Census 2010 and the Law

As of April 1, 2010, an extremely high-pressured demand is being made by the government that every person in the United States respond to questions put forth by the Census Bureau through the mechanism of what is being called "Census 2010." However many people have serious concerns about this governmental demand for personal identification information. Especially since, in preparation for this event, the Census Bureau for the first time employed GPS location verification for virtually every house in America through a massive deployment of workers, making it extremely clear that the information it gathered from Census 2010 would be combined with this GPS data.

In doing this, an intimidating message of overwhelming government surveillance was harshly, and deliberately, expressed to the people of this country.

The U.S. Constitution, at Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3; and at Amendment 14, Section 2; in respective [and combined] part, states:

"Representatives ... shall be apportioned among the several States ... according to their respective Numbers... The actual Enumeration shall be made ... within every ... Term of ten Years, in such Manner as [the Congress of the United States] shall by Law direct."

Yet that same U.S. Constitution, at Amendments 4 and 5; in respective [and combined] part, also states:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause ... No person shall be ...compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself... without due process of law..."

So here’s the question: Why would the Founders of this country write a Bill of Rights, but then trash the whole thing for a census in the same Constitution – and how can the US Census Bureau use Census 2010 to demand personal answers, under threat of prosecution, from every person in the United States, without violating the 4^th and 5^th Amendments?

Here’s the short answer: The Founders DIDN’T, and the Census Bureau (according to it’s own Census law, Title 13 of the U.S. Code) CAN’T.

In that case, are the Census Bureau’s actions illegal? Believe it or not, the government gets away with most of the things it does not through brazen illegality, but simply by allowing people to believe they know the law - when they don’t. And it makes sure that the court system, the legislature, and the administrative agencies remain well aware of when they have to disclose information - and when they don’t. As a result, the government rarely finds itself in a situation where it must provide detailed information about its operations - yet it’s silence is almost always completely "legal."

Nevertheless, whether or not the government is legally required to inform the American people of it’s operations, the courts have consistently maintained that the American people are personally responsible for all the laws that effect them. Practically speaking, this means all the laws the government chooses to use against them, whether or not it is required to tell them what they are, what they mean, or even if they exist. And that massive bias, unfortunately, is also completely "legal."

So, in the case of Census 2010 and the operations of the Census Bureau, the American people are fully required to completely understand Census Law, but the Census Bureau may or may not be legally required to fully disclose the limits of it’s lawful powers to the American people (and it doesn’t have to tell you if it is). But that’s not all. Soon, many people will also have to face a Census worker knocking at their door, no longer "requesting," but demanding, answers to personal questions, while making legal threats - and promising to never go away until they get what they want. So if there was ever time to learn about what the Census Bureau can and cannot do – and what you are and aren’t required to do – it’s now. Remember: knowing the law is your legal responsibility.

Therefore, to help in this understanding, this article was prepared to investigate the actual Census law in the United States Code. As a result, it can get a bit thick in places, because the census law gets a bit thick in places. But every effort has been made to break each subject down into it’s parts, and list them out in short sections. So get a cup of coffee or tea, take notes, take breaks, and don’t rush. It’s not really all that hard if you slow down, and when you’re finished you will find your time was very well spent (and it’s not actually all that long, either).

The first thing to understand is that even though the above quoted Constitutional "enumeration" requirement for the determining the number of Representatives for each State is only one of the Census Bureau’s many jobs, it can still ONLY OPERATE under the power it receives from Congress through the part of the U.S. Code that deals with Census - which is Title 13.

Secondly, the entire U.S. Code (including Title 13) is a form of statutory "positive law" - that’s why it’s called a "code." And the basic rule of any positive law code is that if something is in it, it exists. Likewise, if something is NOT in it – it does NOT exist. So in the U.S. Code (as well as in any other kind of State, County, or City statutes, administrative code, regulations or other positive law), how words are used and/or not used, and how phrases are constructed and/or not constructed, isn’t just important - it is extremely important, because it is LITERALLY the law - or not.

And it literally says so in the Code itself (because it has to, or this rule won’t exist):

U.S. Code, Title 1, Chapter 3, Section 204 (a). United States Code ... whenever titles of such Code shall have been enacted into positive law the text thereof shall be legal evidence of the laws therein contained...

So now that that’s settled, let’s carefully examine the Census Law: Title 13, and see what it says the Secretary of Commerce and the Census Bureau can – and cannot – do to you with Census 2010.

We’ll start with something that looks minor, but isn’t. Remember, nothing in a code of positive laws is minor. But a lot of things want you to believe they are minor. The following is a good example.

Section 141 (b) establishes that this is the Section of Title 13 that deals with the Constitutional Enumeration. It says:

§ 141. (b) The tabulation of total population by States under subsection (a) of this section as required for the apportionment of Representatives in Congress among the several States shall be... reported ... to the President of the United States.

But note that it also says that the "tabulation of total population" (i.e. Constitutional Enumeration) must be carried out under the previous Subsection – 141 (a), which says in turn:

§ 141. (a) The Secretary shall ... take a decennial census of population as of the first day of April of such year... including the use of [statistical] sampling procedures and special surveys.

Sounds right - Decennial is every ten years, and Census 2010 is decennial, and they both are taken on April 1st.

But then something is found in another part of Title 13 that throws this whole understanding out of whack. Because Section 195 puts a limit on how the Constitutional Enumeration is to be conducted. It says:

§ 195. ...the use of the statistical method known as "sampling" [shall not be used] for the determination of population for purposes of apportionment of Representatives in Congress among the several States...

Note that Section 141 (a) specifically said "including the use of [statistical] sampling procedures and special surveys." So per Section 195, that process is definitely banned. Yet, Section 141 (b) still says that the Constitutional Enumeration must be taken "under subsection (a)," – but that’s a puzzle we’ll get to next.

Therefore, the first significant discovery about Census 2010 is that Section 141(a) is designated as the process by which the Constitutional Enumeration is to be made, yet it apparently cannot be used to do it, because it includes "sampling processes" that are banned from the job.

As we’ve seen, we have a puzzle - Section 141 (b) says that Section 141 (a) is to take the Constitutional Enumeration, except that (a) apparently can’t do it because it uses sampling. But there’s another part of Section 141 (a) – a very vague sounding sentence, tacked onto the end of the main paragraph. It reads:

§ 141. (a)[[Clause 2]]: In connection with any census [of subsection (a) of this section], the Secretary is authorized to obtain such other census information as necessary.

"Other census information"? Could this throwaway description actually be the way the United States Code refers to the Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 Constitutional mandate upon which the seating of the entire House of Representatives depends?

It has to be - there isn’t any part of Section 141 (a) left! And remember, Section 141 (b) commands:

§ 141. (b) The tabulation of total population by States under subsection (a) of this section as required for the apportionment of Representatives in Congress among the several States...

§ 141. (g) As used in this section, "census of population" means a census of population, housing, and matters relating to population and housing.

And remember, Section 141 (a) [[Clause 1]] says "The Secretary shall ... take a decennial census of population..." So that means it’s not just taking a head count – it’s also getting a lot of other "population and housing" information as well. Just like the questions of Census 2010, as a matter of fact.

Therefore Section 141 (a) [Clause 1] is out on two counts – 1) it uses sampling; and 2) it’s more than the simple enumeration mandated by the Constitution.

So Section 141 (a) [Clause 2] has to be it, because it’s the only thing left in subsection (a), and subsection (b) requires that the Constitutional Enumeration comes from subsection (a).

But this lack of apparent respect for the Constitution isn’t as pathetic as it appears to be - it’s just written to sound pathetic in the law so no one notices it. In actuality it’s got a lot of resources behind it. For example, Section 193 states:

§ 193. In advance of, in conjunction with, or after the taking of each census …the Secretary may make surveys and collect such preliminary and supplementary statistics related to the main topic of the census as are necessary to the initiation, taking, or completion thereof.

So when you remember that [Clause 2] states that "In connection with any census [of subsection (a) of this section], the Secretary is authorized to obtain...," it all starts to come clear. The actual Constitutional Enumeration is done "in connection with" the Census 2010 described by Section 141 (a) [Clause 1]. As a result of the way Clauses 1 & 2 are situated in the same paragraph without any notice of distinction, the two types of censuses are thereby blended together and hidden in plain sight, even though they are completely different legal entities.

Yet when you invoke Section 193’s authority to: "collect such preliminary and supplementary statistics related to the main topic of the census, and compare it with the Section 141 (a) [Clause 2] phrase: "such other census information," the literal match is perfect – and literal matches count in codes.

Which brings up the question, of course: what "connected, but preliminary statistics" were collected before the April 1 Census 2010 date?

After all, it would fit the "location" part of the legal requirement of the actual Constitutional Enumeration - which as we will see in a moment, must also be done without asking any questions. For one of the most striking things about all of those Census workers taking GPS readings is that they wouldn’t talk to anyone – and a lot of people were very creeped out by that. But what if they were fulfilling the legal requirements of the Constitutional Enumeration by not asking anyone any questions?

Now, do I actually mean that the Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 Constitutional mandate, upon which the seating of the entire House of Representatives depends might already have been finished before Census 2010 takes place?

After all, nothing in Article 1, Section 2, says "April 1.^st" It only says that the Enumeration be done every ten years, which in a practical sense means it must be delivered to the President by the end of the year in order to fulfill the "decennial" requirement. So, with the GPS data obtained house-to-house in the 2009 survey, all of the other information available to the Census Bureau can be used to cross-reference and confirm that GPS data during the required year of 2010. And it’s a LOT of specific, easily available information, and none of it requires a single question to anyone. For example, just look what Section 6 allows:

§ 6. (c) To the maximum extent possible ... instead of conducting direct inquiries .... the Secretary shall acquire and use information available from ... any other department, agency, or establishment of the Federal Government, for any information for this title... or acquire, by purchase or otherwise, from States, counties, cities, or other units of government, or their instrumentalities, or from private persons and agencies, such copies of records, reports, and other material as may be required for the efficient and economical conduct of the censuses and surveys provided for in this title. [Paraphrased]

"To the maximum extent possible ... instead of conducting direct inquiries."

Does that sound like authorization for a Census Worker to bang on your door? I think not. "Maximum" means maximum – as in, is there anything that indicates your address during 2010 for the government, or for work, or for anything else? I think maybe so. In fact, the truth is that your participation is simply not needed, or even legal, to collect any of the information required for the Constitutional Enumeration – or most any other type of census either, for that matter.

So the second significant discovery about Census 2010 is that it’s questions are not for the actual Constitutional Enumeration, it’s April 1st date is not the date of the actual Constitutional Enumeration, and in fact, the actual Constitutional Enumeration field survey had already been finished before Census 2010 even started!

Part 3: The Census Bureau’s Power To Require Answers Does Not Apply To the Constitutional Enumeration or Census 2010

Section 141 (the census) is in Chapter 5 of Title 13. That fact is extremely important, because a part of all positive law codes is a place where authority is given to do various things. In Title 13, the authority to ask questions and require answers is given in Chapter 9. And although this power is extended to certain Sections of other Chapters, it is not extended at all, to any part, of Chapter 5, including (of course), Section 141!

Did you get that? This is the big one - Section 141, which has the only authority to conduct the Constitutional Enumeration or Census 2010, IS SPECIFICALLY DENIED ANY AUTHORITY TO REQUIRE ANY ANSWERS FROM ANYONE.

Chapter 9, § 301(a) and § 303. The Secretary is authorized to collect information from all persons ...engaged in ... foreign commerce or trade and from the owners or operators of carriers...

...engaged in ... foreign commerce or trade and from the owners or operators of carriers...

Does that sound like the work you do out of your home, for which you must be questioned?

Now, compare the wording of the first part of these authorization Sections of Chapter 9, with the wording of the Chapter 5 authorization to carry out the Constitutional Enumeration:

§ 141. (a) [Clause 2]: In connection with any census [of subsection (a) of this section], the Secretary is authorized to obtain such other census information as necessary.

Remember, positive law says what it means – no more, and no less. So the "authority to collect information from all persons" comes from a law that gives just that: the "authority to collect information from all persons" – NOT from a law that gives authority: "to obtain such other census information."

In fact, the rules of construction are such that the very fact that there is a difference between the wording of these two authorizations means that the authority to "obtain" is specifically and deliberately NOT the "authority to "collect."

The difference being, of course, that to "collect information from all persons" means the authority to require answers from people, whereas - especially when it is specifically contrasted with it - the authority "to obtain such other census information" means getting the information WITHOUT being authorized to ask questions of people and require answers from them directly.

This comparative deduction is then explicitly confirmed in another nearby Section of Chapter 9:
Title 13, Chapter 9, § 307. Relationship to general census law
The following sections only, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 21, 22, 23, 24, 211, 212, 213, and 214,
of chapters 1 through 7 of this title are applicable to this chapter.

Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11 are in:
Chapter 1 — Administration:
Subchapter I — General Provisions

Sections 21, 22, 23, 24 are in:
Chapter 1 — Administration:
Subchapter II—Officers and Employees

Sections 211, 212, 213, and 214 are in:
Chapter 7 — Offenses and Penalties:
Subchapter I — Officers and Employees

Note that instead of "chapters 1 through 7" it is actually only "chapters 1 AND 7." So why was the word "through" used instead of the word "and"? Because Chapter 5 covers the Census, and whoever wrote this Section wanted it to seem that the personal questioning authorization of Chapter 9 extended across virtually all of Title 13, but especially through to Chapter 5, to anyone too lazy to look up the Chapter of each listed Section.

In other words, the limits of this authorization is a big enough deal to try any little trick to hide it’s true meaning.

In any event, especially when combined with the § 141 census wording comparisons, Section 307 absolutely restricts the authority of the Census Bureau to require answers to those listed Sections only, plus Chapter 9.

And neither the actual [Clause 2] Constitutional Enumeration authority, nor the [Clause 1] Census 2010 authority, of Section 141 (a) of Chapter 5 – nor any Section of Chapter 5, for that matter – is in that list.

So the third significant discovery about Census 2010 is that the Census Bureau is specifically banned by law from using either it, or the Constitutional Enumeration, to require answers from anyone.

Part 4: Penalties Cannot Be Applied To The Constitutional Enumeration, Census 2010, Or The American Community Survey

Now we get to what everyone is worried about - penalties. The census and survey penalties section of Title 13 are found in Chapter 7, in Sections 221, 222, 223, & 224. In addition to those purely punitive Sections there is a last Section 225 that assigns penalty Sections in "certain cases."

Within Section 225, subsection (a) is the only one that matters. It’s a nasty piece of work to unravel, but underneath all of it’s jargon it finally admits that the penalty sections do not apply to "surveys," but only to survey questions that are used in complete censuses. Of course, it’s written to sound like it applies to the surveys themselves - but it doesn’t.

Right off that bat, this is great news, because that horrible, massively intrusive, privacy-raping long-form American Community Survey is - a survey. It is not a "complete census," which is defined geographically by Section 191 (a) as:

(a) Each of the censuses authorized by this chapter shall include each State, the District of Columbia, the Virgin Islands, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and as may be determined by the Secretary, such other possessions and areas over which the United States exercises jurisdiction, control, or sovereignty.

So per Section 225 (a), since the American Community Survey is a survey and not a complete census, the four Chapter 7 Penalty Sections are specifically not applicable to the ACS itself (no doubt because if they did apply, the ACS would then wildly violate the 4th and 5th Amendments).

But there’s more good news about the inapplicability of the Penalty Sections - they all have a secret implementation Section, hiding in it’s own little Subchapter.

Subchapter I — Officers and Employees
Subchapter II — Other Persons
Subchapter III — Procedure

Subchapter I Sections are specifically empowered by the list in Chapter 9, Section 307. Now, this seems to mean the Census Bureau employees are empowered to ask questions and require answers. But this would make a contradiction with the denial of any such authority extended to the Census in Chapter 5. However, this problem is resolved in Section 23:

Chapter 1, Subchapter II, § 23. (c) The Secretary may utilize temporary staff... only if such temporary staff is sworn to observe the limitations imposed by section 9 of this title.

Amazingly, this limitation specifically reverses the allowance of Chapter 9 power found in the Chapter 7 Penalty Section listings (§§ 211, 212, 213, and 214) of § 307 – and thereby takes away the authorization they were given from Chapter 9!

That leaves Subchapters II and III. Subchapter II contains the above list of Census and Survey Penalties found in Chapter 7.

Subchapter III contains only one Section - the Secret Undoing of the Punishments – otherwise known as Section 241:

When any request for information ... is made by registered or certified mail or telegram, the return receipt therefor or other written receipt thereof shall be prima facie evidence of an official request in any prosecution under such section.

In other words, if the Census Bureau has no return receipt for a written "request" they send out, then no "official request" ever took place.

Yep, the law actually says all questions have to be written and sent via certified mail!

Here are the supposed Penalty Sections for not answering questions - check out how each group of terrible, invasive requirements is completely dependent upon the phrase "when requested":

§ 221.(a) Whoever ... refuses or willfully neglects, when requested by the Secretary... to answer, to the best of his knowledge, any of the questions on any schedule submitted to him in connection with any census or survey provided for by subchapters I, II, IV, and V of chapter 5 of this title, applying to himself or to the family to which he belongs or is related, or to the farm or farms of which he or his family is the occupant, shall be fined not more than $100.

§ 223. - Whoever, being the owner, proprietor, manager, superintendent, or agent of any hotel, apartment house, boarding or lodging house, tenement, or other building, refuses or willfully neglects, when requested by the Secretary ... to furnish the names of the occupants of such premises, or to give free ingress thereto and egress therefrom ... so as to permit the collection of statistics with respect to any census provided for in subchapters I and II of chapter 5 of this title, or any survey authorized by subchapter IV or V of such chapter insofar as such survey relates to any of the subjects for which censuses are provided by such subchapters I and II, including, when relevant to the census or survey being taken or made, the proper and correct enumeration of all persons having their usual place of abode in such premises, shall be fined not more than $500.

§ 224. - Whoever, being the owner, official, agent, person in charge, or assistant to the person in charge, of any company, business, institution, establishment, religious body, or organization of any nature whatsoever, neglects or refuses, when requested by the Secretary ... to answer completely and correctly to the best of his knowledge all questions relating to his company, business, institution, establishment, religious body, or other organization, or to records or statistics in his official custody, contained on any census or other schedule or questionnaire prepared and submitted to him under the authority of this title, shall be fined not more than $500...

They sound scary because that’s all they’ve got – sounding scary. Think about it - have you ever heard of receiving a census via certified mail? No one has. And even if it happened, why should you sign for something that makes you liable for penalties and prosecution simply because you signed it – and before you read it? In such a case, no one would sign anything from the Census Bureau - and come to think of it, no one ever should. But that’s exactly what Section 241 says has to happen before you can actually be "asked" a written census question. Only then can you violate the penalty Sections for not answering!

In other words, receiving a Census form in the mail, or talking with a Census Worker, does not fit the definition of being "asked" a Census question, for the purposes of the Penalty Sections.

So if you were never officially asked, how can you violate a Penalty Section by refusing to answer something that legally never happened?

But that’s not the only problem with these "requests" – remember the Chapter 9 limitations on requiring answers? The actual words of the Penalties Sections of Chapter 7 acknowledge these limitations. For in each of the laws that seem to address people being presented with Census questions (i.e. Sections 221, 223 & 224), the phrases "when requested by the Secretary," "authorized," or "acting under the instructions of the Secretary" (which all mean the same thing) are used as qualifiers, so that any violations must be only against written "requests" for Census information with return-receipts.

But – the Census Bureau’s authority to require answers from people is still given only in Section 301 (a) of Chapter 9, where it is also specified as not extending to any Chapter 5 Census or any Chapter 7, Subsection II Punishments.

So the fourth significant discovery is that because no valid "request" for census information is authorized to be made in the first place, no written "request" for census information will ever be sent via certified mail, and therefore no valid "request violation" can ever possibly take place, concerning the Constitutional Enumeration, Census 2010, or the American Community Survey.

Though we’ve covered the two main ones, in fact there are at least three separate legal barriers prohibiting the government from enforcing the Chapter 7, Subchapter II Penalty Sections:

1) Subchapter III of Chapter 7 requires any questions which anyone is required to answer to be sent to them via certified mail - but no one ever has, or ever will, receive their Census 2010 questions through certified mail.

2) This is because the power of the Census Bureau to require answers from anybody is limited to the Foreign Trade subject matter of Chapter 9, where it is specifically blocked from extending to the Census subject matter of Chapter 5, or the Penalty subject matter of Chapter 7.

3) And finally: there are no - and there can never be any - implementing regulations for Chapters 5 or 7, because the power to create regulations is limited to Chapter 9 by Section 302.

Implementing regulations are not just a part of Title 13 – they apply to every part of the U.S. Code in order to allow it to reach people who are not governmental employees or contractors. And they are not an afterthought – there are FAR more regulations than U.S. Code statutes (a thought which is horrifying all by itself). Simply put, then, if a U.S. Code Section – a statute – doesn’t have regulations, then it is not "implemented" (can’t be applied) against NON-governmental employees or contractors (i.e. most Americans).

So obviously, these regulations are also required to empower the Census Bureau to reach people with these Title 13 census or punishment laws who are not governmental employees or contractors.

The Secretary may make such rules, regulations, and orders as he deems necessary or appropriate to carry out the provisions of this chapter. Any rules, regulations, or orders issued pursuant to this authority may be established ... to prevent circumvention or evasion of any rule, regulation, or order issued hereunder...

THAT is a REAL enforcement provision, as opposed to the single pathetic "return receipt" threat of Section 241, which merely establishes "evidence" for a "prosecution." In fact, as we’ve seen, the "threat" of § 241 works more for the citizen than the government.

In any event, the need for implementing regulations is extremely real. Coming on top of everything else described here that invalidates the Census and Penalty Sections, this declaration of a permanent lack of regulations settles these lack-of-authority issues once and for all.

The other Penalty Sections in Subchapter II of Chapter 7 (§§ 221 (b), 222 & 224) are not made dependent upon the Section 241 requirement for a written request. However, this is because they only address lying, which the law recognizes as you doing on your own. On the other hand, they still have no implementing regulations, so they can’t be applied to non-governmental employees or contractors. Nevertheless, it’s probably far safer to simply remain silent or demand authorization, than lie. After all, it’s a big Code – there are plenty of other Titles that might easily address lying, with regulations.

Also, and mostly as an aside for those who are concerned about this, the Title 18 Criminal Sections 3571 & 3559, which in effect raise the penalty for violating Title 13 Penalty Section 221, are neutralized when Section 221 is neutralized.

Therefore regarding the Constitutional Enumeration, Census 2010 and the American Community Survey – the very existence of this entire Penalty Subchapter II of Chapter 7 is an outright, brazen fraud - it exists solely for purposes of intimidation towards people against whom it can never be used. This is why the Census Bureau has never prosecuted anyone over a census or survey - because it’s own Chapter 7 punishment code is a deceitful, impotent lie that exists solely for purposes of intimidation and coercion, and has not a single shred of truth in it.

So the fifth significant discovery about Census 2010 is that, for three separate reasons culminating in a complete, permanent lack of implementing regulations, penalties cannot be applied to the Constitutional Enumeration, Census 2010, or the American Community Survey.

Part 6: The Census Bureau May Still Presume To Have the Authority to Ask Questions – And May Not

As has been discussed, the part of Chapter 9 that is denied to the Chapter 5 Census Sections, and Chapter 7 Subchapter II Penalty Sections, reads:

§ 301(a) and § 303. "The Secretary is authorized to collect information from all persons ...engaged in ... foreign commerce or trade and from the owners or operators of carriers..."

So the question is: beside obviously not being authorized to require answers, does being denied the authority to "collect information" mean that no authority is given to ask questions, either?

Maybe. In most cases, probably. But – Nancy Pelosi recently educated the country about the government’s power to "deem" something into existence, when she threatened to trash the inconvenience of voting in order to ram through her healthcare bill. Fortunately for the country, she was denied the destruction of due process she so obviously craved. But the same is not true in the world of the federal Courts.

"Deeming" is the same as "presuming" something. And presumption is a very great favorite of federal judges in any matter pertaining to the behavior of the government. Basically, the Court will allow federal agencies to presume that any law, or the application of any law, will include whomever they apply it to, unless proof is given otherwise.

Without going into a lot of examples, suffice it to say that it is very probable that federal courts would allow (if challenged) the Census Bureau to defend it’s asking people questions – despite the limitations of Chapter 9 – by claiming they presumed that anyone they asked any questions to actually fit the requirements of Title 13 Census law.

Which, in the case of Chapter 9, means that anyone who was asked a census question would have to be presumed to be engaged in "foreign commerce or trade" or "owners or operators of carriers."

Unfortunately, this is perfectly legal, and this type of government defense for their actions is quite common. And most of the time, they don’t even have to tell you what their presumption was, unless a Court forces them to do so. And sometimes they won’t even do it then.

If pushed, it might be hard for the Census Bureau to explain why they thought 100 million people were all engaged in foreign trade. But the way the system is set up now, all they’d have to do if confronted with such an impossibility is shrug and say, "Whoops! Whatever – we have the right to presume."

So up until they are confronted about their presumption, the Census Bureau can probably "legally" get away with asking questions. But once there is evidence that they have been challenged that their presumption is wrong – in other words, once their presumption is rebutted – the jig is up.

Not that you’d be wrong, and not that they’d be right. But hey, it’s the government we’re talking about here.

Look at it this way: Under positive law, if you rebut their presumption, they might fight back, or they might not – but if you don’t rebut their presumption, they win by default. And if that sounds like the game is rigged in their favor, you’re catching on.

So the sixth significant discovery about Census 2010 is that even though they can’t lawfully ask you any questions about the census, the Census Bureau might ask you anyway and legally get away with it, until you rebut their presumption and demand they show their authority.

1. No Sampling Is Allowed In Taking The Constitutional Enumeration. Section 141(a) is designated as the process by which the Constitutional Enumeration is to be made, yet it apparently cannot be used to do it, because it includes "sampling processes" that are banned from the job.

2. Census 2010 Questions Are Not The Constitutional Enumeration. Also, it’s April 1st date is not the date of the actual Constitutional Enumeration, and in fact, the actual Constitutional Enumeration field survey had already been finished before Census 2010 even started!

3. The Census Bureau’s Power To Require Answers Does Not Apply To the Constitutional Enumeration or Census 2010. The Census Bureau is specifically banned by law from using either Census 2010, or the Constitutional Enumeration, to require answers from anyone.

4. Penalties Cannot Be Applied To The Constitutional Enumeration, Census 2010, Or The American Community Survey. Because no valid "request" for census information is authorized to be made in the first place, no written "request" for census information will ever be sent via certified mail, and therefore no valid "request violation" can ever possibly take place, concerning the Constitutional Enumeration, Census 2010, or the American Community Survey.

5. Implementing Regulations Are Limited To Chapter 9. For three separate reasons culminating in a complete, permanent lack of implementing regulations, penalties cannot be applied to the Constitutional Enumeration, Census 2010, or the American Community Survey.

6. The Census Bureau May Still Presume To Have the Authority to Ask Questions – And May Not. Even though they can’t lawfully ask you any questions about the census, the Census Bureau might ask you anyway and legally get away with it, until you rebut their presumption and demand they show their authority. And then they might stop – if they feel like it.

But bad news is the Census Workers who knock at your door probably don’t know any of it.

What they’ve been taught goes something like this:
§ 25. Duties of supervisors, enumerators, and other employees
(b) Each enumerator or other employee detailed to serve as enumerator shall be charged with the collection in his subdivision of the facts and statistics called for on such schedules as the Secretary determines shall be used by him in connection with any census or survey provided for by chapter 5 of this title.

§ 212. Refusal or neglect of employees to perform duties
Whoever, being an employee referred to in subchapter II of chapter 1 of this title, and having taken and subscribed the oath of office, neglects or refuses, without justifiable cause, to perform the duties enjoined on such employee by this title, shall be fined not more than $500.

And contrary to the specific requirement of § 23 (c) towards the above § 212 that they be "sworn to observe the limitations imposed by section 9 of this title," I really don’t think that’s happened - do you?

In other words, they are told their job is to go get census information directly from people, and that if they don’t do what they’re told, they can be fined up to $500!

2) Don’t know that they are risking a personal lawsuit for fraud and intimidation;

3) Are working under a specific threat of being fined if they don’t harass you hard enough;

First a disclaimer (c’mon, did you really think there wouldn’t be a disclaimer?).

I’m not a lawyer, which is why I can share all of this information with you for free. But remember, you get what you pay for - what you do with this information is up to you. Of course, I could be completely wrong about all of it or any of it, but I don’t think I am – which is why I wrote out all of my reasoning, so you can check up on my work (nothing up my sleeve). But I’m not responsible for you, and I don’t want you to think I presume any responsibility for your behavior. Nevertheless, I genuinely think this information is correct and should be spread far and wide, to friends, family, associates, and the media (Rush, Malkin, Beck, Stein, Coulter, etc.).

So you have to decide what to do for yourself. But – if I were to respond to an inquiry from a census worker, as far as I can tell just silently handing them a card which said something like the following should be enough to establish a legal rebuttal of the unspoken presumption they’re exhibiting by showing up in the first place:

I hereby rebut your Title 13, Section 141 presumption of authority for personal information collection for Census 2010, due to the following apparent Title 13 violations:

• §195 restrictions on Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 & Amendment 14, Section 2 process;

• §302 lack of authorization for Chapter 5 or Chapter 7 implementing regulations;

• And, your apparent personal violation of Chapter 1, Subchapter II, §23(c) restrictions on presumptions of Chapter 9 authority.

• THEREFORE: I hereby retain of all of my rights and privileges under the 4^th and 5^th Amendments, and respectfully decline to respond to any questions.

Finally, just for kicks, lets look for a moment into Black’s law dictionary (which you’d normally go to for legal clarity): "federal census - The Constitution (Article 1, Section 2) requires only a simple count of persons for purposes of apportioning congressional representation among the states. Under Congress’s direction, however, the census has evolved to include a wide variety of information that is useful to businesses, historians, and others not affiliated with the federal government."

So the census has evolved? Now that you know the applicable census laws, do you feel the census has evolved? Or has the law been hidden from the people? Is that why "Census Day" is April Fools Day? But if hiding it is evolving it, then the real question is, evolved for whom – the people, or the government?

And just think – if all this deception is packed into the tiny Census Code that can fit on a few printed pages, what level of deception has been packed into the 2700 page healthcare bill?

So spread the word. Like I said, I could be wrong – but if I’m not, and if everyone had this information available, there might not be a knock at anyone’s door ever again.

Source? My info is that:

a) Census admitted it provided block data ("This is an area where some Japanese-ancestry people live")

b) In 1942, Congress passed a war powers act that included a section repealing confidentiality for war purposes

c) Census did provide, in mid-1943 , some specific info on Japanese-ancestry people living in the DC area.

What do you have that is different or beyond that? ("4 days after Pearl Harbor . . . .")

Tomorrow (April 5) is the anniversary of Washington’s Veto of the Act concerning the enumeration of the population and the apportionment of Congressional seats.

It was a big deal back then and later Congress decided to simply ignore the principles behind that action.

http://www.thirty-thousand.org/pages/first_veto.htm

for some reason they're really talking up the census this year

One figure commonly thrown about is that for every person counted in the census, the local government receives $1000. The Democrats have long maintained that poor and urban areas are historically undercounted, especially among immigrants, and even more so among illegal immigrants. This is the main reason that the Community-Organizer-in-Chief is pushing the census.

Reapportionment is another reason. Urban cores are losing population and therefore Congressional representation. They are trying to limit their losses. They are even going so far as to claim that inmates of prisons should not be counted as residents of the county where the prison is located (more and more of these are in rural areas), but rather as a part of the community from whence they came, mostly urban ghettos. The grounds for this is that are merely temporarily visiting the prisons where incarcerated and are really homies at heart. Some are there for 900 years, but I guess that's still temporary in their eyes.

Far from an exhaustive study but I suspect the answer will ultimately boil down to this:

Since the ENUMERATION is called out specifically in Article I for the purpose of APPORTIONING THE HOUSE and that there are Supreme Court rulings plus law passed by Congress than make race a part of the APPORTIONMENT PROCESS. Therefore it would be deemed as clearly Constitutional the gathering the requisite data for carrying out the task specifically called for in the Original Document.

I place no value judgment on the above other than to say it seems a logical conclusion. All of the questions on the standard form fit with that purpose EXCEPT QUESTION 11.

But there are only 10 you say. Well, question 11 should be "Is this person a citizen of the United States, eligible to vote in a Federal election?" That is an omission that should go before SCOTUS at some point. I'll save that tirade for later.

Not a lot of details on my part. What we do know is enough: census race data was used to wrongly incarcerate not just one, but over one hundred thousand citizens. That’s reason enough for any President to refuse to run a census on any information beyond raw headcount, and for any citizen to refuse to provide any identifying/discriminating information beyond raw headcount.

Thanks for the post.
You may find this interesting. My house received the long form, or community survey, which i decided not to answer because of the 16 pages of intrusive questions. Then followed post cards , then phone calls asking why we hadn’t returned it. Then another long form copy then 2 weeks of bombardment by phone- meaning 5-6 calls daily from different call centers around the US. Leaving messages etc. Finally we got a message that they were sending a rep by. When they came by for the 4th time I spoke to them on the phone and said that I would only answer the equivalent of the short, or enumerative survey. Thats ok, she said, you don’t have to answer anything you don’t feel comfortable with.

Thought we were done until this week when new survey people started coming around. They have been by 3 times arguing with my wife saying that the first survey wasn’t real,it was a scam, that they are the only one going on in my county, and that the county( Dukes, Ma.) has been specially chosen for only a face to face count.

When I called to try to straighten it out the supervisor repeated that they knew nothing about the other survey, that there was no such thing, and that it was a scam. When i directed her to the census’ own website she told me that she was not going to waste any more time talking to me but she was going to mark me down as a refusal, and then they would come over to my house “with a cop” and make me answer the questions.Is that what I wanted? I then asked what did she mean? How was that going to work? She reiterated her threat and I told them that if that was the case that I would be home at five. She did not appear, and when i called to find out why, she stated that she had turned it over to her superior, and that not to worry, but they would be coming over “with the cops” and that “ [I] will give them the answers”

So now what?

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.