2010 Census, Big Brother or a bunch of Busy-bodies?

Food for thought:

The Census...Getting Personal

This information should be passed to everyone in the US!!

Slàinte,    

Patch    

Posted on 25-Feb-2010, 04:16 PM
This information should be passed to everyone in the US!!

Slàinte,

Patch



It might be more important for folks to know that the American Community Survey, which is what the guy in the video is really talking about, is conducted under the authority of Title 13, United States Code, Sections 141 and 193. Response to this survey is required by law (Section 221 of Title 13).

Many of his questions are answered on the Census Bureau's website, but I imagine he wasn't really interested in their answers. Just in making his point.

Is it constitutional? In a recent court decision, Morales v. Evans, the court first reviewed both the short form and the long form questions from the 2000 Census and traced the origin of each question from prior censuses. The court noted the authority of the Bureau to collect more than headcount information, and then specifically addressed whether such collection violated the plaintiffs rights under the Fifth Amendment (due process), First Amendment (protection against compelled speech), and Fourth Amendment (unreasonable and illegal search). In each instance the court found the collection of information related to governmental purposes and there was no basis for holding such collection unconstitutional.

I'm not debating whether the information should be collected, just pointing out that it can be.

No amendment was ever voted and ratified to change the Constitution. The SC can not change the constitution they can interpret it. The census statement is so simple that there can be no interpretation. Only the people through ratification make changes. If you would pay close attention to the post, he discussed both.

I will supply the number of residents in my household only, nothing more and that is all the govt can Constitutionally ask. I have NEVER responded to annual "census" questions What the govt has done has absolutely NOTHING to do with the Constitutionality of the issue. Past practice does not change anything in this matter.

Our students in the midwest are taught that before they enter high school. (My grand children are studying it now ad current events and govt combined!)

Slàinte,    

Patch    

I don't quite get what you mean. There was no need to amend the constitution through ratification processes. The courts interpret the constitution when there is a dispute. The Supreme Court has the final say. Not me. Not you.

The U.S. Constitution empowers the Congress to carry out the census in "such manner as they shall by Law direct" (Article I, Section 2). In 1954, Congress codified earlier census acts and all other statutes authorizing the decennial census as Title 13, U.S. Code. As reported by the Census Bureau, "it is constitutional to include questions in the decennial census beyond those concerning a simple count of the number of people because, on numerous occasions, the courts have said the Constitution gives Congress the authority to collect statistics in the census. As early as 1870, the Supreme Court characterized as unquestionable the power of Congress to require both an enumeration and the collection of statistics in the census. The Legal Tender Cases, Tex.1870; 12 Wall., U.S., 457, 536, 20 L.Ed. 287. In 1901, a District Court said the Constitution's census clause (Art. 1, Sec. 2, Clause 3) is not limited to a headcount of the population and "does not prohibit the gathering of other statistics, if 'necessary and proper,' for the intelligent exercise of other powers enumerated in the constitution, and in such case there could be no objection to acquiring this information through the same machinery by which the population is enumerated." United States v. Moriarity, 106 F. 886, 891 (S.D.N.Y.1901)." There is also the Morales case I mentioned in the previous post.

These decisions are consistent with the Supreme Court's recent description of the census as the "linchpin of the federal statistical system ... collecting data on the characteristics of individuals, households, and housing units throughout the country." Dept. of Commerce v. U.S. House of Representatives, 525 U.S. 316, 341 (1999).

So the constitution says congress can collect census data in the manner directed by law. Title 13 is the codified law. The census bureau reports to congress on how and what it intends to collect following Title 13. When challenged in court, the courts have ruled that the bureau can ask for the information they are asking for.

Maybe we don't like this interpretation, don't want to fill out the forms or give out the information, but it is the law of the land, until the law changes or the constitution does.

 Article. I.

Section. 1.

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Section. 2.

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. 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. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.

When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies.

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

Your "interpretation does not appear anywhere in the Constitution and must be wishful thinking on the part of whatever dubious source where you obtained got the information.  The Constitution refers to counting people ONLY and describes who may and may not be counted. To this day there is no provision for counting Indians and most of them like that. Also, most Amish do not participate for religious reasons. There is nothing ambiguous about the census thus nothing for the SC to interpret. Congress can change the Constitution ONLY by amendment.

Read it, It was simple enough for 4th and 5th graders to understand as that is the level it is taught here in schools!

If you really want to understand the constitution, you can find it on line and in a short period of time pretty much commit it all to memory.

Try this link.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/...transcript.html

Slàinte,    

Patch    
 

Am I missing something? Are you guys talking about the same issue?

Feeling dumb today....

Another question is: Which questions on the Census questions are threatening? I'm tellin' ya...feeling kind of dumb today....

Jillian

I don't know which ones. However, anything aside from asking how many occupy a residence is outside the realm of the Census Bureau's responsibilities and therefore not required of the people to answer. But riddle me this. Why would the USCB be gathering additional information in the first place? The gubment already knows our income through taxation. They have our address. Utilities information is easy for them to obtain. So why, if indeed they do, ask other questions not pertinent to a head count? I suppose the illegals are exempt from these questions in addition to all their other perks...but anyway...all their representatives will get and have ever gotten from me is how many live in my house and their ages. No names, birthdates, ssn, blood type, skin hair or eye color, nada. It's 3; 44, 47, and 15, and have a nice day.

There are 11 questions on the "short" census form. I was late to church today or I would have asked my acquaintance for a copy of both the short and the long form. The radical left seem to feel that mining information is appropriate for the census. (the reason why the census bureau has been placed under the white house political office?!!) The constitution allows the govt to "count people" only with some exceptions. It allows the govt to determine the manner in which the count is to be taken. IE: going house to house and asking how many people live in that house, requiring the people to "submit" that number to the census bureau, requiring all to go to registration points as in biblical times or etc. Congress is only allowed to vote on the way this information is collected, not expand on the information allowed to be collected by the Constitution. (Any law not in compliance with the Constitution is null and void thus may be ignored.)

Since the Constitution spells out why the count is to be taken it is hard to believe that ones income, religion and etc have any bearing on this process! I find it hard to believe that any of the additional information should increase or decrease the value of your vote! I KNOW our founding fathers had no intention along those lines.

Just another reason to support the Tea Party movement and vote the crooks out of office!

Slàinte,    

Patch    

The notion that "there can be no interpretation" is absurd. Everything written needs interpretation for meaning, otherwise it is just words on a page. When there is a difference of opinion on the interpretation of the words in law, the court decides what it means.

It is not my interpretation. That is my point. It is the interpretation of those with the authority to interpret the constitution- that would be in Article III, by the way. I would suggest that you put down your grade school primer and read the case law if you are truly interested in why the census bureau can collect this information.

Personally, I think the collecting of this information is ridiculous, and can't believe that the courts upheld it, but they have. I haven't done the due dilligence to study why the information is needed or has to be obtained this way so I can't just dismiss it.

But one can try to make it go away by waving the magic, "it is unconstitutional" wand, which is naive and misses the point, or use the process of working to get the law changed, perhaps starting with Title 13. Check with your 5th graders on that.

Oh, and by the way, ACS, (the long form), after initial testing, "went national" in 2004. ACS was conducted vigorously and continuously during the presidency of George W. Bush. Further, congressional rules on enforcement were controlled by the Republican Congressional Committee overseeing Census Bureau Operations, when the Republicans controlled congress. I wonder what kind of deals those "radical leftist" republicans gave the democrats to get bipartisan support for this!

From your post, you obviously did not believe it is ridiculous to collect the information.

You state that the R's did this under bush. Sooo? If you follow the posts here many R's are considered radical left today and they are targeted by the Tea Party for electoral defeat along with the democrats. McCain would be the most notable.

If you want to cite some case law, one of the group I eat lunch with is an attorney and he can have his paralegal check it out.

I suggest that you maybe should have paid "more" attention to your grade school primer re: our founding fathers and Constitution rather than me pay "less" attention. One can never have too much education.

Educating people about the census is one of the little services that we involved with the Tea Party offer.

If it is important that the census be "changed", vote an amendment and let the states ratify it!!

I suspect there will be much less co-operation than in the past. America's sleeping giant has awakened.

Those 5th graders are more knowledgeable about their government than some here.

Slàinte,    

Patch    





    

Patch,

I concede that I am too uneducated to get my point across to you, and too stupid not to try.

Soo...

I disagree with your statement that the information the census bureau is collecting is unconstitutional. It has been ruled on by the courts as being constitutional. If you meant in your opinion it should be unconstitutional, fine. You are entitled to your opinion.

I agree with you that the information the census bureau is asking goes beyond what is literally mentioned in the constitution. I would disagree with you if you think that is the only basis for determining what is constitutional.

I agree that there are other ways to get this information, if it is needed at all, and disagree with you that I don't think it is ridiculous.

I agree that one can't get too much education.

Both the democrats and republicans have been okay with collecting this information, so I assumed your comment about the radical left meant democrats only. I haven't ever considered there might be radical leftist republicans among us. Sorry, I will be more careful.

I spoke with the church member who has been a regional supervisor tor two census efforts. He said people refused to provide any information beyond the number of people in the house last census and they expect less cooperation this time.

Only ONE court can determine what information could be asked and they see no room to determine that based on the wording of the Constitution. The way in which they obtain the information, IE: door to door, mail in or registering at specific geographic points is to be determined by congress, NOTHING more! "All laws that are in violation of the Constitution are null and void and need not be obeyed!" (this a SC ruling it's self!)

Slàinte,    

Patch     

Well, as long as you are quoting the Supreme court, I will remind you of my previous post where I did the same specific to the census:

As early as 1870, the Supreme Court characterized as unquestionable the power of Congress to require both an enumeration and the collection of statistics in the census. The Legal Tender Cases, Tex.1870; 12 Wall., U.S., 457, 536, 20 L.Ed. 287.

And:

Supreme Court's recent description of the census as the "linchpin of the federal statistical system ... collecting data on the characteristics of individuals, households, and housing units throughout the country." Dept. of Commerce v. U.S. House of Representatives, 525 U.S. 316, 341 (1999).

The quote you have referenced is from a law text book, an "interpretation" of what the textbook authors think about the law, but it doesn't indicate it as a direct quote from the Supreme Court. I'm not disagreeing with it though.

So, IF the Supreme court would have ruled differently in the above cases and said only information that is literally spelled out in the constitution can be collected during the census, THEN you could say that the current law governing the census is unconstitutional.

I am curious how one operationally follows "All laws that are in violation of the Constitution are null and void and need not be obeyed!" It seems to show up as a battle cry for action as if there are a bunch of unconstitutional laws around not to follow. While I admire people who are willing to take a stand on principle, I would guess in these cases you would first be convicted of violating the law, go to court and try and prove your case that the law is unconstitutional. Just my hunch, but I don't think there are many of those laws around that a district court would immediately see as unconstitutional. I would bet you would have to go to a higher court. Takes time and money. You would want to be careful about picking your battles.

Our "attorney who joins us for lunch will reference the information you supplied. Strangely, the census takers in the area covered by the supervisor I attend church with are instructed to ask but not to attempt to coerce people into providing the additional information.

I have never provided any additional information to census takers and no one has come for me. Most of the time I have provided nothing.

In quickly researching the info you provided it is for the most part district court rulings which have no weight in Constitutional matters. The one SC ruling in 1999 is so vague as to provide no direction. I should have more information after lunch next Monday but I suspect it will not require that any further information be provided.

Slàinte,  

Patch