Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In Article I, Section 2 the US Constitution orders that "The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct."
Now why would they want to take such control of the census bureau? Perhaps to stack the redistricting deck and favor "supportive" states with funding?
It's not? Did you read the link to Article I Sec II or any of the other links spelling out the congressional authority when it comes to the census?
Tell me why it's not a violation?
The Constitution doesnt mention to whom the director of the Census reports. The "functions and duties" of the Secretary of Commerce or of any cabinet member arent enumerated in the Constitution.
There doesnt even have to be a Department of Commerce: Judd Gregg "voted in committee and on the floor for a 1995 Republican budget that envisioned the elimination of the Commerce Department." - Washington Monthly
(The NYT points out, "Mr. Gregg was never a friend of the census. As chairman of the Senate committee that oversees the Commerce Department’s budget, he frequently tried to cut the bureau’s financing. In 1999, he opposed emergency funds for the 2000 census requested by President Bill Clinton and the Republican-controlled House. [my emphasis])
It's obvious that the Republicans still dont want minority people and minority businesses counted and would just as soon money not be allocated in that direction. The Democrats want to be sure this foolishness comes to an end and that everyone is fairly counted.
"Obama is adding oversight of the director by senior White House aides, but keeping the bureau itself under the umbrella of the Department of Commerce, White House spokesman Ben LaBolt said." - Post article linked above
"There is historic precedent for the director of the census, who works for the Commerce Secretary and the president, to work closely with White House senior management -- given the number of decisions that will have to be put before the president. We plan to return to that model in this administration." - WH spokesperson, lost the link
Even Fox News had to admit,
Rep. Chris Van Hollen, R-Md., the head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee tasked with getting Democrats elected, said nothing nefarious is behind the move.
"The more eyes taking a look at this the better," Van Hollen told "FOX News Sunday." "It matters less exactly what the reporting mechanism is than that we get the facts and the count right."
This overview might help: Gregg mum on Census Bureau - Manchester- msnbc.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29046718/ - broken link)
Now why would they want to take such control of the census bureau? Perhaps to stack the redistricting deck and favor "supportive" states with funding?
In regards to what?
I don't get the point of the post other then a headline.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.