Posted on 06/19/2009 7:33:29 AM PDT by GeorgiaDawg32
Outspoken Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann says she's so worried that information from next year's national census will be abused that she will refuse to fill out anything more than the number of people in her household.
In an interview Wednesday morning with The Washington Times "America's Morning News," Mrs. Bachmann, Minnesota Republican, said the questions have become "very intricate, very personal" and she also fears ACORN, the community organizing group that came under fire for its voter registration efforts last year, will be part of the Census Bureau's door-to-door information collection efforts.
(SNIP)
Shelly Lowe, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Census Bureau, said Mrs. Bachmann is "misreading" the law.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
My husband has Native American Indian in his background.
It’s not that I’m so accepting, it’s that the aforementioned document legally sufficient for proving eligibility, and there is no legal requirement for him to produce anything else. I’d like to see the “long form BC” too, but there is no legal way to compel its display (heck, YOU can’t even see YOUR OWN long-form BC).
Admitting facts are facts, and absence of contrary facts is absence of contrary facts, and facts trump absence of contrary facts, is not “being so accepting”. I know he’s gone to great lengths to hide the truth - at this point, what we have legally upholds his claim, and we have nothing to the contrary and no way to get it. If there is proof to the contrary, I’d love to see it - until then, the State of Hawaii vouches for his qualification, and BHO wins that argument (like it or not).
I do too... I guess it would be up to them to prove that it’s “not enough”.
The kind of document displayed is currently accepted as legal proof. Show me YOUR long-form BC; bet you can’t.
I sure can. Even had a picture in the local newspaper for being the smallest baby in the nursery at that time. Also have a twin brother that will validate my birth.
By whose standards? Not by the American people.
Yeah, you guys are probably on the “Do not Accept” list because you are the real thing.
Then do so. Post a photograph of your long-form BC.
Refusing will generate a visit from one of their alphabet SWAT teams. Maybe even Lon Horiuchi will make the scene to send a loud and clear message to all other families who might think they can refuse their orders.
Surprise, surprise. Of you want to go that route. I should produce my orignial bc; but Obama doesn’t have to.
Oh, and I am not running for POTUS which I believe there is a requirement to prove you are legit.
Oh, I am not running for POTUS which there is a requirement that the candidate prove he/she is legit.
I got the long form as well. Filled in the number of people correctly, then went to town with the other questions. I have the only house in Texas with 2 bedrooms and 17 bathrooms. I am a mixed race of Alaskan eskimo, Italian and Boroguese. (Love to see somone figure that one out). Ass hats, if they want a whole bunch if info, all they have to do is go to the IRS or the DMV. All they need to know is there.
Suffice to say that the document produced is a legally satisfactory substitute for the long-form BC. I don’t like it any more than you do in this case, but that’s the legal situation we’re in as created by our democratically elected representatives. Unless you can concoct something more legally compelling than “I don’t like it! he should show the long-form BC!”, we’re stuck with it.
Way too far off topic. C’ya.
Maybe, but if you don’t question it; you will likely fall further into the pitt.
That was my contention—most of the data could be mined from public databases.
I am going to say native American since I was born in the US.
I don’t remember any constitutional amendment that gives the government power to do anythng more that a head count question..If they want more info. bring it up for a constitutional amendment..
Ms. Lowe didn't give a reason for her opinion beyond a vague reference to statutory law in general. But that's not the way I see it, on constitutional grounds.
The Census is a specific warrant to the Congress (Article I, Section 2) to conduct an "Enumeration" of the people every ten years for the express purpose of determining congressional apportionment. Period.
That means: Congress is authorized by the Constitution to conduct a HEADCOUNT, not to conduct an intrusive, unwarranted, detailed inventory of the people. Any statutory law that does not rest on this fundamental understanding, i.e., any Congressional enactment regarding the Census that is not "necessary and proper" to the discharge of the Constitutional intent (in this case, "count the number of people living in the United States"), is just so much litter in a junkyard as far as I'm concerned.
On this understanding, I conclude that I am not obligated as a citizen to answer unwarranted questions (i.e., any question beyond the first one, "how many adults live in this household?") on Fourth Amendment grounds. To demand my answer, and to penalize me for noncompliance, to me would constitute an "unreasonable search and seizure" — for those questions would not have been related to the Constitution's charge to Congress in the first place (i.e., in so many words, to do a headcount every ten years to see how many congressmen need to be seated in the House, and from where).
In the 2000 census, I just gave the headcount figure and refused to answer all other questions. Next census, the government threatens noncompliers with "fines up to $5,000."
I'm definitely thinking that one over.... The more I do, the more steamed I get.
ping
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.