Counting the heads that count

Today, Tuesday 4/23/2019, could change the face of politics in the United States - and no, that's not an exaggeration.

Today, arguments take place in front of the SCOTUS to determine whether the Census - specifically, the short form - should contain a question with earthshaking importance:

"Are you a US citizen?"

The current Constitutional guidance is as follows:

The Legislative branch passes laws and the Executive branch executes them.  

Unless the law is extremely explicit about how it is to be executed (most of the time, the law's enforcement mechanism is "the Secretary shall determine"), the Executive enforces the law using its own judgment.  If Congress is dissatisfied with how the Executive enforces a law, the remedy is for Congress to rewrite the offending sections of that law.  Or, to wait for a different Chief Executive to be elected who will appoint a different Secretary who will then change the rules accordingly.

Today's legal arguments at the SCOTUS aren't over the citizenship question per se, but over the "tactics" used by Wilber Ross (SecCommerce) to insert the question into the Census' "short form" - and whether the question should even appear on the "short form".  Did Ross "lie" about his reasons for wanting the question on the short form?  Does it matter whether he lied if, as he claims, he has legal authority to design the Census form?  If the decision does not violate Constitutional principles (it doesn't) and does not violate existing law (it doesn't), why is it wrong?

The heart of any law is its intent.  What is the intent of the Census?  Is it to just to count the full number of people in the US?  If the Census is used to determine apportionment of seats in the House, then shouldn't the census reflect the number of eligible voters in a district - and not just the number of residents?  After all, isn't it the America citizens who elect their representatives - or are we going to allow non-citizens to vote too?

What was Ross's intent?  Was it, as some claim, racist to not count non-citizens in the Census?  If some people of a specific race are American citizens and are counted, and some people of the same race are not American citizens and are not counted, where is the racism?  The Census is published in multiple languages specifically to encourage participation, even by American citizens who cannot speak English.  The goal is to be as inclusive as possible - but for American citizens, not foreign nationals (if you're not an American citizen, you are a foreign national by definition).

Let's look at the law, shall we? The regulations regarding the Census are found in 13 U.S. Code.  Subchapter 1 Section 4 makes it clear that the "Secretary ... may issue such rules and regulations as he deems necessary to carry out such functions and duties..."  And Section 5 reads, in its entirety, "The Secretary shall prepare questionnaires, and shall determine the inquiries, and the number, form, and subdivisions thereof, for the statistics, surveys, and censuses provided for in this title."

Hence, the content of the Census - including the determination of the questions themselves - is a plenary power of the Secretary of Commerce.  Unless Ross directly violates the law, his decision is legal, enforceable, and inarguable. 

Now let's examine a possible scenario that is directly affected by the results of the Census:

If one district in a large state contains a huge proportion of non-citizens and another district a different state contains a very small proportion of non-citizens, and if both districts contain an equivalent number of eligible citizen voters, why should the larger district be granted more representatives in the US House of Representatives than the smaller district?  Aren't the number of eligible citizen voters the same?

One of the goals of the plaintiffs suing against the Census' citizenship question appears to be to allow "undocumented aliens" to be counted.  This is tantamount to granting permission for "undocumented aliens" to continue to live in the US without fear of expulsion.  This is both wrong and extremely unfair to the aliens who followed the procedures to legally come to the US, receive documentation, and take part in American society.

Moreover, since undocumented non-citizens don't legally file federal taxes (very few do) but receive federally-funded services (very many do), doesn't this mean that the smaller district's eligible voter base citizens might be paying higher taxes to support the larger district's non-voting and possibly-illegal non-citizen population?  How is that fair??

My guess is that the government will prevail on the census citizenship question.  The Constitution requires a census (Article 1 Section II), but is silent about the contents except for "as established  by law".  The law already exists in 13 U.S. Code.  The only way to deny a citizenship question would be to pass a law modifying 13 U.S. Code to change the plenary powers of the Secretary - which would certainly be vetoed by Trump.

Ross may have gone about this the wrong way, but his intent was clear: to ensure that the enumeration counted only those who qualify for "taxation with representation" - American citizens.

Any other arguments, e.g. "undocumented aliens will hide in the shadows" or "we need to encourage participation in law enforcement activities" is a red herring and has nothing to do with the purpose of the census: enumeration to determine political representation.

The dog ate my homework - honest!

"Ok, so here's what happened.  I swear it's the truth!

We both knew for several months that my grade would depend on a book report being written by a very good friend of mine, someone who I have known and trusted for years.  Someone I had invited to my parties and socialized with, and who I believed was always on my side.  Heck, you knew him too and had approved of him as an honest guy.

Yes, it sounded strange for me to depend on someone else for my homework, especially when I used to do all of my homework myself.  But this time was different because I already knew everything I needed to know about the book -- or at least I thought I did.  No, I never read it, but I was absolutely sure of its author's other books, so I knew what the story line would be.   And since I knew that my friend was on my side, I knew what he'd say about it.

And, because of our past relationship, you never felt it was necessary to ask anyone else about this.  You depended on me - mainly because I had never given you any obvious reason to not believe me.

I told you what the progress was on the report every day, even though my friend never really told me how it was going.  I even kept you informed on some of the exact content that I thought would be in the report.  Heck, I even told you what my friend would be discussing in it!  I was absolutely certain that I knew how the book report would turn out.

Well, this is what happened.  My friend lied to me!  He told me that he was doing a book report on the book we had chosen, but he changed his mind about how he was going to review the book and wrote a completely different book report instead!  I had no idea that he had changed his mind! I thought he was my friend!  I thought I could depend on him!

Don't get mad at me!  I wasn't responsible for this letdown!  It was that asshole who I thought was my friend.  In fact, when the book report was summarized, the guy who gave the summary completely betrayed me!

What a jerk!  I hate him!  It's his fault that I was wrong!  It's his fault that the review came out differently than I planned!  I thought I could trust him!

I got an F!  Blame him, not me!  I should still get an A because I knew what the report should have said!  In fact, my friend is wrong!  I'm sure I can dig into his report and find the truth!"


"Well, kid, that's what comes from getting participation trophies for attendance rather than learning how to actually play the game.  Don't blame your friend for your own failure.  He's the one who did the work.  Maybe he really does understand the book better than you do.

By the way, that kid you hate?  The one you always make fun of?  The one on the other side of town?  The other one who depended on your friend's book report?  He didn't make any assumptions about the book, its author, or its content.  He didn't guess about the content of the report, but he did do a lot of his own background research... and got an A."

Voluntarily Self-Destructive Behavior

I try to be even-handed when looking at the nonsense from both political parties, because they are really just 2 sides of the same coin.  And, just like a modern penny, it's all glitz on the outside and worthless dross on the inside.

But this is just too good to pass up, so I had to comment on it.

The Democrats hate Trump so much that they've left hypocrisy behind and are heading toward complete insanity.  I mean, seriously: when you become so confused that you don't know what you stand for any more, it's probably time for a little self-reflection.  Ok, a lot of self-reflection.

Instead, all I see from Democrats is self-indulgence.

As an example, let's look at the #METOO issue (I briefly explore other hashtag-issues later in this essay).  Even though a huge number of Holly starlets prostituted themselves for stardom and claim they "regret" what they did (easy to say, now that they're successful), there is validity to being offended by the offer.

But that was then.

Along comes Joe "wandering hands" Biden as a possible 2020 candidate to run against Trump, and Democrats are quick to abandon #METOO to give their favorite VP a pass - for groping women.  The excuse is that he's "affectionate", although some women have said that they would have preferred he wasn't that affectionate.

Um....??????  So, it's ok for an old white male Democrat to grope women?  Who knew?!?!  I need to register as a Democrat so I can be more "affectionate" with women I don't know, sniff hair, put hands on shoulders (and lower), and get a pass on it!  Sheesh.  Once upon a time, we called guys these guys "perverts".  Now, we ignore their perversions if they have the right political ideology.

Let's get honest here.  Joe doesn't "touch".  He gropes.  When the Vice President of the United States is standing behind a woman with his hand on her shoulder (or lower - and there's photographic and video documentation), she's not going to make a public scene.  He's the VEEP, after all.  She may say something later, but not then and there.  And she may be too embarrassed to say anything at all - ever.

The unfortunate truth is that women sometimes feel they did something wrong when they were assaulted by "roaming hands".  Sometimes it takes them years to be able to talk about it with someone other than a close friend.  And sometimes they do say something - but long past the time when Mr. Law could prosecute the offense.

Note to women: report this behavior immediately.  Thank you.

It's one thing to shake a woman's hand in public.  And it's almost ok to shake a woman's hand while touching her upper arm in greeting - as long as you don't maintain physical contact for an uncomfortably long time.  But groping a woman while standing behind her?

I thought that was verboten in the #METOO era.  Apparently not... if you're a "beloved Democrat".

#BLACKLIVESMATTER was killed by Smollett's attempt to start a race war, and buried by Kim Foxx when she dismissed all charges and sealed the case files.  The Mayor and Chief of Police of Chicago are furious at the lack of accountability and the failure to prosecute, and much of the nation - including most of the major papers - are being very, er, ungracious towards the entire situation.  "Chicago justice", indeed.

So, we learned that only Hollywood black lives matter -- and not the lives of other Chicago blacks who are killed by the hundreds in Chicago.

Note to Chicago's judges: if you stopped releasing these killers on bail and kept them in jail until their trials, your crime rate might actually go down.

#BELIEVEALLWOMEN was also killed by the Democrat 2020 candidates for President when they, almost to a person, looked for reasons to disbelieve Biden's accusers.  But then, he's just "Uncle Joe", and the accusers had "other reasons" to make claims against Biden.

If I had an "Uncle Joe" who molested anyone I knew, I'd be the first to let him know, in no-uncertain terms, to keep his damned hands to himself.

So:

Thank you, Democrats, for openly and unreservedly demonstrating what many of us have been calling your deep-seated hypocrisy on almost every important social issue that you started yourselves.  I've listed some of them here, but there are many, many more.

Some of us knew that your indignation was nothing but hubris, and your recent behavior has proved it far more effectively than we had hoped.

Heck, we don't need to use the "if it was a Republican" watchword any more: the 2020 candidates have done a great job of tearing each other down.  Even Obama warned this group of "candidates" to be wary of turning into a "circular firing squad" and destroying any remaining hopes to win the White House in 2020.

A behavior is either right or wrong.  Don't give me this "based on the circumstances" nonsense, or "yeah, but it's his style" crap - or the "but he's a Democrat" excuse.  Either it's allowed or it isn't.  Either the rules are the same for everyone, or toss out the rule book.

BTW,  wasn't it the Democrats who ridiculed Pence for his refusal to be alone with a woman he doesn't know?  Interesting that he lives the #METOO standard -- but he's a Republican, so it doesn't count.