WWTBAM Bored

Out of curiosity I did a little research to see what would happen if someone didn't check that box (or answer the question or however it appears). Evidently you can be fined from $100 to $500 dollars. Also an enumerator may come to you or call you and ask you to answer the question.

Of course I don't think it really matters whether the question ends up on the census form or not. The damage has already been done. The publicity surrounding the citizenship question will be enough to depress the actual count of "all persons" as the census requires.

The Speaker weighs in.

Nancy Pelosi wrote:SCOTUS resoundingly rejected @realDonaldTrump’s efforts to taint the census as “contrived” & rooted in improper political purposes. Next week, the House will vote on criminal contempt for AG Barr & Sec. Ross to enforce our subpoenas & #FollowTheFacts to get to the truth.

Bob78164 wrote:

christie1111 wrote:I don't usually get involved with political discussion but to me this seems like more of a legal one.

Can Trump make an executive order to overrule the Supreme Court and add a citizenship question to the census?

I am baffled by the announcement that he is going to make a statement about that today.

I don't think the statutes governing the composition of the census give him that authority, but I have no idea how (if at all) Donny thinks he can pull this off. --Bob

One other thing. I predict this will be example number eleventy-seven of "Ignore what he says. What what he does." --Bob

Well whattaya know. Donny caved. --Bob

Bob summarized the N.Y. Times article in two words. It's entirely focused on the political implications.

As for the practical details, Trump says he's ordering other government departments to give data to Commerce, overriding rules against sharing data between agencies. I don't know if that includes raw data, which Commerce can match with Census data to get the most accurate count of citizens, or just statistics. The former is restricted in many instances by privacy laws that Trump can't change. And the most revealing data, like tax returns, can't be shared at all, and you know Trump will obey that law.

After Trump spoke, Barr said he’s confident the Supreme Court would approve the citizenship question eventually, but by then it would be too late to print the forms. He also made it clear that DOJ would never defy a ruling by any court. He must have read christie1111’s post.

jarnon wrote:Bob summarized the N.Y. Times article in two words. It's entirely focused on the political implications.

As for the practical details, Trump says he's ordering other government departments to give data to Commerce, overriding rules against sharing data between agencies. I don't know if that includes raw data, which Commerce can match with Census data to get the most accurate count of citizens, or just statistics. The former is restricted in many instances by privacy laws that Trump can't change. And the most revealing data, like tax returns, can't be shared at all, and you know Trump will obey that law.

After Trump spoke, Barr said he’s confident the Supreme Court would approve the citizenship question eventually, but by then it would be too late to print the forms. He also made it clear that DOJ would never defy a ruling by any court. He must have read christie1111’s post.

Of course he did