Skip to comments.Census response to health control legislation
Posted on 03/29/2010 6:15:42 AM PDT by Liberty1970
Dear Census representative,
Article 1, Section II:
(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 powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The United States federal constitution authorizes a headcount (enumeration) every ten years. The opinions of tyrannical federal officials notwithstanding, the 10th amendment restricts the authority of the federal government from exceeding the bounds specified by the constitution, including the collection of information beyond that required for authorized, legitimate purposes of the federal government.
Insofar as the 14th amendment has been eviscerated by recent health control legislation and innumerable other bills that transgress the plain intent of the 10th amendment, a headcount for my household can plainly be given. Under the original wording of Article 1, Section II of the constitution as stated above, the equivalent of three persons live in this household.
Thank you and have a great day.
Just as with every Freeper not going along and filling in your count and race: you are simply assuring that a larger share of federal funds will be given to those of whatever races you aren’t.
Thats going to happen anyway. There aren’t a lot of freeper programs....[tho pogroms might be in the offing...]
But if we need more buses [to quote a census commercial] or a stoplight [to quote another] then race isn’t at all important, just a count.
Have you not been paying attention? As if racial set-asides weren’t already marbled throughout governments at all levels, the current administration has upped their use even more. The federal government is literally spending billions expressly trying to tell this to any and all minorities, so they can maximize their counts.
Filling in the census as ‘human’ or not at all is a little like voting for the unelectable fringe candidate: many Freepers seem to enjoy the exercise, but it has real-world consequences.
I filled in the whole number of people living at the residence only. Do you really think that if we included that we were “white” that any LESS money would go to people of other various races? I have some serious doubts about that.
The census will make its own estimates as to the racial composition of non-answerers such as you—so you’ll just be helping them come up with the ratios they’d like to see.
Ideally, groups ID'd as "minority" would not be if their numbers are high. The only thing that I can think of is the numbers would be used to tell employers what your workforce must look like. Oh and to focus the pandering.
Didn’t mean to be rude. If the numbers weren’t used for actual grants (and quotas), why would the census be spending its billions advertising especially with minority groups telling them the opposite?
And how does my saying I am white change that one bit?
It doesn’t, in my view.
The money is already earmarked and will be sent. It doesn’t do me one lick of good one way or the other because I do not qualify for any of it. If it is a finite pot of money all it does is shift it around some.
While a response of white may increase white percentages it will have zero practical effect on the money spent.
I am MORE concerned with illegals being counted.
Illegals are being counted, overwhelmingly as “Hispanic”, and the higher the count in that category relative to those who respond as “white”, the greater the % of set-asides for affirmative action.
Personally, I've never been comfortable identifying my race on forms.
I know. It irks me on principle, as a policy—and because I know my vanilla is regularly held against me.
Also, what did the term 'enumerate' mean in 1787? Modern usage is closer to 'identify and count off one by one' than 'determine the quantity of'. Further, using name and birthdate will make it possible to avoid double-counting of people who happen to be in a hotel for part of the day when the census is taken but who are also counted at home. If conservatives don't want to let Democrats use extrapolations to 'improve' their tallies, I would think they should favor the 'identify and count off one by one' meaning.
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.