Supreme Court to hear case on Trump's exclusion of illegals in the census account for purposes of reapportionment.

 Washington Free Beacon:

The Trump administration will press its bid to exclude illegal aliens from the population baseline for awarding House seats on Monday in the Supreme Court, a move that would shift political clout away from states with large undocumented populations.

President Donald Trump's July order to exclude illegal aliens from the apportionment could be one of his most consequential acts in office. States like California, where approximately 6 percent of the population is undocumented, will lose out on congressional seats and untold millions in federal funds if the administration prevails.

Blue states losing even a handful of seats would make the House's thin Democratic majority even more precarious. Congressional analysts suggest Democrats will lose the House in 2022 on the basis of reapportionment alone, since red states with growing populations are expected to gain seats. But right-leaning states like Florida and Texas could each pick up one seat fewer as a result of the order, according to the Pew Research Center.

The dispute is moving at a fast clip. Census figures are by law due to the White House from Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross on Dec. 31. President Trump must transmit a reapportionment to Congress by Jan. 10, 2021. The Constitution requires the government to conduct a census every 10 years.

A three-judge court in New York blocked Trump's order after a coalition of blue states, cities, and civil-rights groups sued the administration. The court said Trump's directive violates the federal census laws. Another court in California went further and said Trump's order violates the Constitution.

The Constitution and a federal statute provide that House seats are awarded based on "the whole number of persons in each state," a key phrase in the case. In court filings, acting solicitor general Jeffrey Wall argues that phrase covers the "inhabitants" of each state. It's reasonable to say a person who "lacks permission to be in this country" is not an inhabitant, Wall wrote, adding that the president has discretion to determine who counts as an inhabitant.

In a 1992 case, the Supreme Court allowed the first Bush administration to include overseas Defense Department personnel in their home state populations for the census. The Court recognized that the president is the "ultimate decision-maker concerning the contents of the decennial census," Wall wrote.
...

The main reason Democrats support illegal immigration is that it helps them steal House seats for American citizens in other states. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Should Republicans go ahead and add Supreme Court Justices to head off Democrats

Washington Post: Some Democrats eye adding more justices to the Supreme Court to change its ideological bent The once-remote idea has gained the attention of liberals angered by the GOP push to remake the federal courts. Probably the easy way to defeat this court-packing scheme is for Trump to propose doing the same thing now.  It would lead to Democrat denunciations and claims that it would be wrong, thereby blowing up any attempt by them in the unfortunate event of Democrats winning a presidential election.
Read more

29 % of companies say they are unlikely to keep insurance after Obamacare

Conn Carroll: A new survey of 368 midsize to large companies found that 29% of them are considering terminating their active employee health care plans when Obamacare is full implemented in 2014. Only 71% of employers surveyed said they did not expect to drop their health coverage, while 20% said they did not know and 9% said they were planning to exit. The latest survey, conducted by Towers Watson, echoes an ealier survey by McKinsey & Co. finding that 30% of private-sector employers were planning to drop their employee health insurance coverage by 2014. When the Congressional Budget Office crunched Obamacare's spending numbers, they estimated that only 7% of employees currently covered by employer-sponsored plans would lose their plans. ... This means the cost of the health care fiasco will be hundreds of billions more than estimated by the CBO and Congressional Democrat. It is also clear that Obama's pledge that you could keep your health care plan if you wanted t...
Read more

Is the F-35 obsolete?

Headline USA: Pentagon Fires Back after Musk Calls Its Most Expensive Project ‘Obsolete’ 'Yeah, as I'm sure you can appreciate, Mr. Musk is, currently, a private citizen, I'm not going to make any comments about what a private citizen may have to say about the F-35....'   ... ... Drones appear to be replacing jets for many operations.  The Russia-Ukraine war is an example of that.  Drones are often hard to detect and can be used for intelligence operations as well as for attacking enemy targets.  It would not surprise me to see drones engaging other drones in combat.  They also cost much less than manned fighters.  
Read more