Census vs. Rights

[jamese]

I just got my census today, and it asks questions that are not allowed by the constitution. The only thing they are allowed to ask is "How many people live in your household"
Not your name, not your birthdate, not your race, not your phone, not anything else.

So far, our rights are being just tossed away by this United States Government and I for one don't believe in giving any more power or information to them for any purpose. Read it online if you want.

Pursuant to Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution, the only information you are empowered to request is the total number of occupants at this address. Neither Congress nor the Census Bureau have the constitutional authority to make that information request a component of the enumeration outlined in Article I, Section 2, Clause 3.

Interstate Commerce Commission v. Brimson, 154 U.S. 447, 479 (May 26, 1894)

“Neither branch of the legislative department [House of Representatives or Senate], still less any merely administrative body [such as the Census Bureau], established by congress, possesses, or can be invested with, a general power of making inquiry into the private affairs of the citizen. Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U.S. 168, 190. We said in Boyd v. U.S., 116 U. S. 616, 630, 6 Sup. Ct. 524,?and it cannot be too often repeated,?that the principles that embody the essence of constitutional liberty and security forbid all invasions on the part of government and it’s employees of the sanctity of a man’s home and the privacies of his life. As said by Mr. Justice Field, in Re Pacific Ry. Commission, 32 Fed. 241, 250, ‘of all the rights of the citizen, few are of greater importance or more essential to his peace and happiness than the right of personal security, and that involves, not merely protection of his person from assault, but exemption of his private affairs, books, and papers from inspection and scrutiny of others. Without the enjoyment of this right, all others would lose half their value.’”


Maybe some member attorneys will weight in on this one!

Jim

[Jack Lawman]

Jamese,
I'm not an attorney, but have some rudimentary knowledge of the law.

You posed a great question and I surfed around a bit to enlighten myself (during which I wondered how many lists my name was placed upon as a result of searching words like "authority" and "penalty" on the Census site).

The authority for the census is derived from the U.S. Code TITLE 13, CHAPTER 5, SUBCHAPTER II, §141.

The first paragraph of §141:
(a) The Secretary shall, in the year 1980 and every 10 years thereafter, take a decennial census of population (emphasis added) as of the first day of April of such year, which date shall be known as the “decennial census date”, in such form and content as he may determine, including the use of sampling procedures and special surveys. In connection with any such census, the Secretary is authorized to obtain such other census information as necessary.

Herein lies the authority for the census. The very last paragraph of §141 appears on its face to severely limit the scope of information gathered:
(g) As used in this section, “census of population” (emphasis added) means a census of population, housing, and matters relating to population and housing.

However, I did find the following from: http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/consti...icle01/08.html
The Census Requirement
While Sec. 2 expressly provides for an enumeration of persons, Congress has repeatedly directed an enumeration not only of the free persons in the States, but also of those in the territories, and has required all persons over eighteen years of age to answer an ever- lengthening list of inquiries concerning their personal and economic affairs. This extended scope of the census has received the implied approval of the Supreme Court (emphasis added); it is one of the methods whereby the national legislature exercises its inherent power to obtain the information necessary for intelligent legislative action.

I cannot the find the instrument of "implication" by the Supreme Court; hopefully a constitutional scholar will jump in. In any case, it appears that this "extended scope of the census" trampling is a fait accompli.

Funny... it has the same stench as "deem & pass". Maybe we can knock the latter off the stovetop before it is fully cooked?

[Ron Smith]

Jim,

I'm curious,Which Rights have you lost? As far as the Census information goes. Any Bozo with a computer can find out one hell of a lot more about you than these questions divulge.

Jack,

The Republicans have used Deem and Pass over 100 times, look it up. Where was the outrage and "stench" then?

[Jack Lawman]

Originally Posted by Ron Smith

Jack,
The Republicans have used Deem and Pass over 100 times, look it up. Where was the outrage and "stench" then?

Both Democrats and Republicans have used deem and pass.

Deem and and pass has never been used on anything nearly so massive, unpopular, and controversial. Furthermore, I cannot find any reference as to its constitutionality (by implication or actual ruling of Supreme Court).

A soup pot full of nasty stinks your house up a lot worse than a shotglass full.

Maybe it's simply a matter of olfactory sensitivity... things don't smell so bad to a person who lives next to the town yard.

Jack

[Ron Smith]

I see you're staying true to the cause, and taking the "High Road".

[azlaw]

Usually the squabbling over cesus information is related to the very critical issue of Federal districts for purposes of Congressional representation or jury pooling. Those matters frequently come before the SCOTUS (Supreme Court Of The United States). The Census Bureau has along history of asking questions outside of art 1, but the current "long form" census questionnaires really get some peoples' goat - health questions, do you ride a bicycle, race, etc.

The issue of whether or not a person can be compelled to answer the Census is well settled. See U.S. v. Sharrow, 309 F.2d 77 ( C.A.N.Y. 1962)(Cert. denied 372 U.S. 949). Not that they are looking to prosecute, but if you are a census protestor, and you mail an affidavit to the U.S. Attorney proclaiming that you refuse to answer, then they might bust you.

A recent overview of how to dismantle the Article I, 1st Amt, and 14th Amt arguments may be found at Morales v. Daley, 116 F.Supp.2d 801 (S.D.Tex. 2000). Notwithstanding the high-sounding words in the old railroad case cited, the controlling law on the 4th Amt issue is presently Wyoming v. Houghton, 526 U.S. 295, 299, 119 S.Ct. 1297(1999), which basically says "Hey, Congress can do that, suck it up." This doctrine derives from a landmark case that we may have all read about in High School called McColluch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819), which basically says that Congress can do what it thinks "necessary and proper" unless there is a clear violation of the terms of the Constitution and that the courts must not otherwise interfere with the governance of the country.

Bottom line is: Answer the Census, we're counting on you - or else! And if you don't like it, call your congressman.

H

[Jack Lawman]

US Code, Title 13, Chapter 7, Subchapter II, § 221 outlines the penalties:

(a) Whoever, being over eighteen years of age, refuses or
willfully neglects, when requested by the Secretary, or by any
other authorized officer or employee of the Department of Commerce
or bureau or agency thereof acting under the instructions of the
Secretary or authorized officer, to answer, to the best of his
knowledge, any of the questions on any schedule submitted to him in
connection with any census or survey provided for by subchapters I,
II, IV, and V of chapter 5 of this title, applying to himself or to
the family to which he belongs or is related, or to the farm or
farms of which he or his family is the occupant, shall be fined not
more than $100 (emphasis added).
(b) Whoever, when answering questions described in subsection (a)
of this section, and under the conditions or circumstances
described in such subsection, willfully gives any answer that is
false, shall be fined not more than $500 (emphasis added).
(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, no person
shall be compelled to disclose information relative to his
religious beliefs or to membership in a religious body.

So $100 for not giving your phone number, $500 for intentionally giving a wrong number. No mention of jail time.

I guess one must return the census stating only the number of persons in residence (nothing else) along with an affidavit that other information is intentionally omitted. Copy info to major media. Take your $100 hit, then sue the Census bureau and hope you get your $100 back by order of the Supreme Court (I'd frame that check!).

Otherwise, you're probably stuck doing what I'm going to do... fill it out completely and truthfully. At least my clan will get counted for congressional representation purposes. I certainly don't have the 'nads to slug it out with the man!

Jack

[lew1]

Let's see. I can give them my home telephone number - to which I have a fax machine attached 100% of the time. I do everything by cell phone. The only reason I keep the line is for the faxes and the burglar alarm system.

As to race, it is well established that humannity started in Africa. So that makes us all Africian Americans.

Remember, on April 1, the day the count is taken, invite some friends over. Then visit their house.

Then note question 10 --- where is asks if the person sometimes live or stay somewhere else. For those married people, who consider marriage a burden, an answer could be 'In jail or prison' and there is the catch all 'For another reason'

All truthful answers.

[sheepherder]

I'd like to know if everyone is getting the same form, or if there are variations...One of my co-workers says she had to put her SS number down...another said he had to sign his...

I didn't see any boxes for either of these...just page after page of empty spaces...(I'm single, live alone)...

name, age, DOB, phone #, race...pretty much all there was on mine...Took 30 seconds...

[tomaustin]

...

[lew1]

Originally Posted by postino

I'd like to know if everyone is getting the same form, or if there are variations...One of my co-workers says she had to put her SS number down...another said he had to sign his...

I didn't see any boxes for either of these...just page after page of empty spaces...(I'm single, live alone)...

name, age, DOB, phone #, race...pretty much all there was on mine...Took 30 seconds...

No boxes for SS# or for signature.

Just remember, the law requires the form to be completed on April 1 - not March 31 or April 2.

[Curly1]

No SS# or sigs here either

[jamese]

Ron,
when you give information to the government that you don't have to, your giving up rights, however small. Look at how are gun rights are eroding just a little at a time. As a law abiding citizen of this country, at this point I do not want to give the Federal Government any more than I am required to give. This includes taxes, information, or anything else for that mater.

If the "bozo's" can look it up on the computer.....then that is what they should do. They don't have to have me answer any questions.

Washington is full of "Bozo's"
Jim

[sheepherder]

Originally Posted by lew1

Just remember, the law requires the form to be completed on April 1 - not March 31 or April 2.

Darn! looks like I screwed up again!

IIRC, in the 2000 Census, there was a long form that a certain "random" percentage got...1 in 10, or 1 in 1000, whatever...I got the short form then, too...

Not real certain about this...CRS and all that...

[sheepherder]

Originally Posted by postino

IIRC, in the 2000 Census, there was a long form that a certain "random" percentage got...1 in 10, or 1 in 1000, whatever...I got the short form then, too...

Not real certain about this...CRS and all that...

My memory is still intact...there *was* a long form in 2000...and there is a long form this year, too...

First pic is the short form; 10 questions, IIRC...plus more pages for up to 9 extra members of your household...

Second pic is this years long form...I didn't get it, but it is about 3/16" thick, as compared to the short form...

Had to take pics with my phone, so they're pretty bad...but you can see there is a difference...

This is the *only* long form I've seen in 793 deliveries...so the percentage must be on the order of 1 in 1000...

[StarOfTheWest]

To ask my race is racist!

I was tempted to just fill in "Master" under the "any other race" box, but decided against it as I do not want to invite The Man into our lives any more than they have already insinuated themselves in.

They are all bastages, and I want to have as little to do with them as possible.

And I am German/Austrian, NOT fricking Caucasian!!
At least they had the sense to just put "White".

[lugerholsterrepair]

You can give the standard answer Bill Clinton gave when asked questions...I don't remember.

Jerry Burney

[sheepherder]

I'm curious as to what's in the American Community Survey...

If I see the guy at that address, I'll ask him...

[Ron Wood]

Star,
I believe Johnny Dangerously would have called them farging bastages.

[Conny]

Hmmmm....Interesting topic. I'm 53 and have NEVER filled out the Census. Come to think of it, I don't know anyone nor have I heard/read of anyone being fined or convicted of a Census crime.

How about no one filling it out. Then what?