[johnwk]

Just for the record, the Administrative Procedure Act, (APA) which was used to justify Roberts’ opinion, is a clever device created by our Washington Swamp Creatures to undermine our representative system of government, and allow unelected activist judges and Justices to second guess and overturn policy making decisions and legislation which rightfully rests with Congress and our Executive branch of government, that is, unless Congress itself, our elected representatives, decide to intervene and strike down a policy judgement made by the Executive branch.


In this case, the APA was used to overturn the consequences of an election and a policy making decision made by our President which is objected to by those who lost the election.

This is not rocket science to figure out. Just read the entire Court OPINION which documents the whining and frivolous objections of those who ran to the Court over a question which is admitted by all parties does not violate the terms of our Constitution.



​

Justice Thomas, in his dissent, identifies the can of worms opened by Justice Roberts:

​

"Now that the Court has opened up this avenue of attack, opponents of executive actions have strong incentives to craft narratives that would derail them. Moreover, even if the effort to invalidate the action is ultimately unsuccessful, the Court’s decision enables partisans to use the courts to harangue executive officers through depositions, discovery, delay, and distraction. The Court’s decision could even implicate separation-of-powers concerns insofar as it enables judicial interference with the enforcement of the laws. In short, today’s decision is a departure from traditional principles of administrative law. Hopefully it comes to be understood as an aberration—a ticket good for this day and this train only"

​

Because the Secretary’s decision to reinstate a citizenship question on the 2020 census was legally sound and a reasoned exercise of his broad discretion, I respectfully dissent from Part V of the opinion of the Court."

​

The bottom line is, the Roberts’ decision is an outright attack on our democratic system and attempts to overturn the consequences of our last election.

This whole case is summed up as follows:

​

"For the removal of unwise laws [and in this case a policy making decision] . . . appeal lies, not to the courts, but to the ballot and to the processes of democratic government.” U.S. v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 78-79 (1936)


JWK

​

"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges’ views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." –Justice Hugo L. Black (U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968

 

[ARMED4BEAR]

Well J, if the middle leaning left, the Independents and everything leaning Right doesn't get up off of their Azzes or take the 10 minutes it takes to vote for Trump and a socialist wins... It may be the only way to stop these leftist...

With as many Conservative Judges that are being put in, this may be our only recourse is to use the APA against the left too... Back at Ya style, like the pen & phone pony act.

 

[OldTimingFisherMan]

Roberts was appointed by the chimp. He’s a rino. Better than a Dino is not an accomplishment, but it’s still better.

 

[johnwk]

Roberts was appointed by the chimp. He’s a rino. Better than a Dino is not an accomplishment, but it’s still better.

Justice Roberts indicated putting the question on the census form does not violate the Constitution. His objection was
:

​

"We do not hold that the agency decision here was substantively invalid. But agencies must pursue their goals reasonably. Reasoned decision making under the Administrative Procedure Act calls for an explanation for agency action. What was provided here was more of a distraction."

Roberts decided to exercise a legislative function ___ debating and deciding the reasonableness, justice and fairness of a policy making decision ___ which is an exclusive assignment placed in our elected representatives hands. The only job for our Supreme Court is to determine if policy/legislation violates the terms of our Constitution.

​

"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges’ views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." – Justice Hugo L. Black (U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968

The devastating consequences of Roberts' decision was eloquently summarized by Justice Thomas.


​

Justice Thomas, in his dissent, identifies the can of worms opened by Justice Roberts:

​

“Now that the Court has opened up this avenue of attack, opponents of executive actions have strong incentives to craft narratives that would derail them. Moreover, even if the effort to invalidate the action is ultimately unsuccessful, the Court’s decision enables partisans to use the courts to harangue executive officers through depositions, discovery, delay, and distraction. The Court’s decision could even implicate separation-of-powers concerns insofar as it enables judicial interference with the enforcement of the laws. In short, today’s decision is a departure from traditional principles of administrative law. Hopefully it comes to be understood as an aberration—a ticket good for this day and this train only.

​

Because the Secretary’s decision to reinstate a citizenship question on the 2020 census was legally sound and a reasoned exercise of his broad discretion, I respectfully dissent from Part V of the opinion of the Court."

​

The bottom line is, the Roberts’ decision is an outright attack on our democratic system and attempts to overturn the consequences of our last election.

The proper remedy, for those who disagree with placing thequestion on the ballot, was to have Congress, our elected representatives,visit the issue. Placing the question on the census form, we all agree, doesnot violate the Constitution. And Roberts ought to have explained this to thosewho disagree with putting the question on the census form. Instead, heexercised a function assigned to our elected representatives.

JWK

"For the removal of unwise laws [and in this case apolicy making decision] . . . appeal lies, not to the courts, but to the ballotand to the processes of democratic government.” U.S. v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1,78-79 (1936)

​

 

[johnwk]

It may shock American citizens to learn how many extra congressional seats sanctuary states like California have received because they have swelled their population with illegal entrants. Keep in mind these extra votes California gets in Congress cancels out the votes of the representatives of American citizens in other states.

It is estimated California may get between 2 and 3 more seats in Congress because of the massive influx of illegal entrants into this sanctuary state during the past ten years.

But to prevent this type of political motivated population swelling, which is done to receive extra votes in Congress and control our federal treasury, our wise founders also demanded that each states would also have to pay a share of our federal tax burden proportionately equal to its representation in Congress.


The two fair share formulas with respect to each state’s population size are:

.State`s Population_________________X House membership (435) = State`s No. of RepresentativesPopulation of U.S.


and …


.State`s population_________________ X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE`S SHARE OF TAX BURDENTotal U.S. Population


For an example of this apportioned tax see an Act laying a direct tax for $3 million in which the rule of apportionment is applied.


And then see Section 7 of the direct tax of 1813 allowing states to pay their respective quotas and be entitled to certain deductions in meeting their payment on time.


In the Federalist Papers, Madison explains the purpose of tying representation and taxation by each state’s population, that it:“…will have a very salutary effect.” He observes in this paper . . .


“Were” the various States’ “share of representation alone to be governed by this rule, they would have an interest in exaggerating their inhabitants. Were the rule to decide their share of taxation alone, a contrary temptation would prevail. By extending the rule to both objects, the States will have opposite interests, which will control and balance each other, and produce the requisite impartiality.” See Federalist No. 54



Now, look at our communist socialist states like California who now swell their states with illegal entrants to gain more representation in Congress. Would these sanctuary states continue to do so if they had to pay a proportional share of our federal tax burden relative to their state’s population size?


Communist and socialists have been very active for generations subverting the fundamental principles written into our Constitution for good government. While they have taught our children in government schools the virtues of our Constitution protecting one man, one vote, they ignore and refuse to teach them the value of one vote, one dollar and tying both representation and taxation by population size, which would have a sobering financial effect in that each state will be held accountable for the free cheese their congressional members vote for, and will receive a bill to pay their apportioned share of the free cheese tab.


JWK


The Democrat Leadership is correct! The border crisis has been manufactured. It has been manufactured by the Democrat Leadership in Congress refusing to protect our borders against an ongoing invasion.​