Wash. Times falsely suggested 1999 Supreme Court case decided Constitution bars use of sampling in congressional apportionment
SUMMARY: The Washington Times falsely suggested that a 1999 Supreme Court case decided that the Constitution barred the government from using statistical sampling to apportion congressional seats. In fact, the Supreme Court concluded that "the Census Act" -- a congressional statute -- "prohibits the proposed uses of statistical sampling in calculating the population for purposes of apportionment. Because we so conclude, we find it unnecessary to reach the constitutional question presented."
In a February 13 article on Sen. Judd Gregg's (R-NH) withdrawal of his nomination to be secretary of commerce, Washington Times senior White House correspondent Joseph Curl and repoter Kara Rowland falsely suggested that a 1999 Supreme Court case decided that the Constitution barred the government from using statistical sampling to apportion congressional seats. The Times stated that "[m]inority groups, quietly encouraged by Democrats, led a charge in 2000 to challenge the census, urging that statistical sampling and computer models -- not the head-count 'actual enumeration' mandated by the Constitution -- should be employed. That despite a 1999 Supreme Court ruling that sampling could not be used to apportion congressional seats." In fact, in the 1999 case Department of Commerce v. United States House of Representatives, the Supreme Court explicitly did not reach -- much less decide -- whether the Constitution barred the use of sampling in congressional apportionment. The Court's majority opinion states: "[W]e conclude that the Census Act" -- a congressional statute -- "prohibits the proposed uses of statistical sampling in calculating the population for purposes of apportionment. Because we so conclude, we find it unnecessary to reach the constitutional question presented."
From the Washington Times article, headlined, "Gregg pullout presages census debate":
The Obama administration is downplaying how closely the White House would oversee the Census Bureau. The White House on Wednesday said Mr. Obama is committed to a "complete and accurate count through a process that is free from politicization." But Thursday, Mr. LaBolt added: "As they have in the past, White House senior management will work closely with the census director given the number of decisions that will need to reach the president's desk."
Rep. Lamar Smith, ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, said not so.
"We checked with the Congressional Research Service, and there is no precedent for this, despite what the administration might say," he asserted.
Minority groups, quietly encouraged by Democrats, led a charge in 2000 to challenge the census, urging that statistical sampling and computer models - not the head-count "actual enumeration" mandated by the Constitution - should be employed. That despite a 1999 Supreme Court ruling that sampling could not be used to apportion congressional seats.
"Adjusting is statistical abstraction or extrapolation that gives a select few the ability to go in after the count is done in the census and adjust the numbers and adjust the numbers in ways they see and deem fit," said Rep. Patrick T. McHenry, North Carolina Republican and ranking member on the census subcommittee.
The Republicans on Thursday went so far as to threaten to file a lawsuit if the White House steps too far into how the 2010 census is conducted and counted. House Minority Leader Rep. John A. Boehner of Ohio also announced that he is creating a census task force composed of Republican lawmakers from the Judiciary, House Administration, and Oversight and Government Reform committees to oversee the process.
Statistical sampling, is that where Karl Roves math is inserted?
not rove's math, the Dark Lord would want an actuall head count of those who have a legal right to be here, that way the illegal immigrants can be chased out and try to ensure that republicans have a stranglehold and give the permenant majority he so badly failed to make happen
You know, BigC, there are some pretty wacky wingnut plagiarists at this site, and they use some pretty crazy sources, but I have to say, if you're throwing your hat in the ring to compete as the silliest neocon chump, you could do worse than plagiarizing from Human Events.
I should have refreshed the page.
A plagarist, and he starts out with an insult to boot. (or was that plagarized too?)
Setting a tone of disrespect usually has a chilling affect and encourages nasty replies. That's probably the intention, eh?
But again, bigc may talk that way to everyone...
The human events plagarist got removed, so he'll have to try again with some original thoughts. Good luck with that.
Outside of the first paragraph, this is copied and pasted from humanevents.com. You could hardly have been more obvious, saying "me" and then saying "we" later on. Flagged for illegal content.
I know the stoopidity and dishonesty shouldn't be encouraged, Brab, and I know you did the proper thing by flagging the doofus, but part of me really wants to leave those posts up, just as shining examples of neocon intellect and morals.
I understand the conflicted feeling, but anyone who reposts a plagiarized article after it's already been removed clearly has mental problems. It goes well beyond any demonstration of character of those who have opposing views.
The willful and open hatred of this country they show on a daily basis is beyond belief. One day us true Americans WILL stand up, try and convict every last demoncrat for treason and sedition against this great country.
Uhh, exactly how will these purported true Americans stand up...evolution? That might take hundreds of thousands of years. Do they already possess opposable thumbs which allow them to grasp clubs?
Maybe they'll even learn to say "we true Americans" before they start their Planet of the Apes style treason trials.
On another funny note, I Googled "stimulus Bill". The first hit was an article in a Mineapolis paper about the bill, the second was the HuffPost which had a link to the entire text of the bill.But BigC was too busy believing what SubHumanEvents was feeding him, and plagiarizing their BS, to take the 5 seconds it took to figure out it was BS.
I'm not sure what they were talking about anyway. PDF files are searchable, at least through my version of Adobe Reader. Is there some other definition of "text search" I'm not familiar with?
I think this guy glanced at the PDFs and because they looked like imbedded images, like a true wingnut, he jumped to the conclusion the PDFs weren't searchable.
Oh, I forgot, he plagiarized his post from Inhuman Resources so the fools over there made the assumption and he just took their word for it.
The only thing worse than someone who steals another's words without attribution is someone who assumes that the words he steals will hold up to scrutiny.
OK, I went straight to the horses a$$,checked out El Lushbo. It seems the whining point is with ability to search for keywords in a pdf. I guess the zombies are all furiously typing in "socialism" and "ACORN" and not getting the results they want.
If they want to insert words or change the meaning of the bill, they'll have to fork over big bucks and buy the full version of Adobe Acrobat which lists for more than $400.
Adobe is offering the plug in of 1,000 most commonly used wingnut phrases and entire sentences plagiarized from the usual sources for free.
Isn't Stimulus Bill a cousin of Disco Stu?
I have a vague recollection of a scandal at Disney involving Donald Duck and Minnie Mouse, but I don't remember Disco Stu being involved...
Not sure. Disco Stu doesn't advertise.
But he is for sale.
Why aren't you at work, Big C?
I'm a firefighter and just got off work this morning. Col. why are you on welfare?
I guess if you can pretend to be a fireman, I can pretend to be on welfare.
Because I love living on almost no money!
Great. I'll pretend like I really give a damn about who or what our new friend is.
I am on welfare thanks to outsourcing. I really appreciate you paying for my food stamps that I get for free and then sell at 75% of their value to my republican friends. And the food storehouses? Manna from heaven! I just have to pretend to believe for all of 10 minutes and then it's load up the truck, baby! I sell whatever we don't use there too. This turned out to be a great blessing, heck! I make more mooching off of the government and your dime than I ever did as an automation engineer! What a great country this is when you can enrich yourself at other people's expense!
ok lie number one, there is a website you can view it at any time. so be quiet
hmm illegal actions by the federal goverment, where have i heard that before.......
oh yeah, W and Dick spying on EVERYONE, lying us into a needless war (Iraq), and lets see what else.....oh yeah turning the Justice Dept into a neo con bastion (Thanks Bradly)......
im sure there are dozens of others but thats what i have off the top of my head. go back to your Masters Karl and Rush and supplicate before them and stay away from here please. if i wanted to listen to you playing parrot i would listen to rush.
Here's a question from the polyanna section...what is this really all about?
The supreme court found that the federal govt. is bound by statute to make/report an enumerated head count...not a sampling/projected count.
That being the case...why does it matter what dept. is in charge of conducting the census?
Whether the results come from the commerce dept. or Emanuel of the executive branch...they are to report the unvarnished results...and any attempt to jilflirt the numbers with sampling/projections is against the law.
Demoncrats don't care about the rule of law.
If your purpose for coming here is to "beard the lion"...you won't last long.
You're jusy a partisan hater who doesn't like opposing viewpoints, Wesley.
Thanks for dope-slapping me back to reality.
you may be right......but they follow the law unlike the Order of Sith Lords, and by that i mean Rove, dick, w, billo and the rest of them
I'm more of a Pippi Longstocking, Wes, but you're right, it is just a headcount, and it will still be conducted by the Commerce Department. I haven't heard anything about any plans to change the statute, though that's possible.
Wes- I guess the point would be that since it is merely statute that requires a head count, a bill by Congress could change that fact to include sampling. If it were a Contitutional issue, obviously it would take an amendment to allow for sampling.
Although, I'm on the fence as to whether that qualifies as conservative misinformation. Conservative lack-of-proper-research or conservative stupidity, maybe on the part of the Times.
MMFA WILL lose their tax exempt status.
Now you sound familiar. What a comeback kid! Get well soon.
Careful, Mary. There's nothing more dangerous than an accountant with a hose.
think of all the beans he can count while hosing everyone.
... and you people accuse me of being OT...
Media Matters is suggesting that the Times suggested sampling was unconstitutional. The fact is the Times said,"That despite a 1999 Supreme Court ruling that sampling could not be used to apportion congressional seats."
That is a fact. The Times did not say using sampling was unconstitutional.
Yeah, they did.
"...the head-count 'actual enumeration' mandated by the Constitution..."
Let everyone be counted...let every citizen of age vote!!!!!!