I have said this before and will reiterate: the progressive socialist left does not believe in the three branches of government — Legislative, Executive, and Judicial. They advocate for the three branches of rule — academia, media, and the courts. Their belief has always been that anything that they cannot ram through using the legislative process, they will levy in the media and the courts. As well, their long game strategy is to use the platforms of academia to indoctrinate future generations with their ideology.
When Barack Obama was busy taking all of his unilateral and unconstitutional executive actions, the media carried the water for him. Now that the left has lost the Executive branch, and the current presidential administration seeks to reverse those executive actions, courts come out and rule against, imparting injunctions, etc.
It’s funny because they were previously silent. If you do not understand why the left went into a major apoplectic meltdown over the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh. It’s simple, they cannot stomach losing control of the highest court in the land. A court they have run to in the past to have their ideological agenda implemented, referred to as law . . . something that is not an enumerated power of the Supreme Court.
Furthermore, when did executive orders by one president become deemed law? It is not constitutional to force, by way of judicial activism, the obedience of one presidential administration to the executive actions of a previous one. Then again, if civics is not being taught in our academic circles, well, you get my point.
And so it goes, we have another constitutional crisis looming, but the liberal progressive media would never classify this in that manner. However, it is a very pertinent question when it comes to the future of this Constitutional Republic that we call home, these United States of America.
As reported by Fox News:
“A federal judge in New York on Tuesday barred the Trump administration from adding a question about citizenship to the 2020 census. U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman ruled that while a question on citizenship would be constitutional, U.S. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross had added it arbitrarily and did not follow proper procedure. The ruling comes after a three-week trial in November.
“Secretary Ross’s decision to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census — even if it did not violate the Constitution itself — was unlawful for a multitude of independent reasons and must be set aside,” he wrote.
Among other things, the judge said, Ross didn’t follow a law requiring that he give Congress three years notice of any plan to add a question about citizenship to the census. The ruling came in a case in which a dozen states or big cities and immigrants’ rights groups argued that the Commerce Department, which designs the census, had failed to properly analyze the effect the question would have on immigrant households.
Other civil rights groups, like the American Civil Liberties Union, applauded the court’s decision.
“This ruling is a forceful rebuke of the Trump administration’s attempt to weaponize the census for an attack on immigrant communities,” director of the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project, Dale Ho, said in a statement.
“The inevitable result would have been – and the administration’s clear intent was – to strip federal resources and political representation from those needing it most.”
The Justice Department said it was “disappointed” by the ruling and is “still reviewing” it.
“Secretary Ross, the only person with legal authority over the census, reasonably decided to reinstate a citizenship question on the 2020 census in response to the Department of Justice’s request for better citizenship data, to protect voters against racial discrimination,” Justice Department spokeswoman Kelly Laco said in a statement.
“Our government is legally entitled to include a citizenship question on the census and people in the United States have a legal obligation to answer. Reinstating the citizenship question ultimately protects the right to vote and helps ensure free and fair elections for all Americans.”
Of course, this judge, Jesse Furman, was appointed by Barack Obama in February 2012. Just like in other cases, he hails from a left-leaning state. Isn’t it funny how all of these challenges to anything the Trump administration seeks to do emanate from places like this, or the Ninth Circuit Court in California? So, Judge Furman ruled that the Trump administration needed to give the Legislative branch three years notice of any plan to add the question? Hmm, let’s see, three years notice, that would mean that it would have had to been done before the Trump administration even came into office. Any of you remember that one of the first acts of the Obama administration was to seek to move the US Census out of the Commerce Department and into the White House itself? And there were questions about some of those so-called “census takers” as to whom they were really working for, namely, ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now).
How interesting that the challenge was not about the constitutionality of a question on citizenship in the census — as I have written about previously — but rather on “proper procedure.” Oh boy, how many times did Barry Soetoro ignore “proper procedure” and also did things that were unconstitutional? I can think of all of those executive actions/orders masquerading as amendments to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act aka Obamacare. But how many courts jumped in on that one?
Here, Ladies and Gents, is the real deal behind this decision by, yet again, another leftist activist judge. The census in America is necessary to determine representation in this Republic. The question is whether or not representation in America is based upon citizenship or just numbers, population. If it is the latter, then it benefits the progressive socialist left. Thus the reason they support the policies of sanctuary states and cities. The left is more than willing to allow people here illegally in America to be counted, thereby the next round of Congressional redistricting, including at the State level, will lean their way, especially in the urban population centers. Combine with that, the drive by the left to gain more control of State legislatures before the next round of redistricting and you have a perfect tsunami that could potentially lock in an electoral advantage for at least the next ten years.
The left does not want our borders secured, they want this flood of illegal immigrants into America. They want them counted in order to bolster their representation. But, in our Constitutional Republic, should representation be based upon including those who are not citizens…those who cannot vote, well, at least not yet? If there is one thing I admire about the progressive socialist left, they have a long ball strategy. When they talk about fundamentally transforming our nation, they are serious about that. They are dead set on doing exactly that. If elected representation in America is no longer based upon citizenship, then what is the future of our Republic? It’s simple: it will not exist as it was intended to be. The left will get what it has sought longingly desired, rule, control, and power. They believed that they were on the way with the 2008 election, but the American people came back in 2010 and spoke, as well as in 2014, and 2016. But, just as in the Star Wars movie, the empire is striking back and they are going full bore leveraging the courts and the media to regain power.
Think about it: what reasonable, logical reason do the Democrats, aka Mobocrats, have for not rectifying our issues at the southern border with security? Why haven’t they taken a firmer stance against illegal immigration? They once supported border security, including a wall, barrier.
It is not that hard to discern: they need a new electoral base, and they need to shift the representative balance in America, not based upon citizenship, but rather population. And that is why they prefer the tyranny of a pure democracy.
What would I do? The Republicans should introduce a resolution in the House of Representatives and the Senate to vote on this issue, immediately. Our constitution articulates the purpose for our census in Article I, Section 2. The resolution should define the term “numbers” in the Constitution as citizens. Force the Democrats into the light, out of the darkness, and show the American people if they believe that representation is according to law-abiding, legal citizens, or just anyone? We all know that based upon actions in California and elsewhere, the left believes that illegals should have drivers licenses and picture IDs, meaning they could potentially vote.
This census question of citizenship is a critical constitutional topic and needs to be resolved, and not left up to some progressive socialist activist judge. Are we a Constitutional Republic whose representation is based upon citizenship, or are we just a geographic piece of land where anyone can come and be afforded our precious Constitutional rights?
During his 22 year career in the United States Army, Lieutenant Colonel West served in several combat zones and received many honors including a Bronze Star, three Meritorious Service Medals, three Army Commendation Medals, one with Valor device, and a Valorous Unit Award.
In November of 2010, Allen was elected to the United States Congress, representing Florida’s 22nd District.
West is a commissioned officer in the Texas State Guard. He’s Fox News Contributor, former Director of the Booker T. Washington Initiative at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, Senior Fellow at the Media Research Center, contributing columnist for Townhall.com, and author of Guardian of the Republic: An American Ronin’s Journey to Family, Faith and Freedom, and, Hold Texas, Hold the Nation: Victory or Death, and the forthcoming We Can Overcome.