Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Census: A Little Too Personal
Topic Started: Mar 8 2010, 10:17 AM (245 Views)
Mark
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Census: A Little Too Personal

Last week Congress voted to encourage participation in the 2010 census. I voted “No” on this resolution for the simple, obvious reason that the census- like so many government programs- has grown far beyond what the framers of our Constitution intended. The invasive nature of the current census raises serious questions about how and why government will use the collected information. It also demonstrates how the federal bureaucracy consistently encourages citizens to think of themselves in terms of groups, rather than as individual Americans. The not so subtle implication is that each group, whether ethnic, religious, social, or geographic, should speak up and demand its “fair share” of federal largesse.

Article I, section 2 of the Constitution calls for an enumeration of citizens every ten years, for the purpose of apportioning congressional seats among the various states. In other words, the census should be nothing more than a headcount. It was never intended to serve as a vehicle for gathering personal information on citizens.

But our voracious federal government thrives on collecting information. In fact, to prepare for the 2010 census state employees recorded GPS coordinates for every front door in the United States so they could locate individuals with greater accuracy! Once duly located, individuals are asked detailed questions concerning their name, address, race, home ownership, and whether they periodically spend time in prison or a nursing home - just to name a few examples.

From a constitutional perspective, of course, the answer to each of these questions is: “None of your business.” But the bigger question is - why government is so intent on compiling this information in the first place?

The Census Bureau claims that collected information is not shared with any federal agency; but rather is kept under lock and key for 72 years. It also claims that no information provided to census takers can be used against you by the government.

However, these promises can and have been abused in the past. Census data has been used to locate men who had not registered for the draft. Census data also was used to find Japanese-Americans for internment camps during World War II. Furthermore, the IRS has applied census information to detect alleged tax evaders. Some local governments even have used census data to check for compliance with zoning regulations.

It is not hard to imagine that information compiled by the census could be used against people in the future, despite claims to the contrary and the best intentions of those currently in charge of the Census Bureau. The government can and does change its mind about these things, and people have a right to be skeptical about government promises.

Yet there are consequences for not submitting to the census and its intrusive questions. If the form is not mailed back in time, households will experience the “pleasure” of a visit by a government worker asking the questions in person. If the government still does not get the information it wants, it can issue a fine of up to $5000.

If the federal government really wants to increase compliance with the census, it should abide by the Constitution and limit its inquiry to one simple question: How many people live here?

-Ron Paul
___.___
(_]===*
o 0
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
He could have said that whole thing in fewer words:

"I don't know what they might do with the information, but it scares me!"

Or just one word: paranoia.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mark
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
BS. The census has become unconstitutional in scope.

I don't give a damn what the SCOTUS has to say about it.

I lost faith in that institution a long time ago.
___.___
(_]===*
o 0
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kenny
HOLY CARP!!!
What if we mail it back on time but only answer how many people live at the address?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mark
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
You may experience first hand the power and intrusive nature of our federal government.
___.___
(_]===*
o 0
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
Disregarding how census information could be used, Mark, what do you honestly think the government is going to do with the information it collects?
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Red Rice
HOLY CARP!!!
I see Mark's point. The Constitution requires only an enumeration, nothing more. At least they're doing away with the long forms this time around.

The census for other countries is even more intrusive, I believe.
Civilisation, I vaguely realized then - and subsequent observation has confirmed the view - could not progress that way. It must have a greater guiding principle to survive. To treat it as a carcase off which each man tears as much as he can for himself, is to stand convicted a brute, fit for nothing better than a jungle existence, which is a death-struggle, leading nowhither. I did not believe that was the human destiny, for Man individually was sane and reasonable, only collectively a fool.

I hope the gunner of that Hun two-seater shot him clean, bullet to heart, and that his plane, on fire, fell like a meteor through the sky he loved. Since he had to end, I hope he ended so. But, oh, the waste! The loss!

- Cecil Lewis
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

Mark, I agree with you (and Ron Paul) 100% in this case.

I'm also curious what would happen if you didn't answer all the other superfluous questions.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Red Rice
Mar 8 2010, 12:37 PM
I see Mark's point. The Constitution requires only an enumeration, nothing more.
Not exactly.

Here's the language of the Constitution:

"[An] 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."

It quite clearly gives Congress the right to determine the "manner" of the census. The Supreme Court has likewise been quite clear that gathering broader data is within Congress's Constitutional power.

Quote:
 
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).

In 2000, another District Court agreed and found that it there is no constitutional limit on collecting additional data, when necessary for governance. That court also said responses to census questions are not a violation of a citizen's right to privacy or speech. Morales v. Daley, 116 F. Supp. 2d 801, 809 and 816. (S.D. Tex. 2000). 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).


http://2010.census.gov/2010census/why/constitutional.php

So, you are free to think that an enumeration is nothing more than a counting. For more than a century, the Supreme Court has disagreed. And, last I heard, the Supreme Court gets the final say on whether a particular exercise of power is Constitutional or not.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mark
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
The supreme court was wrong in 1870 and the district court was wrong in 2000.
___.___
(_]===*
o 0
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Red Rice
HOLY CARP!!!
Quirt, I believe you are missing the meaning of my original statement.

Firstly, "manner" of the census clearly refers to the method of data collection, not to the type of data to be collected.

Secondly:
Quote:
 
The controlling law for the U.S. Census is Title 13 of the U.S. Code. There is a lot of census data collected in the United States today, such as economic figures, sales and production figures, and agricultural statistics. Still, the head count is the only part of the census that is called for by the Constitution.

(Source: http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_cens.html)

What you are contending is that the Congressional privilege of gathering additional data is not a violation of the Constitution. Fair enough (and you and I should question as to whether there are any limits to this). But my original statement, that the Constitution requires only an enumeration, nothing more, still stands, and is still correct, unless you can show where the Constitution requires the collection of additional data.
Civilisation, I vaguely realized then - and subsequent observation has confirmed the view - could not progress that way. It must have a greater guiding principle to survive. To treat it as a carcase off which each man tears as much as he can for himself, is to stand convicted a brute, fit for nothing better than a jungle existence, which is a death-struggle, leading nowhither. I did not believe that was the human destiny, for Man individually was sane and reasonable, only collectively a fool.

I hope the gunner of that Hun two-seater shot him clean, bullet to heart, and that his plane, on fire, fell like a meteor through the sky he loved. Since he had to end, I hope he ended so. But, oh, the waste! The loss!

- Cecil Lewis
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Red Rice
Mar 8 2010, 01:07 PM
Quirt, I believe you are missing the meaning of my original statement.

Firstly, "manner" of the census clearly refers to the method of data collection, not to the type of data to be collected.

Secondly:
Quote:
 
The controlling law for the U.S. Census is Title 13 of the U.S. Code. There is a lot of census data collected in the United States today, such as economic figures, sales and production figures, and agricultural statistics. Still, the head count is the only part of the census that is called for by the Constitution.

(Source: http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_cens.html)

What you are contending is that the Congressional privilege of gathering additional data is not a violation of the Constitution. Fair enough (and you and I should question as to whether there are any limits to this). But my original statement, that the Constitution requires only an enumeration, nothing more, still stands, and is still correct, unless you can show where the Constitution requires the collection of additional data.
No, the Constitution doesn't REQUIRE the collection of additional data. It simply allows Congress to decide what data is collected. Which is exactly contradictory to Mark's post of what the good Mr. Paul said.

Quote:
 
Firstly, "manner" of the census clearly refers to the method of data collection, not to the type of data to be collected.


I don't believe it's quite so clear. What you propose is one interpretation, but it's far from the only possible interpretation, of the word "manner".
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
QuirtEvans
Mar 8 2010, 01:22 PM
I don't believe it's quite so clear. What you propose is one interpretation, but it's far from the only possible interpretation, of the word "manner".
Sort of like the evidence of the video tape, huh?
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Red Rice
HOLY CARP!!!
QuirtEvans
Mar 8 2010, 01:22 PM
No, the Constitution doesn't REQUIRE the collection of additional data. It simply allows Congress to decide what data is collected. Which is exactly contradictory to Mark's post of what the good Mr. Paul said.

Actually, that's not what Ron Paul said. He didn't state that Congress had no right to collect additional data. But, given that the Constitution requires only enumeration, he did raise legitimate questions as to WHY the government needs additional data beyond enumeration, and HOW that data is used. I would like answers to these questions as well, and if you could provide them, I would appreciate it.

Quote:
 

I don't believe it's quite so clear. What you propose is one interpretation, but it's far from the only possible interpretation, of the word "manner".

Yeah, but my proposal makes the most sense. :P
Civilisation, I vaguely realized then - and subsequent observation has confirmed the view - could not progress that way. It must have a greater guiding principle to survive. To treat it as a carcase off which each man tears as much as he can for himself, is to stand convicted a brute, fit for nothing better than a jungle existence, which is a death-struggle, leading nowhither. I did not believe that was the human destiny, for Man individually was sane and reasonable, only collectively a fool.

I hope the gunner of that Hun two-seater shot him clean, bullet to heart, and that his plane, on fire, fell like a meteor through the sky he loved. Since he had to end, I hope he ended so. But, oh, the waste! The loss!

- Cecil Lewis
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Red Rice
Mar 8 2010, 01:34 PM
QuirtEvans
Mar 8 2010, 01:22 PM
No, the Constitution doesn't REQUIRE the collection of additional data. It simply allows Congress to decide what data is collected. Which is exactly contradictory to Mark's post of what the good Mr. Paul said.

Actually, that's not what Ron Paul said. He didn't state that Congress had no right to collect additional data.

Actually, that's exactly what he said.

Quote:
 
From a constitutional perspective, of course, the answer to each of these questions is: “None of your business.”


What could those words possibly mean, other than that Congress has no right to direct the census bureau to ask those questions? Congress passed a law. The law requires citizens to provide data, subject to penalties. Ron Paul says that, constitutionally, you don't have to comply with that law, and you can tell the government that the questions are none of its business. What do you suppose he means?

Quote:
 
Quote:
 

I don't believe it's quite so clear. What you propose is one interpretation, but it's far from the only possible interpretation, of the word "manner".

Yeah, but my proposal makes the most sense. :P


For over a century, every court that has addressed the issue has disagreed with you.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mark
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
And the courts are never wrong are they Quirt?
___.___
(_]===*
o 0
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Sure they are.

But whatever they decide is the law of the land, and has to be respected.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Red Rice
HOLY CARP!!!
QuirtEvans
Mar 8 2010, 01:45 PM
What could those words possibly mean, other than that Congress has no right to direct the census bureau to ask those questions? Congress passed a law. The law requires citizens to provide data, subject to penalties. Ron Paul says that, constitutionally, you don't have to comply with that law, and you can tell the government that the questions are none of its business. What do you suppose he means?



No, I think you're really reaching. His point was not to encourage people not to comply with the law, his point was that the collection of this data was not mandated by the Constitution (his phrase "from a constitutional perspective" makes this clear, I think). And he is correct in that unless, again, you can point out where in the Constitution the collection of additional data beyond enumeration is required, which is something you've already admitted you can't do.

Quote:
 
For over a century, every court that has addressed the issue has disagreed with you.

Really? Care to show me where "manner" was defined another way?
Civilisation, I vaguely realized then - and subsequent observation has confirmed the view - could not progress that way. It must have a greater guiding principle to survive. To treat it as a carcase off which each man tears as much as he can for himself, is to stand convicted a brute, fit for nothing better than a jungle existence, which is a death-struggle, leading nowhither. I did not believe that was the human destiny, for Man individually was sane and reasonable, only collectively a fool.

I hope the gunner of that Hun two-seater shot him clean, bullet to heart, and that his plane, on fire, fell like a meteor through the sky he loved. Since he had to end, I hope he ended so. But, oh, the waste! The loss!

- Cecil Lewis
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Red Rice
Mar 8 2010, 01:55 PM
QuirtEvans
Mar 8 2010, 01:45 PM
What could those words possibly mean, other than that Congress has no right to direct the census bureau to ask those questions? Congress passed a law. The law requires citizens to provide data, subject to penalties. Ron Paul says that, constitutionally, you don't have to comply with that law, and you can tell the government that the questions are none of its business. What do you suppose he means?



No, I think you're really reaching. His point was not to encourage people not to comply with the law, his point was that the collection of this data was not mandated by the Constitution (his phrase "from a constitutional perspective" makes this clear, I think). And he is correct in that unless, again, you can point out where in the Constitution the collection of additional data beyond enumeration is required, which is something you've already admitted you can't do.

Quote:
 
For over a century, every court that has addressed the issue has disagreed with you.

Really? Care to show me where "manner" was defined another way?
Let's try again.

1. The law requires you to provide data.

2. Ron Paul says you can tell the government that, constitutionally, it's none of their business.

If it's none of their business constitutionally, then they have no RIGHT to collect the data. They are acting unconstitutionally. No one has ever argued that Congress is REQUIRED to ask for additional information. However, they've chosen to ask for it, and Ron Paul says, constitutionally, it's none of their business.

You seem to be twisting his words beyond all possible recognition in an effort to carve a difference between what the Constitution requires for the census, and what Congress is allowed to do, whether or not the census requires it. Paul sees no such difference. He makes it quite clear that the ONLY place Congress is allowed to collect data is as part of the census ... and that, constitutionally, the expanded questions are none of its business.

Quote:
 
Quote:
 
For over a century, every court that has addressed the issue has disagreed with you.

Really? Care to show me where "manner" was defined another way?


It's pretty straightforward. They've allowed the questions to be asked, as part of the census. To fit into the census language, either the courts were adopting an expanded definition of "enumeration", or they were adopting an expanded definition of "manner".
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Copper
Member Avatar
Shortstop

We got a letter from the Census today telling us we are going to get a letter from the Census next week.
The Confederate soldier was peculiar in that he was ever ready to fight, but never ready to submit to the routine duty and discipline of the camp or the march. The soldiers were determined to be soldiers after their own notions, and do their duty, for the love of it, as they thought best. Carlton McCarthy
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
Copper
Mar 8 2010, 03:23 PM
We got a letter from the Census today telling us we are going to get a letter from the Census next week.
Excellent. I wonder if that came from the Department of Redundancy Office.
A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mark
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
George K
Mar 8 2010, 03:34 PM
Copper
Mar 8 2010, 03:23 PM
We got a letter from the Census today telling us we are going to get a letter from the Census next week.
Excellent. I wonder if that came from the Department of Redundancy Office.
We got the same letter today.

What a completely stupid waste of resources.

Our government is foul.
___.___
(_]===*
o 0
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
George K
Mar 8 2010, 03:34 PM
Copper
Mar 8 2010, 03:23 PM
We got a letter from the Census today telling us we are going to get a letter from the Census next week.
Excellent. I wonder if that came from the Department of Redundancy Office.
Shame on you, George. It's the Department of Redundancy Department!

Posted Image
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
Damn. Otherwise, it would be news of the tautological.
A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Okham
Member Avatar
Newbie
Red Rice
Mar 8 2010, 01:55 PM
Care to show me where "manner" was defined another way?
It's simple.

Really.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply