Census counting all: Citizens or not

Here's an idea:

How about we don't count all Republican Senators who pay prostitutes to put diapers on them?
.
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/56689/
.

ATTENTION TEABAGGING WINGNUTS!

Follow Glenn Beck's and Michelle Bachmann's advice!

Do not fill out a census form!

We want to make sure that all Red States are NOT provided with any more of those stinkin' govt Congressional seats!

We don't need no stinkin' representation in Congress, we're Teabaggers!

"The proposal is just not doable and we would have had to delay the census," Census Bureau spokesman Stephen Buckner said today. "The 2010 census remains on track and on schedule, and we're moving forward to ensure we have an accurate count in 2010."

Not doable? To count only US Citizens is NOT doable??

Oh, for heavens sake, if they had thought about this a few years ago it would be doable. They did think about this years ago and both political parties had enough nutcases to vote against it then. Politicians want illegal's in this country and thay want them dependent on the government like nice little sheeple.

With the White House now run by the Corrupt Chicago Democrat Machine, the numbers of illegal's and the free-bees given will only increase.

If you are here illegally, you should be made to go through the process to become a citizen or be deported. Employers hiring illegal's should be fined and/or jailed without legal recourse.

Posted by: Yobby Fobby | November 5, 2009 2:48 PM

Good one! Now to all the foamers and Xenophobes who will be responding:

The Constitution calls for a Census based on the "whole number of persons" residing in a state. Thats pretty clear. It doesn't say ''whole number of citizens''.

The Census is a count of ''Everyone'' living in the United States and is mandated by the U.S. Constitution. That's pretty clear. It doesn't say ''Everyone except'' .

The controlling Constitutional law for the U.S. Census is Title 13 of the U.S. Code

13 USC 141: The tabulation of total population by States. “Census of population” means a census of population, housing, and matters relating to population and housing.

Period.

If you are here illegally, you should be made to go through the process to become a citizen or be deported. Employers hiring illegal's should be fined and/or jailed without legal recourse.

Posted by: springfield | November 5, 2009 3:02 PM
_______________________

That's right moron, go ahead and keep denigrating Hispanics. Afterall, the Republican party can't get much smaller than it already is now, right?
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/20/fewer-people-identify-as_n_326971.html
-

Posted by: springfield | November 5, 2009 3:02 PM

Yo Nutjob, what part of the Constitution don't you understand? The Constitution specifically mandates in Article 1 Section 2 that a Census be conducted every ten years to determine the populations of the States.
True at that time the population of a state only included all "free persons", three-fifths of "other persons" (i.e., slaves) and excluded untaxed Native Americans. But there were certainly many illegal immigrants back then and they were not excluded from the census. The Republicans want to exclude immigrants for one reason and one reason only, because they generally vote for theother guy!

Of course back then they allowed ''Well organized malitia's'' to bare arms as well....

Okay, so I did a search of the constitution and found nothing to support the counting of illegals. In fact, the language is very clear and very plain. The apportionment of representatives is to be based on an "enumeration of the citizenry". When did that simple intent get twisted to be the "whole number of persons" residing in a state - whether or not they're citizens!!! WTF, this is just insanity.

"Civis, Romanus, Sum" (I am a Roman Citizen). In Ancient Rome that was a great position to hold. And in the United States it was also held in high esteem by its Citizens. But now the Democrats, for selfish political purposes, want to count undocumented people in the Census. The United States has hit a new low in its decline. My DOG was born in the United States and has more of a RIGHT to be counted than an illegal immigrant. I guess being an American Citizen is not held in such high esteem anymore by Obama and his some of his staunch Democratic followers (some who act like they our part of some wild religious cult). If this is allowed to take place this is a very sad day for the United States and its CITIZENS. Corrupt politics will be the winner and the citizens of America will be the real losers. "The Chicago Way" has finally come to Washington .

Still no story from the so-called Liberal Media about the Census Worker who was murdered by TeaBagging wingnuts on 09/12?

*******************************
I guess being an American Citizen is not held in such high esteem anymore by Obama and his some of his staunch Democratic followers (some who act like they our part of some wild religious cult). If this is allowed to take place this is a very sad day for the United States and its CITIZENS. Corrupt politics will be the winner and the citizens of America will be the real losers. "The Chicago Way" has finally come to Washington .

Posted by: Depot- Jim | November 5, 2009 4:56 PM
*********************************

Hey Jimmy,
If Obama was using 'Chicago Style Politics' on you, you Wingnutters would all be sitting on the bootom of the Chicago River wearing cement shoes right now.

Quit crying and playing the victim card. You lost, get over it.

Posted by: Pat | November 5, 2009 4:47 PM

And where does it say NOT to include illegals??? I guess you missed article 1 Section 2 that states a Census be conducted every ten years to determine the ''populations'' of the States.

Sorry, Pat, Springfield, Depot - Jim: The Census spoken of in the Constitution is designed to get the “Number” of people in a State, in which case it is not limited to citizens. In fact it has never been so limited. The reason the census has never been limited to citizens is that its function serves more than to determine representation. The census was also used in early American to determine taxation - and specifically the constitutional requirement that tariffs and imposts be uniform, and that taxes be apportioned (the latter being abolished with the 16th Amendment). Citizenship has never been a requirement for being taxed.
.
The very text of the Constitution (Art. I, § 2) belies any notion that the census was to be limited to citizens. It states:
.
“Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. 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.”
.
The most obvious omission from this passage is any mention of the term “citizen” in describing the people who are to be included in the “Enumeration.” According to Madison in the Federalist Nos. 54 and 55, the framers of the Constitution deliberately omitted the term “citizen” as the criteria for being counted in the census because, at the time, citizenship was determined by State law and was subject to widely different criteria in the several States. Thus, citizenship was not chosen as a criterion for enumeration because, otherwise, State laws could be used to distort the representation of persons in Congress, making it unequal or inadequate.
.
Note, also, that the terms “citizen” and “citizens” are used about ten times in the Constitution (before Amendment 11 and following) to define the eligibility of persons for federal office, and elsewhere. That makes the omission of the term “citizen” in defining the scope of the Enumeration more significant. The framers knew how to distinguish between such classes of people, “free persons.” citizens and “people” and they knew the significance of each such word. Thus, had the framers intended to limit the enumeration to citizens, it is fairly certain that they would have done so in a manner consistent with the whole text of the Constitution.
.
By defining enumeration to include the broader category of “free Persons” and excluding Indians not taxed and three fifths of all other persons, the framers intended to insure that most residents would be represented - even if they were not “citizens” and could not vote. In fact, we know from the case of Scott v. Sanford (the Dred Scott case) that a slave not subject to indentured servitude was not considered a citizen of any state. All the same, the Constitution originally stated that slaves would be counted (albeit only as three fifths of a person). Hence, a “free” resident alien would thus be included in the Enumeration even if he or she was not a citizen, and could not vote under the laws of the State in which he or she was a resident.

* * * * *
Posted by: Scot S. Blakeley | November 5, 2009 4:44 PM
.
I agree with you that resident aliens are supposed to be counted under the “enumeration” of people provided for in Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution. However, I part company with the suggestion that Republicans seek to exclude ILLEGAL aliens because they “vote for the other guy.” Although not compelled to do so by the Constitution or federal law, all States now require U. S. citizenship as a prerequisite for voter registration. Thus, illegal aliens have no right to vote. As such, it is ludicrous to assume that anyone would seek to exclude illegal aliens on the basis of their voting proclivities. If they did vote, it would constitute voter fraud. And, certainly, no one could be in favor of voter fraud, now could they?

Posted by: John W. | November 5, 2009 8:17 PM

THANK YOU!

So today's DNC Swamp euphemism for Illegal Aliens is "the undocumented"!

Posted by: John W. | November 5, 2009 9:04 PM

John good point and thanks for clarifying that. I got a bit carried away. Glad that we do agree on the legality of it all though. I think thats a first! ;-)

"Still no story from the so-called Liberal Media about the Census Worker who was murdered by TeaBagging wingnuts on 09/12?

Posted by: sensible"

And for a very good reason, "not very sensible": turns out that census taker committed suicide. He wasn't murdered by anyone. And the Liberal Media doesn't want to highlight how it made unfounded accusations here.

* * * * *
Posted by: Scot S. Blakeley | November 6, 2009 12:57 PM
.
No problem Scot. You’re welcome.
.
I don’t take positions against yours just to be contrary or partisan. If you are right, you are right; and this time you were. You know what kind of a fur ball we can get into when I think you are wrong.
.
There are plenty of problems with the census, and counting everyone isn’t one of them. One of the problems with the census is that it is no longer used just to apportion representation or taxes. It is largely used to determine how to distribute welfare-state money from the federal government. The head count determines the amount of federal money that will flow to areas that turn out to have more low income people. That doesn’t make a lot of sense unless the greater number of low income people are actually eligible to receive welfare-state benefits. This is why some people have trouble with counting illegal aliens - i.e. they aren’t (or shouldn’t be) eligible for federal goodies, in which case it is pointless to count them.
.
Another part of the census that should bother people is the inclusion of questions in the census that have no purpose in determining a correct head count (and particularly the “American Community Survey”). The Constitution authorizes a census for purposes of taxation and representation only. There is nothing in the Constitution that allows the government, at the same time, to snoop into the lives of its residents and gather sensitive, private information or to inflict penalties for noncompliance. The invasion of privacy by such questioning, in the absence of clear constitutional authority for it, should have the ACLU and other civil rights groups up in arms. But I’m not surprised that it doesn’t. They, too, have compromised their principles for the benefits they see in big government.

Sen. Vitter's and Bennett had it right in banning illegal aliens from the Census, because SANCTUARY STATES will get a big chunk of Uncle Sam's funding. Small states will not only lose congressional seats, but federal money for its infrastructure and other desperate needs. But then SANCTUARY STATES AND CITIES need large gout's of cash, to pay for all the government benefits needed to sustain the huge illegal immigrant populations in California, Nevada, Texas and New Mexico. Speaker Pelosi specifically needed to count all the millions of illegal's in her state, because how was she going to indenture them on her grape plantations in California?

WITHOUT ANY FEAR OF CONTRADICTION ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION WAS NEVER MEANT TO BE STOPPED. Very few politicians have tried to halt the occupancy by foreign invaders to our country? This is why the E-Verify mechanism was never mandated, owing to the fact that Americans are last to be a priority, specially the 15.3 million jobless workers. Already Hispanic Caucuses have confronted President Obama at the White House, with the chair of the House Rules Committee indicating they are giving the Caucuses what they have adamantly demanded. Rep. Louise Slaughter D-N.Y indicated that the House will have to vote on a bill that allows illegal aliens to use the new health care "exchange". A loophole that does not require verification to keep illegal aliens out of the other parts of the proposed new federal health care system. Please call all House-Senate Members and urge them to vote against the rule that provides a weak verification mechanism that still allows illegal aliens to purchase insurance from the health care exchange. WE MUST JAM THE SWITCHBOARDS IN WASHINGTON, PUSHING OUR OWN DEMANDS at 202-224-3121 that bars illegal aliens from the health care insurance "exchange" YOUR VOICE IS MAKING AN IMMENSE DIFFERENCE TO HOW THE POLITICIANS VOTE? WARN THEM OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF IGNORING PUBLIC OPINION.

Other pieces of information contributing to the dilemma of US legal population: Senate Census allows to Count Illegal Aliens for Congressional Districting . CBO Says New Health Care Bill Would Cover 2.5 Million More Illegal Aliens. Sen. Reid Kills E-Verify Amendment to Unemployment extension Bill. Pro-Enforcement Candidates win in Virginia and New Jersey. 68% of Americans Oppose Sanctuary Cities

You can learn about the corruption and incompetence of lawmakers at NUMBERSUSA. Court cases, political sleaze and immigration non-enforcement at JUDICIAL WATCH. How population growth will effect future generations at CAPSWEB. NO BLANKET AMNESTY!

So today's DNC Swamp euphemism for Illegal Aliens is "the undocumented"!

Posted by: Change in 2009--and 2012 | November 6, 2009 12:56 PM

And your point is?......Crickets.....

The Dimocrats need to build up their voter base.

* * * * *
Posted by: Brittancus | November 6, 2009 4:29 PM
.
I think you’re raving a little bit, Brittancus. The Constitution says the federal government has to get the total number of people in the census. If a proper census results in extra welfare-state cash is going to areas where illegal aliens live, the answer isn’t to conduct an unconstitutionally short census. The remedy is to change the welfare-state laws that hand out that money. In particular, the remedy is to withhold welfare benefits from those who aren’t or ought not to be eligible for welfare benefits. (And, if you asked me, it’s high time that the feds hand over the whole welfare-state system to the state governments anyway.)
.
And you are also wrong that counting illegal aliens will make small states loose congressional seats. Congressional seats are not finite. New congressional districts, and thus, new congressional seats, are created whenever the census says there is enough of a population increase to require more representation. Doing so doesn’t take away any small state’s representation.

The Dimocrats need to build up their voter base.

Posted by: Crooks_In_DC | November 6, 2009 5:13 PM

Thats right and you Neocons are frightened to death of that because you know you have no chance in hell ever getting their vote with all of your xenophopic rants.