Why Obama Wants Control of the Census
10th February 2009
The decision was made last week after California Rep. Barbara Lee, chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, and Hispanic groups complained to the White House that Judd Gregg, the Republican senator from New Hampshire slated to head Commerce, couldn’t be trusted to conduct a complete Census. The National Association of Latino Officials said it had “serious questions about his willingness to ensure that the 2010 Census produces the most accurate possible count.”
Mr. Chapman worries about a revival of the effort led by minority groups after the 2000 Census to adjust the totals for states and cities using statistical sampling and computer models. In 1999, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in Department of Commerce v. U.S. House that sampling could not be used to reapportion congressional seats. But it left open the possibility that sampling could be used to redraw political boundaries within the states.
February 10th, 2009 at 19:29
Tim, does your reading of the Constitution permit this blatant power grab? It looks pretty straightforward to me.
I hope someone is venue-shopping as we speak.
February 10th, 2009 at 20:54
Gawwwwd, you’d think Obama was a 75 year old white guy from Arizona the way the Black and Latino lobbies keep on protesting him at every step. Obama picked Judd Gregg for this job after some considerable deliberation so I’m pretty sure he knows what he’s doing. Which is not to say that Obama isnt going to adjust the census for black and Hispanic undersampling or what have you, just that I’m amazed how little confidence these ethnic power players have in him.
February 10th, 2009 at 21:34
The Constitution only requires that a count be made “according to law”; it doesn’t specify any details. The current government law is 13 U.S.C. — chapter 1, subchapter II, section 2 says “The Bureau is continued as an agency within, and under the jurisdiction of, the Department of Commerce.” So any change such as that reported in the news would require change to the appropriate legislation. I don’t doubt that Obama will be able to get it, the way power is distributed in Washington these days.
February 11th, 2009 at 09:59
Now, here’s an example of chutzpah: The Republicans didn’t get their act together enough to challenge Obama for not being constitutionally qualified to be President as an Article 2 “natural born citizen” so Obama’s White House steals the census from the Commerce Department against the specific instructions of the constitution itself — “actual enumeration” under Article 1.
February 11th, 2009 at 13:04
Since Obama’s earnest drive to convince the nation to weaken its economic strength through redistribution as well as weaken its national defense, COUPLED WITH HIS UNPRECEDENTED WHITE HOUSE TAKEOVER OF DECENNIAL CENSUS TAKING FROM THE COMMERCE DEPARTMENT, has confirmed the very threats to our Republic’s survival that the Constitution was designed to avert, it no longer is sustainable for the United States Supreme Court to refrain from exercising WHAT IS ITS ABSOLUTE CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY TO DEFEND THE NATION FROM UNLAWFUL USURPATION. The questions of Obama’s Kenyan birth and his father’s Kenyan/British citizenship (admitted on his own website) have been conflated by his sustained unwillingnes to supply his long form birth certificate now under seal, and compounded by his internet posting of a discredited ‘after-the-fact’ short form ‘certificate’. In the absence of these issues being acknowledged and addressed, IT IS MANIFEST THAT OBAMA REMAINS INELIGIBLE TO BE PRESIDENT UNDER ARTICLE 2 OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. Being a 14th Amendment ‘citizen’ is not sufficient. A ‘President’ MUST BE an Article 2 ‘natural born citizen’ AS DEFINED BY THE FRAMERS’ INTENT.