emotional in nature. Emotionally derived policies generally tend to be inefficient, not cost effective and produce undesirable outcomes. A probable undesirable consequence of would be the under funding of government programs over the next ten years. Moreover, I suggest that taxpayer money is intended inpart to maintain American social institutions and national infrastructure which is for use by residents as well as citizens. Originally Posted by Whisky_1

The citizenship question is absolutely required to meet the Constitutional requirements stipulated in the 14th Amendment.

The 14th Amendment explicitly states that only those who can vote are to be counted for the purpose of apportionment. Anyone who is legally forbidden to vote in a federal election cannot be enumerated for purposes of apportionment; hence, there has to be someway of discerning who is a citizen eligible to vote and who is an non-citizen alien who is forbidden by federal law from voting for federal offices pursuant 18 U.S. Code § 611.

Read the damn Constitution. The Census is not about appropriations. It's about apportionment. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

The census is required. It is not optional. Local municipalities will be fine unless they want to spend money on illegals. That taxpayer money is for services for U.S. citizens. If they want to help illegals then ask the Koch brothers, George Soros, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, or Taylor Swift for money. Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn

there really should be 2 censuses. one for apportionment (short form) and one for approriations (long from)

Like I said...

The fat lady hasn't sung yet. Originally Posted by gfejunkie

The question will be on the 2020 census. Undeported occupants don't count.

Like I said...



The question will be on the 2020 census. Undeported occupants don't count. Originally Posted by gfejunkie

Well thank you Chief Justice Junkie.

HAHAHAHAHSHSHS!!

No means no.

......the federal government has other more efficient and accurate ways to determine the number of citizens that are in this country on a more frequent basis than the US Census. Originally Posted by Whisky_1

But any such fabricated "ways" are not the basis of redistricting and establishment of Congressional districts upon which the Electoral College membership is determined ....

... nice try!

That's what all this LiberalSocialistAntiTrump nonsense is about.

Their stupidity and disregard for history demonstrates why NONE OF THEM should be in a position of decision making .....

The hijackers in the September 11 attacks were 19 men affiliated with al-Qaeda. 15 of the 19 were citizens of Saudi Arabia, two were from the United Arab Emirates, one was from Lebanon, and one was from Egypt.

Remember the "dots" that were not "connected"?

They can win a legitimate election for POTUS so they stuff the ballot boxes in the manner of JFK in Chicago, but in this instance it will be the "sanctuary" states for ILLEGAL ALIENS, who want the free stuff they are promised if they vote for the loons of the DNC.

Millions of illegal votes. Millions!

Very fine people.

On both sides. On both sides.

Want cream in your covfefe?

LexusLover you sound cray cray. My reclama.....45's bid to have the question placed on the census was rejected by the US Supreme Court. An executive order directing the question to be placed on the census is probable to be declared unconstitutional in a legal battle. Second, Congressional representation is based on population. The question would artifically set the US population at a low point with undesirable consequences. For the record, I'm not a big fan of the electoral college.