by Karl Denninger, Market Ticker:

Of course — any question about citizenship on a Census form is intended to protect “white power”.

“If you look at the history of this country from the first Supreme Court until now, for almost our entire history it has been conservative,” Goldstone says. “It has been a protector of a certain status quo. It has certainly been protective of white rule.”

It got away with protecting the status quo in the 19th century because not many white Americans cared if people of color like Plessy were treated like second-class citizens.

The court weighing the census decision is facing a much more diverse America. But that doesn’t mean the conservative majority won’t still try to tilt the court back to the 19th century, Goldstone says.

Meh.

First, Census forms state right on their face that you are both required to answer and that your answers are confidential.  That is, the aggregate data can be used (that’s the point) but your personal information cannot be either used or disclosed.

If there’s a problem with asking about citizenship status it begins and ends there.  In other words if the issue is that there is fear people won’t answer at all due to such a question then we should explore why and fix it.  The allegation, quite-simply, is that the people fear the government.  That’s exactly backward and I remind you that this nation’s Founders both recognized that and made it happen.

Second, if you don’t send the form back what happens is that a census worker will come bang on your d or and try to get answers in person.  You can evade that but it takes a fair bit of effort..

The article in fact makes the flat-out claim that The Supreme Court is racist:

Conservatives on the contemporary Supreme Court have already shown how that’s done when they upheld President Trump’s travel ban on immigrants from some Muslim-majority countries last year, critics say. They defer to authority instead of confronting the racist intent behind some laws, some say.

In “Trump v. Hawaii,” Chief Justice John Roberts acknowledged Trump’s previous statements calling for a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States” as well as other incendiary statements against Muslims.

Roberts said, though, that the issue before the court was not whether or not to denounce Trump’s statements. The court must also consider “the authority of the presidency itself,” he wrote.

That’s a correct decision, by the way, because Congress gave the President the unitary authority to deny entry into the United States on any basis whatsoever should he or she decide that such a person or group of people should not be admitted.  That decision rests with Congress, which can revoke that authority — but hasn’t.

The Supreme Court is not legally empowered to rewrite laws.  Laws granting plenary authority are dangerous in the general sense but that’s not the Court’s problem — the resolution to that lies in the legislature and the people who put the legislature in place and allow it to remain.  Appealing to nine instead of 330 million is “convenient” when you want to ignore the will of the people.

It’s also how you get a Revolution, which CNN seems to forget.

Let’s face facts — it was in fact the Democrat party that devised “Jim Crow” laws and enforced them.  It was the Republicans that ended that crap, not Democrats.  It was Republicans that championed the 14th Amendment after Johnson, a Democrat and former slave-owner, vetoed the Civil Rights Act of 1866.

Johnson also directly opposed the 14th Amendment.  But the Republicans had veto-proof majorities of both Houses of Congress in 1866, and passed it anyway.  It was ratified in 1868.

Now it is true that the Supreme Court ruled in 1896 that “Separate but Equal” was lawful (the aforementioned Plessy decision.)  But that didn’t last long; beginning in the 1920s with Gitlow that changed.  Then of course there was Loving in 1967, which banned race-based discrimination for marriage licenses, among many more similar decisions out of the Justices.

The fact is that it has been Republicans who historically have come down on the side of equality before the law for all citizens and those lawfully admitted.  In point of fact neither party wants to get rid of the illegals here and stem the tide of them even though we know that somewhere between one in 10 and one in 5 of those currently in these “caravans” have US criminal records — that is, they’ve either fled the United States or been previously deported having committed a crime here.

The point of a Census question regarding citizenship is in fact extremely useful.  Determining dispersion of illegally present people in this nation on a zip code basis is part of providing basic security and freedom to all who are citizens and thus discharging the primary purpose and power of a government — to protect the people against invasion.

Whether an invasion is “soft” (as is this one) or “hard” (dudes with guns at the border) the point of all such actions is the same; to plunder resources that are not offered in free exchange by a free people.

If there is one thing a government has a duty to put forth maximal effort to stop, that’s it.

Read More @ Market-Ticker.org