Early in the discussion, ken.mcloud wrote
"question for you:
the 2000 census conducted by the Bush administration asked similar, if not identical questions.
Did you rage against Bush administration 10 years ago for their constitutional violations also?
if not, then why is this any different?"
FYI, the 2000 census was NOT conducted by the Bush admin.; Bush was not elected until Nov. 2000 and assumed office in Jan. 2001, after the 2000 census. Clinton was president during the 2000 census.

question for you:

the 2000 census conducted by the Bush administration asked similar, if not identical questions.

Did you rage against Bush administration 10 years ago for their constitutional violations also?

if not, then why is this any different?

"the unconstitutional is given", really? care to justify that assertion?

you're most likely response will be "the 10th amendment"

the trouble with that is that its a pretty week argument. At the very least you have the language "in such a manner as they shall by law direct" clearly indicating that the framers wanted congress to have a fair deal of leeway.

secondly, this is probably one of the few cases where the general welfare clause can be legitimately applied. Government is involved in all sorts of projects (utilities, zoning, etc...) where having data other than just # of resident could be helpful, or even necessary. Now I'm not saying that this is the most cost effective way to gather that data, nor am I saying that asking whether or not you have indoor plumbing has any relevance at all in the 21st century.

But you appear to be arguing that the constitution bars the government from gathering any data at all other than population, regardless of the means or the intended use. This is a rather bold claim that goes contrary to decades of precedent and I don't feel that you have adequately justified it.

but what's really bugging me is how the constitution has all of a sudden become fashionable now that Democrats are in power. No one seemed to care when the last administration whiped their rear with the constitution. I tried many a times to point out the violations of the 10th amendment, and the 4th, and separation of powers clause, and the war powers clause. More often than not I got called something like a "hippie" or a "liberal" for my trouble. but now that theres a dem in the whitehouse, all of a sudden everyone has jumped band wagons and is a radically-strict literalist?

I'm sorry, but I'd take arguments like this (or the "profiling in airports one from a few days ago) more seriously if they were accompanied by some deep, rational thought or at least didn't smell so badly of poor sportsmanship.

As such, the ONLY question you are required to answer is the number of people in your household. Any additional information that is asked for is outside of the scope of what the constitution calls for, and as such any laws that state providing additional information are unconstitutional...as was the 2000 census which asked things like...
· Your official government racial classification
· How much money you earn
· The number of toilets in your home
· Whether you have trouble bathing
· How many cars you own
· Do you get to work by ferry boat?
The Constitution says "Enumerate." Enumerate means "Count." It doesn't mean "snoop." It doesn't mean "spy." It doesn't mean "Intimidate people with threats of fines and jail time to force them to answer questions they have no Constitutional requirement to answer....I only answered one question on the census form in 1970 and 1980 "How many people in the household" I wrote N/A on all the rest and I never heard anything else about it...in 1990.....I answered only one "how many"...then a census worker came to my home I told him that I already mailed the form,,he said "you didnt fill it out completely" ...he went on to start asking me numerous stupid questions I told him sorry I got to go to work and dont have time for this crap....he got really snotty and said by law you have to answer the questions....I told him I DID ANSWER THEM i put down N/A and thats my answer ....I told him to get his butt off my propety and dont come back......nothing ever happened.....in 2000 they sent a form and I tossed it in the trash,and low and behold a census worker showed up at my door...I didnt answer the door...they came back a few days later and I still didnt answer the door...they left and nothing happened...I intend to toss the 2010 census into the trash as well whos to say the USPS didnt lose it before it got to me..lol...... According to United States Code, Title 13 (Census), Chapter 7 (Offenses and Penalties), SubChapter II, if you're over 18 and refuse to answer all or part of the Census, you can be fined up to $100. If you give false answers, you're subject to a fine of up to $500. If you offer suggestions or information with the "intent to cause inaccurate enumeration of population," you are subject to a fine of up to $1,000, up to a year in prison, or both....
So you only face jail time if you lie about how many people are in your house....just not answering it is only a $100 fine...and most times they dont even do that....

The only questions should be:
Do you pay your taxes?
How many AMERICAN CITIZENS live here? We're coming to pick up the rest who aren't.

MLH, libertyfirst, and Dave-

There are really two issues at hand here:

#1) is this census wasting money? would there be a more efficient way to do it?

Of course is wasting money! of course there are more efficient ways to do this. Its the federal government were talking about here, they're practically professionals at devising the most INEFFICIENT ways to do things. We have no disagreement here.

#2)are the questions beyond "# of residents?" unconstitutional?

This one is certainly more complicated. The 10th amendment states that any powers not explicitly given to the federal government in the constitution are reserved for the people and for the states.

So, in order to make a valid case that an action is unconstitutional under the 10th amendment you must show that none of the clauses in the constitution empower the federal government to take that action.

unfortunately (and I mean that sincerely in this case) your court case would be dead on arrival. It has been supreme court precedent ever since the early 1900's that the interstate commerce clause and the general welfare clause empower the federal government to do absolutely anything that could be even remotely linked to commerce or the welfare of the general public, no matter how tentative, contrived or lawyer-esque that link is.

Think about it, can you think of ANY potential action that couldn't be tentatively linked to either general welfare or commerce? I can't. This precedent essentially renders the 10th amendment meaningless, and I think that in and of itself proof that the precedent is fallacious. I don't like it one bit, but that's the precedent and supreme court precedents ain't easy to change.

but even leaving that aside, I presented two examples earlier of places in the constitution that could easily be said to empower the federal government to ask questions other than "# of residents?" In order to argue that the census is unconstitutional you must first show why these are invalid and then you must overthrow nearly a century of supreme court precedent neutering the 10th amendment.

ken.mcloud

This is one time that I agree with you on the constitutionality issue. There can be lots of clearly constitutional activity by the Federal Govt that are clearly useless, wasteful, and downright stupid. The census fits at least 1.5 of those!

Sourdough has some good points also.

Best regards,
WMH

The leading causes of a spoiled brat child is that it was given its own way far too often and not told "no" often enough. The government governs by consent of the governed. On this issue I for one do not give my consent. I do not believe myself to be alone in my position. There are many Americans prepared to tell the spoiled brats "no". The question is to what lengths are the mindless bureaucrats willing to go to learn the number of toilets in my residence. As in the words of that country song, "You've got to stand for something, or you'll fall for anything."

Ken
I understand your position. I just do not agree with it. Nothing requires me to, just as nothing requires you to agree with mine. It is not partisan, it is personal. You march to your drummer and I'll march to mine. I feel no need to sway you, and hopefully you won't loose any sleep over having failed to sway me. This is a n exchange of opinions and there need not be a winner. Civil disobedience is a time honored form of protest and this is the course I choose. I am not seeking recruits.

I carry a copy of the Constitution in my Pocket ALL THE time, I did when I was on active duty and when I worked in Law enforcement to have handy every time some uneducated bozo would say I violated
their "rights" I would had it to them and ask which one, show it too me. 99.9% got more education trying to find it then they ever did in school.

spartan88-
I have a copy of the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and several of the supporting documents in a leather bound book that measures 3 3/4" X 2 1/2" and am seldom without it. It is available from The Patriot Post, and well worth the investment.

Has anyone challenged them on the census if not WHY? this is a job for politicians.

Our huge and inefficient Govt. can't do ANYTHING without a multi-Billion dollar price tag.

"In the first census that number representing total population had to be crunched because shamefully in those early days women, slaves, and children were actually or effectively property"

factually not true, all free persons, including women and children counted as "1" whereas under the infamous 3/5th's compromise, slaves counted as "3/5th's" So, more questions were asked than was necessary to determine the representation in the house.

"The first census did not ask how many outhouses or how many holes per outhouse"

but it DID ask more questions than were necessary to determine representation in the house, thus definitively establishing that the founders did not intend for congress to be limited to only the questions necessary to determine representation.

"Evidently the representatives of the 1920's are much like todays if they only ask for input of We the People every ten years to figure how best to spend our hard earned money."

what exactly are you arguing here? are you saying you want them to ask toilet questions more often? I thought you were anti-toilet questions? are you saying that governments shouldn't build water and sewer lines? even if you were holding something like a town hall meeting to determine that the people want municipal water and sewer lines, then you still need something like a house-to-house survey to determine the best place to lay those lines. why not incorporate that survey into the census?

"they send the ACORN bozo"

factually incorrect again, ACORN is not involved with the census

again though, a rather different argument from the whole thing being unconstitutional isn't it?

I wrote in "American" under the way too involved questioning about race. If the intended purpose of the census is to determine appropriate levels of representation and allocation of funding, are they implying that certain races get more or less representation and funding than other races? Any question about race certainly has no place in the census, and if we ever hope to become a color blind society, really has no place in the public discourse. To make a distinction between one race and another is in itself racial discrimination. If they want to know my race, I'm a member of the Human race.

Did anyone else get the letter about the impending arrival of the census a week before it actually came? Don't they think we knew that? I mean with all the wasted money on the television commercials (that I am still trying to make sense of) and the talk about it on the news, internet, and radio, you would think most everyone was aware of the census. Heck, they even sponsored a car in the Atlanta NASCAR race last week. HMMM . . . I wonder just how much all those things jacked up the cost.
I also noticed that the assertion that there are 'only 10 questions' has proven to be a little misleading. I guess subparts don't count.

What most people think are rights are PRIVILEGES which are earned.

Ask the Republican County Chairman in your Area, I pick up several copies a WEEK to distribute to people who have never read it.

That is why I always have several copies in my car to pass out! ;)

I just received our census. It was not as bad as I thought, no toilet questions or income questions. The questions that bugged me were home ownership (should be yes or no), but it is parsed into mortgage or not. Why? Age - why do they need DOB as well as a number? Will they be mailing out birthday cards/checks? Race - who knows if there might be some black, native american or hispanic in there? How about just American?
These were fairly innocuous complaints, but I would like to hear if anyone else is going to pass on any of the above.

Ok, I've got it! The cheapest way to conduct a census of US citizens is to do it by social security number. Don't have one? Get one or don't be counted! That would be the cheapest thing to do as opposed to spending big bucks on a superbowl commercial. What a joke!