So the citizenship question on the census form really wasn't necessary was it? (Page 3): You asked Mr Mister to prove what he said which was that the word Citizen was used at least 8...

bylm1-Bernie

factnotfiction wrote:

The word CITIZEN is indeed in the constitution, bu... (show quote)

You asked Mr Mister to prove what he said which was that the word Citizen was used at least 8 times in the Constitution. I think that it is adequate to show that it appears 8 times in the Constitution which it does. As far as the citizenship question being necessary, my opinion is that it is necessary. That is only my opinion and I could be wrong. Maybe the reason it was removed should be revisited.

Iamdjchrys Loc: Decatur, Texas

Pennylynn wrote:

Let me see if I understand you and your position. ... (show quote)

A census is not meant to count citizens, it is meant to count inhabitants, including the number and ages of children. There are many, many residents who are not citizens, yet are here legally. Think foreign exchange and other students, scientists, resident aliens, etc.

factnotfiction

bylm1-Bernie wrote:

You asked Mr Mister to prove what he said which was that the word Citizen was used at least 8 times in the Constitution. I think that it is adequate to show that it appears 8 times in the Constitution which it does. As far as the citizenship question being necessary, my opinion is that it is necessary. That is only my opinion and I could be wrong. Maybe the reason it was removed should be revisited.

The OP was about the citizenship question and the census. I simply asked mr to prove that the word citizen was in the paragraphs written regarding whom the census counts. and he and you failed miserably,
Why is that so difficult for o many rightwing trump supportere to understand?
The language is very clear and easily understood by all by semi-stable geniuses

Smedley_buzkill

factnotfiction wrote:

The OP was about the citizenship question and the census. I simply asked mr to prove that the word citizen was in the paragraphs written regarding whom the census counts. and he and you failed miserably,
Why is that so difficult for o many rightwing trump supportere to understand?
The language is very clear and easily understood by all by semi-stable geniuses

That leaves you out.

Smedley_buzkill

bylm1-Bernie wrote:

You asked Mr Mister to prove what he said which was that the word Citizen was used at least 8 times in the Constitution. I think that it is adequate to show that it appears 8 times in the Constitution which it does. As far as the citizenship question being necessary, my opinion is that it is necessary. That is only my opinion and I could be wrong. Maybe the reason it was removed should be revisited.

The point is that when the directions concerning the census were written, there was no such thing as an i*****l a***n. The added representation that states like California will get will come at the expense of red states. The census is also used to determine Federal money that states receive for CITIZENS, not trespassing criminals; ergo, Mexifornia's 2.8 million (minimum) wetbacks should not be counted, since they are nothing more than trespassers. This is why the Constitution says the census is to be conducted as Congress directs.

factnotfiction

The purpose of the census is to count all of the people in the country.

Simple, straight forward logic to know how many are here.

If the founders wanted to count only citizens, it has been pointed out numerous times, they would have used that word, just like they did not restrict the right to bear arms to citizens only, but to the people.

Smedley_buzkill

factnotfiction wrote:

The purpose of the census is to count all of the people in the country.

Simple, straight forward logic to know how many are here.

If the founders wanted to count only citizens, it has been pointed out numerous times, they would have used that word, just like they did not restrict the right to bear arms to citizens only, but to the people.

,

Throughout US History, the Census has included questions about the race and sex of household members, free people as opposed to s***e. minor children. Before 1920, only men could v**e; and there were only an extremely small number of aliens in the country. So the census from it's inception, while not using the word citizen, in fact asked questions which determined the number of v****g age males. If you were not a man you were not a v**er; aka citizen. In fact, up until about 1980 there were not enough i******s in this country to really present a problem. People who simply cross the border and work for a couple of months and go home never were the problem.

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

kemmer wrote:

This is not 1787; circumstances have changed a bit.

The principles established in our Constitution transcend time and circumstance. Unalienable rights do not have a statute of limitations.

tophat

factnotfiction wrote:

After all of the silly ranting and hyperbolic rhetoric from the usual rightwingnuts, trump declared that the citizenship question really wasn't necessary after all, and that 90% on the information on PEOPLE in the country is already available.

So if that is true, then all of the usual rightwing blather about "millions and millions" of i******s living in the country can easily be proven or disproved.

A very good chance that trump and barr will look like fools

Some people just can't understand that president Trump is playing with their mind or lack there of!

bylm1-Bernie

factnotfiction wrote:

The OP was about the citizenship question and the census. I simply asked mr to prove that the word citizen was in the paragraphs written regarding whom the census counts. and he and you failed miserably,
Why is that so difficult for o many rightwing trump supportere to understand?
The language is very clear and easily understood by all by semi-stable geniuses

This point isn't about the original argument, it is about the fact that Mr stated that the word citizen appeared 8 times. Period. Your challenge said, "Prove it boy." I simply counted the number of times the word citizen appeared in the Constitution and when I got to 9, I stopped. Minor point and sort of off topic but it is at least addressing the question you raised.

factnotfiction

The point is exactly about the stupid question on the census. That is what the silly rant from trump was all about in the first place.

Kind of proves that cons simply cannot stay on point.

bylm1-Bernie

factnotfiction wrote:

The point is exactly about the stupid question on the census. That is what the silly rant from trump was all about in the first place.

Kind of proves that cons simply cannot stay on point.

Win or lose, the bottom line for libs is that conservatives are always wrong. It is also true that the only reason libs h**e the citizenship question is that it poses a threat to i******s. It would also be nice if libs could stay on point about what is wrong with laws. Why do they want open borders, etc. Maybe we'll see some discussion of that sometime soon.

factnotfiction

I agree about changing old, out dated laws, stupid laws, and laws that simply don't work.

But nobody really cares, just look at the US Code, and any state or local laws of record.

But all lawmakers at all levels of government, republican, democrat, independent, libertarian, liberal or conservative, are all in agreement to write new laws to satisfy their base.

MR Mister Loc: Washington DC

bylm1-Bernie wrote:

I just checked my copy of the Constitution and he is in fact correct. The word citizen or citizens is used more than he has said. I would suggest that you take prior advice and get a copy of the US Constitution and READ it. You might learn something.

He most likely can not read, that is a big problem with them.