Thread: Socialist state officials to sue Trump over census Citizenship Question

.

See: At Least Twelve States to Sue Trump Administration Over Census Citizenship Question


”WASHINGTON — At least 12 states signaled Tuesday that they would sue to block the Trump administration from adding a question about citizenship to the 2020 census, arguing that the change would cause fewer Americans to be counted and violate the Constitution.”


But a little further down in the article we find the Attorney General of the socialist State of Massachusetts, Maura Healey, gives the real reason why she and these other states are suing. She indicates, the citizenship question “. . . will result in an undercount of the population and threaten federal funding for our state and cities.”


Keep in mind each state’s socialist federal funding is alleged to be apportioned based upon their state’s population size. So, according to Maura Healey and these other States, the census is about how much federal government cheese their state will get, and the citizenship question would scare illegal entrants into not stepping forward to be counted in the census, thus reducing the amount of government cheese these States would get.


Now, let us look at the specific reason why our Founding Fathers required a census every ten years, which is far different from what our Fifth Column socialists and Yellow Journalists tell us.


During the framing of our existing Constitution the question of determining each State’s number of representatives in Congress became a matter of heated debate and created an impasse. On July 2nd of the Convention Sherman of Connecticut remarked: “We are now at a full stop, and nobody he supposed meant that we should break up without doing something” The Convention did not sit for the next couple of days to allow an appointed committee to hopefully come up with a workable plan to determine how the States would be represented in Congress.


On July 12 of the Convention, and after fierce debates concerning taxation and representation, Mr. MORRIS proposed a workable compromise, “that taxation shall be in proportion to Representation."


Eventually this proposal, often referred to as the “Great Compromise” of the Convention of 1787, became Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of our existing Constitution: “Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States…….” The intention behind these words was the creation of an agreed upon fair share formula to determine each state’s allotted number of representatives in Congress, and also determine each state’s share of any direct tax used to fill the national treasury.


The formula, considering subsequent amendments to our Constitution, may be represented as follows and applies to any federal direct tax laid among the States, and also determines how each states’ number of representatives are calculated:



State`s Population
_________________ X House membership (435) = State`s No. of Reps
Population of U.S.



State`s Population
_________________ X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE`S SHARE OF TAX
Total U.S. Population




Eventually, the Convention specifically required in the Constitution that a census would be taken every ten years to confirm and adjust any alterations in the various state population sizes, and thus be able to determine each states’ number of representatives, and each states’ share of any direct taxes Congress may lay to finance the federal government’s authorized functions.


The principle behind this agreed upon formula, as applied to the states and their inhabitants, boils down to “Representation with a proportional financial obligation”, or, one man, one vote, and one vote, one dollar, a principle despised by socialists, communists and progressives, all of whom are part of an ongoing Fifth Column movement in the United States working to undermine and overthrow the very intentions under which our Constitution was adopted.


In Federalist No. 54 we are reminded that our Constitution’s rule requiring an apportionment of both Representatives and direct taxes “…will have a very salutary effect.” Madison observes in this paper . . . “Were” the various States’ “share of representation alone to be governed by this rule, they would have an interest in exaggerating their inhabitants. Were the rule to decide their share of taxation alone, a contrary temptation would prevail. By extending the rule to both objects, the States will have opposite interests, which will control and balance each other, and produce the requisite impartiality.”



But now we see that our open border, socialist, sanctuary city and state officials have a dishonest reason for welcoming illegal entrants. The more illegal entrants they invite into their state, the larger is their population count during a census, and thus they feel entitled to a larger share of free government cheese, while their obligation to contribute an apportioned share of any direct taxes goes unenforced!


It should also be noted that our Supreme Court has repeatedly confirmed the Sixteenth Amendment did not repealed the rule that “direct taxes” are still, to this date, required to be apportioned! The last time the Court confirmed this fact was when Justice Roberts stated in the Obamacare case:


"The shared responsibility payment is thus not a direct tax that must be apportioned among the several States."


So, what we have learned is one of the motives of elected officials in certain States and cities inviting illegal entrants into their borders is to increase their apportioned share of government cheese. But there is another, and even more notoriously evil motive. Inviting in the poverty stricken, poorly educated, low and unskilled populations of other countries ___ a financially dependent class who will eventually get to vote ___ ensures the socialists, communists and progressive elected officials who run these sanctuary cities and states will have a captive and dependent voting block to keep themselves in power, while hard working American citizens across the country will be taxed to provide the government cheese which these sinister politicians use to buy votes which helps to keep them in power.


The bottom line is, the census was specifically intended to confirm and adjust any alterations in the various state population sizes on a periodic timetable, which in turn is intended to be used to apportion each state’s number of representatives, and, each state’s share of a direct tax used to finance the constitutionally authorized functions of our federal government. But don’t expect our Yellow Journalists, including those who appear on Fox News, to mention how apportionment is intended to apply to taxation. If they did, it would no longer be profitable for sanctuary city and state officials to invite in and protect the poverty stricken, poorly educated, low and unskilled populations of other counties. To do so would increase their apportioned financial obligation to fill the national treasury instead of sucking it dry.


JWK



If we can make 51 percent of America’s population dependent upon the federal government for its subsistence, we can then bribe them for their vote, keep ourselves in power and keep the remaining portion of America’s productive population enslaved to pay the bills ____ Our Washington Establishment’s Marxist game plan, a plan to establish a federal plantation and be in charge of redistributing the bread which labor, business and investors have worked to produce.

I support the citizenship question along with a question are you an immigrant with valid unexpired papers or are you an illegal aliens without any permission to be here.

We need to know how many citizens, how many legal immigrants and how many illegal aliens are in the country. And we need to know that as soon as possible. How can you plan anything properly without this knowledge? Very difficult to impossible.

Originally Posted by Judy

I support the citizenship question along with a question are you Wan immigrant with valid unexpired papers or are you an illegal aliens without any permission to be here.

We need to know how many citizens, how many legal immigrants and how many illegal aliens are in the country. And we need to know that as soon as possible. How can you plan anything properly without this knowledge? Very difficult to impossible.

Plan for what? What information should the federal government want, and to plan for what?


JWK

Originally Posted by johnwk

Plan for what? What information should the federal government want, and to plan for what?


JWK

1) How many members of Congress from each state.

2) How many ICE agents needed to deport illegal aliens.

3) How much to reduce legal immigration to ensure there are plenty of good paying jobs for American citizens.

Just by adding the question to the Census about citizenship, the opposition is coughing up that at least 24 million people might be afraid to do the survey, the only people afraid to take the survey would be illegal aliens, so now they've blown their lie about there only being 11 million illegal aliens. They've been lying for decades about the actual number of illegal aliens in the US. Now they're admitting to 24 million. I think there's actually over 30 million.

It's an important question.

GO TRUMP GO!!!

And FairTax coming soon!!

Don't we also "plan" in the budget each State gets for how many "citizens" they have?

Why should US taxpayers give more money to States who harbor illegal aliens...who are NOT citizens and do not belong in this country, let alone spend OUR money on them?

That money belongs to the American people who are her LEGALLY.

NOT ONE MORE DIME TO ILLEGAL ALIENS OR THEIR MINOR CHILDREN...THEY ARE NOT U.S. CITIZENS EITHER.

Originally Posted by Beezer

Don't we also "plan" in the budget each State gets for how many "citizens" they have?

Why should US taxpayers give more money to States who harbor illegal aliens...who are NOT citizens and do not belong in this country, let alone spend OUR money on them?

That money belongs to the American people who are her LEGALLY.

NOT ONE MORE DIME TO ILLEGAL ALIENS OR THEIR MINOR CHILDREN...THEY ARE NOT U.S. CITIZENS EITHER.

No, we do not plan for that by state. Back in the 1970's before this huge immigration problem, there was Revenue-Sharing that was a function of population during the Nixon Administration, a great idea for the times, but with this massive immigration, that no longer applied and that was done away with to the best of my knowledge. Today, to my knowledge, it's all based on eligibility for each program and with regards to highway funds, based on project worthiness and gas taxes paid by that state into the fund. Obviously, though, when you cheat on Census and have more representatives than you're supposed to have, then you have more votes than you're entitled to, so you pass and structure more spending bills that favor your area over someone else's area.

I'll research and see if there is any program based on population alone, but I'm not aware of it if there is. If you run across one, let me know, so we can demand it's immediate termination.

Now that all said, here is why these states get more money: poverty. They import poverty through illegal immigration, so they grow poverty in their state, not only the poverty of the illegal aliens and excess legal immigrants, but citizen poverty as well by giving illegal aliens and immigrants American Jobs at lower wages (poverty), leaving the citizen without a job which now places them in poverty (unemployment). The poverty funding is why those states get more federal funding than non-immigrant states even though that type of federal funding is not based on population from a Census count, it is however the result of bad immigration and trade policies that grow population while shrinking good high wage jobs. The two combined are the reason California collects more money from the federal government for poverty programs than any other state, not the Census count. It leads the nation in Medicaid payments. California wants to brag about being the 6th largest economy in the world yet they lead our country in the number of people with nothing, which is where you have to be to draw Medicaid, have .... nothing.

Originally Posted by johnwk

The principle behind this agreed upon formula, as applied to the states and their inhabitants, boils down to “Representation with a proportional financial obligation”, or, one man, one vote, and one vote, one dollar, a principle despised by socialists, communists and progressives

So if there are more illegal aliens in the state, and they are counted, that states contribution to the federal budget will be proportionately larger than a state only reporting legal residences. So where's the inequity? The inequity is those not paying their fair share, be they legal or illegal.

This is the same for representation, the more people the more representatives. It's all about whether illegals should have the same rights and obligations as legals.

It is not that I am for including illegal aliens in the census, it is that the methodology you put up does nothing to make it better. Everything to you comes down to tax. Personal income, and what you keep, is what counts. If you are unemployed because an illegal alien took your job, you couldn't care less about the method the government uses to finance itself.

jtdc wrote:

It is not that I am for including illegal aliens in the census, it is that the methodology you put up does nothing to make it better. Everything to you comes down to tax. Personal income, and what you keep, is what counts. If you are unemployed because an illegal alien took your job, you couldn't care less about the method the government uses to finance itself.

That is so true!

And FairTax coming soon!!

Nothing, absolutely nothing, to indicate that will ever happen (thank goodness).

http://fairtaxfraud.com/fair.asp

All the signs are there. Just wait ... be patient .... FairTax is coming soon! All the economists now agree that the best tax for the US economy is a consumption tax with a rebate, which is the FairTax. They didn't understand it at first because they were just listening to vested interest opposition from the Anti-Fairtax Lobby and never bothered to read it. Now they're reading it. Oh, it's a coming. Yes indeedy and it will be a joyous day for our country when it does. Let freedom live! Americans have been in tax shackles for 105 years for no valid reason or purpose at all. Set us free! Let us live as normal human beings without the sickening authoritarianism of mandated income tax. The income tax has ruined more lives than illegal immigration and the war on drugs combined and that is in the millions and millions. Time to end it and replace it with the FairTax.