Including a citizenship question in the census is undoubtedly constitutional.
On June 27, the Supreme Court left in legal limbo whether or not the administration could add a citizenship question to the 2020 census.
Just on the basis of obtaining relevant information, a citizenship question should be included.
It is clear that the Constitution does not prevent a citizenship question on the census and that the elections, for which the census was solely designed, make citizenship integral to them.
Against these facts, the argument that a citizenship question is unconstitutional falls.
If the case for constitutionality is clear, what then of the political question? Specifically, was a citizenship question's inclusion purely politically motivated?
What is clear is that the decision to again include a citizenship question is less political than the 2010 decision to exclude it.
https://spectator.org/the-stronger-case-for-a-census-citizenship-question/
On June 27, the Supreme Court left in legal limbo whether or not the administration could add a citizenship question to the 2020 census.
Just on the basis of obtaining relevant information, a citizenship question should be included.
It is clear that the Constitution does not prevent a citizenship question on the census and that the elections, for which the census was solely designed, make citizenship integral to them.
Against these facts, the argument that a citizenship question is unconstitutional falls.
If the case for constitutionality is clear, what then of the political question? Specifically, was a citizenship question's inclusion purely politically motivated?
What is clear is that the decision to again include a citizenship question is less political than the 2010 decision to exclude it.
https://spectator.org/the-stronger-case-for-a-census-citizenship-question/
No comments:
Post a Comment