Posted on 03/01/2010 2:07:55 PM PST by MsLady
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). The Founders of our fledgling nation had a bold and ambitious plan to empower the people over their new government. The plan was to count every person living in the newly created United States of America, and to use that count to determine representation in the Congress.
Enshrining this invention in our Constitution marked a turning point in world history. Previously censuses had been used mainly to tax or confiscate property or to conscript youth into military service. The genius of the Founders was taking a tool of government and making it a tool of political empowerment for the governed over their government.
They accomplished that goal in 1790 and our country has every 10 years since then. And we’re about to continue that tradition in 2010. In 1954, Congress codified earlier census acts and all other statutes authorizing the decennial census as Title 13, U.S. Code. Title 13, U.S. Code, does not specify which subjects or questions are to be included in the decennial census. However, it does require the Census Bureau to notify Congress of general census subjects to be addressed 3 years before the decennial census and the actual questions to be asked 2 years before the decennial census.
Questions beyond a simple count are Constitutional
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).
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).
bump
Given the government’s tendency to overstep the bounds of the Constitution, I say screw em.
Why would it be "necessary for governance" to determine how much my net worth is?
Why would it be "necessary for governance" to determine what religion I consider myself?
Questions that would be "necessary for governance" would be: How many people reside here? What are their ages? How long have they lived here?
From that pool of data, all issues of governance can be determined.
Very true!!!
“...necessary for governance” should be clarified by our elected representatives, not some government bow wow.
Although they threaten, Nobody has EVER been prosecuted for not completing the census and won't be because they are afraid the public backlash would actually decrease compliance.
“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.”
I’m no constitutional scholar, but even I know “does not prohibit” is a far cry from “grants the power for”. As far as I’m concerned, the government can go ahead and try to collect statistical data, but it has no authority to compel my participation beyond a certain point.
IMHO, given the info provided, the key phrase is “necessary for governance”. Therefore they don’t need to know anything beyond how many people are in a home which determines districts. I’d maybe give them ages and race, but beyond that, knowing how many guns, doors or toilets I have is not necessary for “governance”.
Dan Burton, today on the radio, told callers to only fill out what they felt was not intrusive if they wish and refer future contact by the Census to his office.
my wife and i completed the name, address, sex, age etc but not the other stuff and mailed it in.
we have got nightly calls from the census bureau for at least a month.
Remember, you say “screw them” and they prosecute you, if found guilty its jail, $$$, and importantly, you give up the right to carry or buy a gun. Just saying!!!
Once again, Congress unconstitutionally assigns its Article I Section 1 duty to exercise all legislative power. Much of what we wail against is far more from the Code of Federal Regulations (untouchable, unelected bureaucrat made regulations) than from direct law passed by our Congress-clowns.
Care to have a look at this?
mark
The requirements are spelled out in Title 13 of the United States Code of Laws. The statue says that anyone 18 and older who refuses or ‘willfully neglects’ to answer the questions connected with the census shall be fined up to $100. Anyone who willfully gives false information to any question can be fined up to $500. At one time, individuals could be imprisoned up to 60 days for refusing to comply with the census and up to a year for willfully providing false information, but the penalties were amended in 1976. Incidentally, the law does not compel anyone to give information about religious beliefs or membership in a religious group.
Oh, and notice how they misconstrue the logic behind the “necessary and proper” dictim to apply to the phantom “when necessary for governance” principle. However, “governance” ought not to be whatever the government gets in its mind to do. In this country, we have a Constitution to tell us what constitutes governance. It is those expressed powers from which certain ancillary authority “necessary and proper” to carrying out said powers arise.
How can it be “necessary and proper” to require people provide all sorts of miscellaneous information in order to fulfill the census power? It isn’t. Everyone knows it isn’t. What they’re saying is that it’s necessary to collect said information from the point of view of maximizing the efficiency of what government happens to be doing overall. But that’s not how it works. Overall governance is to be taken care of by executing the Constitution as a whole, and the specific powers therein. Any ancillary “necessary and proper” powers are to arise from the natural process of putting said specific powers into practice.
If it were the case that our federal government could do whatever it saw as necessary to maintain “governance” as a vague and abstract principle (rather than a series of distinct powers), there would be no need for a Constitution.
Please correct me if I'm wrong...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.