Trump Admin Argues that Nothing in the Constitution Requires that the Census be Accurate

essentialsaltes said:

yes.



The virus didn't take a vacation in July or August either. You're right nothing is likely to substantially change in October as opposed to September, so the Census should be allowed to do its scheduled work, which it has planned to end in October.

The bureau suspended operations temporarily in March and April, back in the first wave. *THAT* action was taken for public health reasons. The effort restarted over the summer, and nobody complained about Trump trying to kill census workers. This early termination of the census proposed by Trump is not about health reasons.

Click to expand...

After the nonsensical first answer there, indicating you'd rather not discuss this, not much sense in reading the rest of your post.

Trump Admin Argues that Nothing in the Constitution Requires that the Census be Accurate

1) These DOJ lawyers arguing against extending the 2020 Census deadline should realize that their names and professional reputations will be forever associated with these cases - the time is rapidly approaching when having a resume with "served in the Trump Administration" will be tantamount to having a criminal record!

2) The Census will impact the re-distribution of House seats for the next 10 years and also influence federal government policies, programs and how it allocates funding!

3) Based on the fact that this Trump Administration is doing everything in its power to prevent an accurate census assessment, one can only conclude that this is all part of a "rear-guard action" to deprive Democratic supporters, for another 10 years, of the benefits of those federal programs and assistance that they would have otherwise qualified to receive!

essentialsaltes said:

LINK

The Trump administration argued on Friday against a challenge to its 2020 census plans by saying the Constitution requires a count but does not say it must be accurate.

"It cannot be the case that accuracy in and of itself establishes some sort of -- is established in the enumeration clause" of the Constitution, Justice Department attorney Alexander Sverdlov told a federal judge in California.

Sverdlov acknowledged the Census Bureau has set its own "internal metrics and standards but that doesn't mean that they're judicially enforceable."

Census officials warned Ross that the new cutoff would risk "serious errors," internal documents show.

Click to expand...

What really *is* counting anyway?

Kenny'sID said:

Is the Trump administration correct?

Click to expand...

Any time I see this question, the answer is that comes to mind is "no, unless they made a mistake".

Freodin said:

That's fantastic precedence! Just think of all the opportunities!

"Now, that's 500 million votes for Donald J. Trump, 3 and a half for Joe Biden and two dozen for Santa Claus.
What? There's nothing in the Constitution that says we have to count the votes accurately!"

Click to expand...

Or alternatively, NY gives it's 50,000 electoral votes for Biden. I mean, the argument is that the Constitution doesn't require numbers to be accurate, right?

I think ending the census in September is rather short sighted for Trump. It ends then, a lot of people working for the census will be come unemployed (counting ends, job ends) in October and hit the jobs numbers making the economy look slightly worse. Keep them employed through October and that hit doesn’t occur until after the election.

The Constitution only requires we act like we're taking a proper census. Thats what the framers intended, obviously.

The constitution does not spell out that the census must be accurate, because like good governance it assumes it.

GreatLakes4Ever said:

I think ending the census in September is rather short sighted for Trump. It ends then, a lot of people working for the census will be come unemployed (counting ends, job ends) in October and hit the jobs numbers making the economy look slightly worse. Keep them employed through October and that hit doesn’t occur until after the election.

Click to expand...

Your on to something, all he needs to do is hire 13 million more census takers and those unemployment stats will look great!

KCfromNC said:

Any time I see this question, the answer is that comes to mind is "no, unless they made a mistake".

Click to expand...

That's really witty and all but can you please elaborate on the question at hand?

Why, In this case, are they not correct?

Goonie said:

Your on to something, all he needs to do is hire 13 million more census takers and those unemployment stats will look great!

Click to expand...

I know you’re joking but that seems like such a missed opportunity for him. He could’ve juiced the economy, helped predominantly urban and minority voters, and avoided attacks about undermining the census. He could have even made it look like he was taking the pandemic seriously by overstaffing the census bureau so they could handle the extra challenges.

...under any other administration, the president would have taken steps to ensure the most accurate count as possible...in keeping with the intent of the Constitution. If necessary (given the impact of Covid), the president would even seek a time extension.

Kenny'sID said:

That's really witty and all but can you please elaborate on the question at hand?

Why, In this case, are they not correct?

Click to expand...

Because I see no reason to think they are. And it is just a really dumb argument. See my example of EC votes - I mean, no one would take seriously the claim that "the Constitution doesn't require an accurate counting of EC votes, just a count of them". That at best would be thought to be obvious satire or word play. And yet here we have the administration making a parallel argument with an attempted straight face, and now we're supposed to pretend that it is a genuine attempt at Constitutional law. I don't think that lack of effort on their part deserves that sort of reward.

durangodawood said:

The Constitution only requires we act like we're taking a proper census. Thats what the framers intended, obviously.

Click to expand...

Kinda like the Senate is just supposed to act like it cares about checks on executive power ... oh wait, I see what you mean.

HARK! said:

Last I checked, most of those fleeing California are moving to Texas.

Click to expand...

Some are moving to Tennessee.

Electoral College votes aren't exactly the crux of the census...

Gerrymandering is.

It's how you slice up districts and make every vote watered down by others until you can concentrate them to where they get one voice drowned out by dozens of others.

(It's a republic remember?)

What happens in the state governments reflects ultimately to what happens in federal elections with which electors are elected to the Electoral College by district.
Popular vote doesn't matter...but it does help a lot.

KCfromNC said:

Because I see no reason to think they are.

Click to expand...

While you have nothing concrete to back that up, so I see no reason to think you are correct.

Kenny'sID said:

While you have nothing concrete to back that up, so I see no reason to think you are correct.

Click to expand...

Good job cutting out the part which explains my reasoning. I guess it was the best I could have expected given the situation.

KCfromNC said:

Good job cutting out the part which explains my reasoning. I guess it was the best I could have expected given the situation.

Click to expand...

I read it, and that was sufficient, no need to repost it, but you may do so if you like.