Census Citizenship Chaos & Can the President Defy the SCOTUS (Real Law Review) // LegalEagle

Census Citizenship Chaos & Can the President Defy the SCOTUS (Real Law Review) // LegalEagle


Comments

  1. Post
    Author
  2. Post
    Author
  3. Post
    Author
    Nels Krogh

    Objection. Citizen question have been asked for census except for 2010…the last census. While the question has not been asked since 1950 on short forms (the most common form) the long form has included the question. In 2010 the long form was simply not used.

  4. Post
    Author
    Elliot

    Extremist Leftist bandwagon alert. Why should illegal immigrants by counted as part of a countries citizens, enhancing the voting power of Democratic party states and boosting their voting numbers?

  5. Post
    Author
    jamerv86

    People can lie….so they could just say yes…or ignore that part. But instead everyone makes a huge problem out of nothing because of sand in sensitive crevices…

  6. Post
    Author
    The Doctor

    I don't see anything wrong with asking someone if they are a citizen, if you're an illegal, then maybe its a problem and illegals are a problem no matter how many people are brainwashed into thinking they're not, just become a legal citizen, no problem!
    This is how criminals from other countries are manipulating America, its amazing how people don't see this.

  7. Post
    Author
    The Doctor

    Now why would Trump do this? One reason is because its not a big deal and it makes more sense to ask the question for accuracy then not to and making a big deal about it is pointlessly dramatic and idiotic from what i can see and hes doing what he can do in order to do is job and people in government keep standing in his way… pointlessly!
    Also there are people in government who oppose Trump not because of what he proposes but because they are "told to" and not corporate because hes not a parasitical elite stooge like the last 40 + years of presidents.

  8. Post
    Author
    Steinar Andersen

    FYI – I am a legal immigrant. I don't care who the people are (regarding Illegal Aliens), if they were all white – I'd feel the same way. Here is the thing, if the census counts EVERYONE (Citizens, Resident Aliens, AND Illegal Aliens), then the millions of Illegal Aliens get a voice as districts AND representatives. Sure, apportionment is now capped, but political parties gerrymander all of the time by changing district boundaries. This means certain districts could be biased towards one particular political party as those illegal aliens who are now being counted can put a political party on top regarding that particular political office. Case in point, the redrawing of the Illinois 8th congressional district (the 2011 redrawing of Illinois's election districts by the Democratic-controlled state legislature…. which weighted the district using census data). As far as I am concerned, illegal aliens should NOT be counted towards these district remapping efforts as they should not be there in the first place and it unfairly benefits one particular political party in urban areas AND rural areas.

  9. Post
    Author
  10. Post
    Author
  11. Post
    Author
    dixiesecularskeptic

    Listening to legal eagle quote the president and I can see why so many people like him. He's got a way of turning a phrase into mushmouth. I think maybe halfway through some of his statements he's answering questions that nobody's asked yet. Is he responding to his inner voice?

  12. Post
    Author
    dixiesecularskeptic

    I think before they add a citizenship question they should ask a legal standing question. question. so they should ask if you've ever been arrested, then later check. They should use this as some idea of how skewed the census would be if we started asking people about citizenship.

  13. Post
    Author
    aegideus

    Unrelated to legal issues, Trump sure has a talent for hiring the most obnoxious people, doesn't he? Could AG Barr have been any more condescending about denying that Trump had said what everyone knows he said? "Hysterical" my ass.

  14. Post
    Author
    Michael Diamond

    OBJECTION: Isn’t it annoying to hear all this when we can have population through taxes? And not have all these stupid questions? And often personal and disgusting?

    I don’t know this is wierd and frighted me

  15. Post
    Author
  16. Post
    Author
    shootingcomet082

    Can you review Law & Order: Special Victims Unit: Season 16, Episode 5 Pornstar's Requiem? It's an episode where a judge overturned the guilty verdict on a rape case because he felt the verdict was an emotional one and not based on sufficient evidence. I would love to know your opinion on if he made a good call or if it was an abuse of judicial power.

  17. Post
    Author
    Freddy Alvatorre

    AG stated the administration had no intention of adding the question to the census, then why even taking the issue to court.

  18. Post
    Author
    Daniel Fisher

    Objection:. The Trail of Tears was carried out by Van Buren. Also, Supreme Court ruling was about competing treaties, where two parts of the Cherokee nation each signed different treaties.

  19. Post
    Author
  20. Post
    Author
  21. Post
    Author
  22. Post
    Author
    Jason M.

    That transition to Skill Share was the best ever. The characters in this administration wouldn't be believable in fiction.

  23. Post
    Author
  24. Post
    Author
  25. Post
    Author
    Jeremy Snead

    The citizen question should be on the census to prevent voting fraud. There have been too many dead people voting lately. It will be included in the long run. The White House has an adversarial stance with entertainment corporations.

  26. Post
    Author
    Ace HAMMER

    Trump just can't stop shooting himself and all of his followers in the foot but it is pretty surprising that he didn't just go ahead and do the executive order anyway since there has been little to no opposition to him throughout his entire presidency so far and even when there has been opposition Trump just signs a veto and it's a done deal cause there is no override so he gets his way but I guess Trump "attorney" William Barr said he ain't tryna go down over that so he got Trump to stop

  27. Post
    Author
    Holbein Crâne

    This is a great channel, and especialy a great show for people like me, I'm french and here, we don't like Trump but we don't really know why, because the news, when talking about that, rarely speak about Trump's actions, it's more about Trump's tweets… (because telling real story would mean explaining alot of legal stuff and they don't want to do that (for many reasons))

    So, thank you for your work!

  28. Post
    Author
    The west is being destroyed. It's an inside job.

    what!!! giving white voters more power!!!! outrageous. Stop those damn whites from having any say in their nation.

  29. Post
    Author
  30. Post
    Author
  31. Post
    Author
    Bill Anderson

    Your reference to the history of the 3/5ths compromise is incorrect. The states that were opposed to counting slaves was not based on citizenship. It was based on two massive factors: both centered on slavery.

    You see, the states that wanted slaves counted did so because they were the largest states. Counting slaves for purposes of representation would have absolutely ensured the Democrats would have overwhelmed the smaller states in congress as well as in what we came to call the electoral college. It would have ensured that slavery would be preserved.

    The size of the states is the second aspect. It was the northern states of smaller population that were ready to leave the union because they had no functional say with the proportional system as it was, and adding slaves – which the small northern states were already against – would functionally eliminate all votes of the northern, small, and abolitionist states at the federal level.

    While it is apparently not taught in history class anymore, in real history the constitution and form of government we have now was not the first attempt, but the second post-revolution government.

    The first was far different. It has a congress that selected a committee of ten congresscritters who would serve as executive, with one of them the president of the committee and thus a chief executive but without any actual authority.

    This failed. It failed spectacularly. This birthed the conventions that produced what we know today as the constitution and the later bill of rights. In that first pass the small abolitionist states were dominated by the slave states based on population. They were so put off by it that they will were in negotiations with other countries to join them if they didn’t get the deal they needed. It was that close.

    Ultimately it came down to Jefferson, of Virginia the largest state by population and a slave state, who managed to convince enough of the powers that be to reach a compromise.

    That compromise consisted of the two legislative halves, one done by population and the other by states alone, as well as the reduction of population including slaves to reduce further the power of the large slave states.

    At the end of the revolution, and the creation of the union, every free person was considered a citizen, and there was no discussion of the three fifths aspect as having anything to do with being a non-citizen. If they had there would have been similar language for the Indian population- which were not considered citizens as they had their own tribal government to which they were subject to jurisdiction. Despite them not being counted as citizens they were still enumerated as such in the first censuses. Later as there became the segregation via reservations, the census divided American Indians into reservation and non-reservation Indians. In fact the constitution specifically excluded Indians who were not taxed from enumeration.

    The distinction here is that non-taxed basically meant non-citizen and not priority holding. Note that this is literally in the same sentence as the 3/5ths statement you referenced. As such on that ground as well, the argument that the constitution made no distinction in the census for purposes of representative apportionment fails to stand.

    Indeed we see this continue through the 1800s where it is more strictly stated in census instructions that Indians under reservation jurisdiction are not to be enumerated.

    In fact as we move closer we learn that it was in the 1860 census that Indians were to be enumerated – if they “have renounced tribal rule, and who under State or Territorial laws exercise the rights of citizens”. In other words, if they became citizens of the United States.

    It wasn’t until around 1900 that the distinctions went away, mostly due to a law passed in (IIRC) 1870 or 1871 stating that tribes within the territories of the United States were not considered sovereign entities, thus even Indians on reservations were now deemed citizens, thus enumerated.

    In summary: Native Americans were not considered citizens, and specifically thus excluded from census enumeration for purposes of representation and taxation apportionment – from the beginning.

    I’m not arguing here whether the census should differentiate between citizen, merely that your claim that the constitution specifically counted non-citizens is false not only by the actual constitution in the same sentence you claim support from, but in the legislative acts and census instructions of the following 100+ years.

  32. Post
    Author
  33. Post
    Author
    DuraMax

    Ok. don't include the question of citizenship, but enforce voter ID. it doesn't make sense that anybody can vote, even if they are dead or not present. and someone else can vote for them, because no ID is required.

  34. Post
    Author
    Andrea Scacchi

    To me is unbelievable that you can't ask for a CENSUS if the people you are interview are tourist with visa, permanent or temporary resident, citizen…
    try to do that in italy!
    Of course you need to specificy your citizenship status, ethnicity, sex etc etc! It's the CENSUS!
    Also you need an id to vote!

  35. Post
    Author
  36. Post
    Author
  37. Post
    Author
  38. Post
    Author
  39. Post
    Author
  40. Post
    Author
  41. Post
    Author
    Sam Schwartz

    You miss amendment 14 section 2 that deals with voter and congressional seats. So you have to know how many citizens are in an area and and many were forced not to vote so the congressional power for that area can be reduced

  42. Post
    Author
    Daggdag

    Objection; The reason the northern states were upset wasn't simply that non-citizens were being counted in the census, but because the southern states didn't even consider slaves to be people. The considered slaves to be animals, like livestock. Therefore, they shouldn't have been allowed to count their slaves as people in a census.

  43. Post
    Author
    Daggdag

    Objection: According to their official duties, the US Marshals are the "enforcment arm" of the Federal Judicial Branch. They may also be part of the DOJ, but federal courts do have the authority to call them into judicial service. The USMS has been used to act against the executive branch on the orders of federal judges in the past.

  44. Post
    Author
    Ben Stanley

    Just last week I was sworn in as an official census taker for the 2020 Census, and I somehow didn’t know about this “crisis.” This was SO important for me to know about

  45. Post
    Author
  46. Post
    Author
  47. Post
    Author
    Sean Maloney

    Objection; Supreme Court did not answer no, they answered the given reason for the addition was insufficient on an otherwise granted executive power. Speculation of creating under count. Speculation on Trump using Executive Order to directly add question in defiance of the current Court decision, there are other ways to skirt the decision without directly adding the question(which he has done by an ED allowing departments to cross reference resident information after the fact).

    As an addendum: Your position on gerrymandering being a Republican tactic is flawed. There is evidence to suggest that any redistricting attempt is weighted in the State Courts majority favor. A recent case by the Supreme Court on gerrymandering (Consideration of highly partisan redistricting in Maryland(Democrat) and North Carolina (Republican) and whether the courts overstepped their authority) highlight this.

    You have a habit of leaving out small but specific details at times for impactful statements. I know that's sort of lawyering as a whole, but if you are trying to analyze something it should be more fact and less speculation or bias. It's why we have pundits.

    EDIT: I thought I'd add something other than criticism. The historical precedent of Presidents ignoring the Supreme Court was a bit sobering, especially when you consider the ramifications of doing so. The Judicial Branch seems to have power only because people are civil enough to follow their opinions on law and subsequent constitutionality of the laws.

  48. Post
    Author
  49. Post
    Author
    HemlockRidge

    Why does no one understand the difference between Legal immigrants and Illegal immigrants? Is it merely that it's un-PC? Political Correctness is suppressing a "TRUTH" because it might offend someone. But then, what does a lawyer know of the truth?

  50. Post
    Author
  51. Post
    Author
  52. Post
    Author
  53. Post
    Author
    Michael Finnigan

    calling factual reporting of news fake or hysterical is a typical fascist tactic. pair that with focus on military might and suppression of minorities…..

  54. Post
    Author
    Me Here

    Well the census is a none controversial topic, because we know that people don't care if there is not going to be an adequate budget by counties, or enough schools for the number of kids in every district, all the illegals care about is, to hide, not answer questions that may reveal their location, they do not want to be deported, so who thinks they are going to answer the questions? it does not matter if you put the question in the questioner or not, they wont answer ether way.

  55. Post
    Author
    Me Here

    Well, is all in the ear of the one listening, is like a gun, they do not shot themselves, there is always someone behind the Triger, A constitutional crisis, suggest the constitution did something horrible, when is the people trying to shredder the most brilliant document ever created.

  56. Post
    Author
    Theldras Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis

    during those trump clips, is someone running a industrial vacuum cleaner next to the microphone or something?

  57. Post
    Author
  58. Post
    Author
  59. Post
    Author
    Joshua Lyons

    Add the question then fine all those that fail to answer as its required by law those that don't or can't pay the fines can be criminally prosecuted

  60. Post
    Author
    Tim

    Wait you're saying that only including citizens in our political systems benefits Republicans? Sounds like Democrats are relying on illegals to get ahead in politics and including the question would just undo that unfair advantage.

  61. Post
    Author
    Jon Smith

    Objection: The legal analysis is based on a false premise. The Trump administration never tried to "defy" the Supreme Court. They looked for a way of including the question that complied with their ruling. Indeed, the ruling explicitly stated that the citizenship question could be added, but said that the administration went about it the wrong way. The attempts to add the question afterwards were an attempt to do so in a different manner that the court did NOT rule on. They "defy" storyline is based on opinion pieces from administration critics, not by its actual actions.. The whole history of judicial review was never necessary and, while an important civics lesson, is wholly irrelevant to the discussion.

  62. Post
    Author
  63. Post
    Author
  64. Post
    Author
    Brie N.

    I really, really fail to see what is the big deal with this question. In my country, we have it. No big deal. I've lived in other countries where they have it. What is the big deal?

    Are you a citizen? Living in my country, I'd say yes. Living in another, no, because I'm not a citizen. What is so hard about that?

    Looking at it from the outside, it just looks like a silly issue. Really.

  65. Post
    Author
  66. Post
    Author
  67. Post
    Author
  68. Post
    Author
    A one

    Is it wrong that we want to only allow people that legally live in this country to vote on issues? Edit: yes I am aware that Trump stammers and double speaks as bad as anybody. I am only interested in the statement I made above.

  69. Post
    Author
  70. Post
    Author
  71. Post
    Author
    Mitch Hunt

    President Jackson did when SCOTUS said the Indian removal was illegal. His response was, "Let them enforce it" and then kicked I believe the Cherokees out of their ancestral lands.

  72. Post
    Author
  73. Post
    Author
  74. Post
    Author
    Peter Hoff

    Objection: That segue was so savage that it violates AG Barr's 8th Amendment protections against cruel and unusual punishment!

  75. Post
    Author
  76. Post
    Author
  77. Post
    Author
  78. Post
    Author
  79. Post
    Author
  80. Post
    Author
    fuge74

    your statement is conjecture. it would help with creating districts, but it would be an issue of accurate data, the fact that it is would harm a political party is pure conjecture, you don't know the information until it is provided, it may have the opposite effect. the opinion of the plan maker is not the opinion or goal of the one in authority. the only reason for the citizenship question is as stated, to help set districts it is bipartisan, or are you seggesting that the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendment are not in effect?

  81. Post
    Author
    fuge74

    I'm going to make this simple, the supreme court is getting "layered." what trump will do is ambush the court by not directly ignoring their order but putting something that doesn't ignore their order to the letter. I find the supreme court ruling undignified and unsupported, that is to say Jury nullification or a perverse verdict via the supreme court.

  82. Post
    Author
    Tony Andrews

    Considering that the census is used to determine how many members of Congress a district gets, yes it should be asked if your a citizen.

  83. Post
    Author
    François Bélanger Boisclair

    I don't see why not to add the citizenship question in the census. I would add as the first question in the census: "Do you understand that refusing to respond or giving a false statement to the census is an offence?"  I would add as a question just after: "Do you know that the census can't be legally use again you? Please refer to the (some website) for more information". I would add after the citizenship question "are you illegally in the United-State?". I think the census is to get an image of the society at a specific time and it a legitimate use of the census to establish how many peoples live in the country illegally. How do you want to allocate the right budget and resource to apply the immigration laws otherwise?

  84. Post
    Author
  85. Post
    Author
    Robbini0

    It's not as if the Democrats wouldn't jerrymander districts as well, because if only one side was doing it, no way it would be that successful nor last this long. Or if they hadn't done it, they hadn't actually gathered enough support to prevent it.

  86. Post
    Author
    Breg

    He should be able to ask the question. This shouldnt be a left or right issue. If our own country can’t even take a census based on our own citizen population, that is insane. And yes, it does matter. We should know how many legal vs illegal people are in our country, so we can figure out where funds are being spent. Tax payers should not have an obligation to pay for illegals.

    And the Fed gov should have a right to know where our tax payer dollars are being spent. You KNOW the reason the Democrats don’t want the question on the ballot, because they rely on giving hand outs to illegals, and immigrations for votes. I live in California and have seen this first hand. It never works out. They spend a ton of money giving them things but then they can’t afford the cost in the long run for the needs of everyone else.

  87. Post
    Author
    Conrad Verser

    Objection: Judge Hazel incorporated his own hearsay, not presented in evidence by either party of the suit, as a critical element of his judicial ruling and as the pretext for the emergency session with counsel. It effectively biases him as an agent of the plaintiff, or at least creates the reasonable public image that he's acting in that capacity. At the very least he should be recused, if not should be a slam dunk at appeal.

  88. Post
    Author
    Rts

    Ive only just watched the first minute of this video, and…oh boy, you sure you want to get into the rather complex and controversial(if you get it) topic of judicial reach/oversight/authority in a 20 minute video? I guess if it's only in the context of the relationship between executive and judiciary branches it shaves the topic down quite a bit(and eliminates a fair bit of controversy), but still…having watched the vid, I gotta say, I think you did a pretty good job of simplifying the topic to a level easily understandable

  89. Post
    Author
  90. Post
    Author
    Jeffrey C

    Question from the judge: Why do you want to add the citizenship question?
    Answer from normal person: To count the number of people here illegally so we can determine costs for potential congressional solutions.
    Answer from Trump: Gerrymandering

  91. Post
    Author
  92. Post
    Author
    Aint Jack

    Only citizens counts towards how many electors and House representatives each state gets. So how can we determine this if we don't ask the citizenship question?

  93. Post
    Author
  94. Post
    Author
  95. Post
    Author
  96. Post
    Author
    mdonnelly96

    Most federal, state, and city documents that require you to fill out information almost always ask if you are a citizen. I have a little trouble thinking the census wouldn't have had it in the first place.

  97. Post
    Author
    Bobbydog66

    9:03 I wish real annotations were still a thing on youtube, then that whole tail misspelling could be covered and replaced with trail.

  98. Post
    Author
  99. Post
    Author
  100. Post
    Author

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *