Concordia res Parvae Crescunt
by Gary D. Barnett
The time is near for the national headcounters “SWAT†teams to once again begin their decennial assault on privacy. Some of those neighbors you thought to be decent people will now be hounding you incessantly to extract personal and private information that is none of theirs or the state’s business. Don’t be fooled by their claim that they are just doing their constitutional duty, as nothing could be further from the truth.
I have gone over this several times before, but the reasons for and the constitutionality of the census count is worth review. I will preface my remarks by saying that I don’t think much of the constitution in the first place, because I consider it too weak and too broad in nature, but since that document outlines the rules and reasons for the census, it is necessary to refer to it here. Article 1, section 2 states:
(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 previous sentence in parentheses was modified by the 14th Amendment, section 2.) 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 Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five and Georgia three.
There are several items of interest in the above passage that in my opinion render the constitutionality of modern census taking moot, as I discussed earlier here. There are many legal scholars who would argue this, but even if I concede this point, the fact remains that any census is to be a simple count of heads; nothing more. This is not arguable given what is stated above in Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution.
So now that we understand that the only proper “constitutional duty†is to simply count the people in a given area (not their address, gender, work status, ethnic background, number of toilets, etc.), then why are all these very personal and private questions asked in the first place? Why does the U.S. Census Bureau not only ask unconstitutional and personal questions, but demand that they be answered? Why in fact do these same cretins threaten anyone who doesn’t comply with their Gestapo-style tactics?
To answer these questions honestly, one will have to come to the unpleasant conclusion that we no longer live in a free country, but in a tyrannical and totalitarian state that demands to know anything and everything about us; where we live, where we work, how much money we earn, how much property we have, what our habits are, our marital history, our education history, and even your fertility status, along with many other idiotic and invasive questions. Depending on whether you receive the American Community Survey or the new short form, both of which are intolerable and unconstitutional, you are expected to fill them out completely. This year, the government is touting its new short form with only ten questions, but they have pulled a rope-a-dope. I think this is because of the growing census dissent. Previously, the long form, which is now called the American Community Survey, was sent once every ten years to every one in six households. Now the long form is sent to fewer people, but is sent on a rotating basis, and every year instead of every ten years. This gives the impression, and this is the underlying objective of the census bureau, that the decennial count is the new kinder, less intrusive census process. In reality, it is merely a smoke and mirrors approach meant to fool the public. My belief is that the pressure to complete these nefarious surveys will intensify and the threats will increase. This will happen in my opinion for several reasons, not the least of which is the continued and warranted lack of compliance by some in this country. I can only hope that the dissent will grow and become more than the U.S. Census Bureau can overcome, and that this invasive absurdity then would cease. I will not however, hold my breath for this result given the now sheep-like behavior of the populace at large.
The bottom line is this: I haven’t seen a ramp-up of this magnitude by the U.S. Census Bureau before. Even locally, and every day, radio ads about the importance of the census, employment advertising for census takers (50 are being hired in my small town), and other government ad blitzes are rampant. It seems that this census invasion is already in full gear, even though the actual count will not begin until probably March or April.
As the census count becomes more evident, I’m sure I will be compelled to continue to monitor and expose the abuses. Hopefully, those who understand that there is no validity to the modern census count and that it is fully unconstitutional, will aggressively resist the government’s unwanted advances. I do not allow any census taker on my property nor will I in the future. It is easier for me than most because I live in the country and access is one way. This is imposing to those trespassing on my property. But if others who don’t have the options I have are willing to either fully resist, or just give the number of people at the residence and nothing more, that attitude will impede the “progress†of those busybody intruders. In addition, if enough of us cause them problems, it might be more reported across the country; this causing even more dissent. Call it the beginning of the grassroot anti-census movement if you will.
I must warn you that every level of government is very intent on counting as many as it can, and gaining as much information about you as is possible. Local and state governments are dependent on high count rates because federal tax revenue fed back to the states, counties, cities and towns is dependent on the census. Allocations to different welfare programs, spending projects, schools, etc., are directly related to how many and what “category†of people can be counted in a given area. This is also why many local census takers are so aggressive, and why federal government threats may be forthcoming should noncompliance occur. It is simply a racket, you understand, not different than any other corrupt scheme. And since many local politicians and certain interested parties stand to benefit from a high count and particular and isolated information, they will apply unending pressure.
Even the public school system (government indoctrination centers) is now enlisting and training your kids to pressure you to fully participate in the 2010 census. Your children will make good little soldiers and spies you understand, as they are ordered into government service to promote the census. They will even have “family take-home pages to share with parents and guardians.†I guess “readin, writin, and rithmetic†will have to take a proverbial back seat this year.
All I can offer is that in order for us to defend our privacy, it is imperative that as many of us as possible resist this assault. The government will use every means at its disposal to force this privacy invasion, and only a groundswell of resistance will deter this unconstitutional and liberty-destroying census process. All information collected will be forever stored in government data-bases, so don’t become just another cog in their wheel of deception. Instead, consider liberty!
Gary D. Barnett [send him mail] is president of Barnett Financial Services, Inc., in Lewistown, Montana.
Copyright © 2010 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.
If you enjoyed this post:
Click Here to Get the Free Tenth Amendment Center Newsletter,
I am currently being absolutely hounded by the American Community Survey "thugs". They keep calling and calling. They have called as late as 10:00 at night, on Sunday afternoons, early morning, you name it. How long does the harassment continue? So far, they have not visited me, but I'm frightened that they will. I live alone and I don't want these census bullies showing up. This is absolutely awful to be forced to give over one's private information, (such as your health condition; when you leave for work and when you get home; how much you earn; the name of your employer; your mental condition, your ancestry, how many times you have been married, when were you last married, are you pregnant, etc.) whether you want to or not. Is this truly America? It feels like some sort of police state. The most terrible thing of all -- very few people seem to know about this. It must be made public. People need to know what is happening in America today!
Sorry, wingnut - you are wrong. The Constitution does not say, nor does it imply, that the census is to be simply a headcount. I don't like the intrusiveness of the questions, and obviously you don't as well, but they do not appear to be unconstitutional. You're going to have to look elsewhere for relief.
"On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed," Thomas Jefferson. The Census was created so the correct number of seats in the House could be apportioned. There is NO need to know race, marital status or if you have plumbing in your house. As Patric Henry once wrote: "The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government." The 2010 Census would have gotten the Founding Fathers out in the streets at arms! Americans no longer deserve the wonderful country they created. "Posterity, you will never know how much it cost the present generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it. If you do not, I shall repent in heaven that ever I took half the pains to preserve it," John Adams.
So do you give names? I don't think it's required under the Constitution and neither is age information. Four U.S. and State Citizens live here....and that's it right?
Call The Rutherford Institute if the census bureau tries to prosecute you for refusing to surrender information via the American Community Survey. There are contstitutional lawyers all over the country just waiting for the census bureau to penalize someone for this. The Rutherford Institute will provide anyone so harassed with free legal service/lawyers/court costs, etc., plus it will get into the media BIG TIME. Just what the census bureau doesn't want to see happen. I've gotten one of these surveys and am ignoring it, which seems to be the best policy.
When the economic collapse happens?revolts and riots.......if it does happen they will have the personal information to round all of us up in a concentration camp. Remember WWII with the Japanese American citizens. We are next!. Lets get these congressional house thrown out at least most except for a few good honest humble men like the Ron Pauls.!
they took the japanese and now that global banking cabal and socialist bastards have took over washington they are coming for gun owners,vets and anyone who is against the government.GOOD JOB OBAMA SEEEK HIAL OBAMA COME AND GET THEM THIS IS THE SAME PEOPLE THAT STARTED POLICED STATES IN GERMANY BEFORE THEY THREW THE JEWISH PEOPLE IN THE GAS CAMPS NAZI GERMANY LOOK UP FEMA CAMPS,READ THE DAM BILLS THE NAZI GOVERNMENT ARE TRYING TO PASS CYBER SECURITY ACT,ANTI GUN BILLS ,CAP N TRADE, IF WE DONT STOP GLOBAL GOVERNMENT THEN THEY WILL TURN THERE 400,000 UN TROOPS ON AMERICANS LOOK IT UP YOUR SELF FOOOOOOOLS
s/b "First District is 10000 - 19999, Second District is 20000 - 29999, etc."
You know admittedly if they just limited the Census to counting heads rather then income, ethics, backgrounds, lifestyles ect... it would become virtually imposable to gerrymander districts as scientifically as they do.
To be frank all of this specific information is only grounds for official segregation and discrimination, there is really no other possible value to them having this information other than to uses it to segregate, and place unconstitutional games.
So to be frank I must admit I find the fact that they collect it in the first place to be a matter of great conflicting interest. Government is suppose to be blind to theses facts and treat all people equally, why then does it take so much trouble to collect and keep record of them? So they can disregard it later, or so they can use it to skirt the rules which say they have to be blind later?
As far as I’m concerned their entitled to 2 pieces of information:
1: That I am a living U.S. and State Citizens.
2: Where I live. (Cause they have to apportion representation districts geographically for elections.)
Knowing anything else about me simply gets in the way of doing their job and opens the door for illegal government discrimination activities.
Monorprise: Yes! But how can they [U.S.] gerrymander state districts in the first place? The "everybody knows law"?
They do it legaly, by setting up federal districts, usually based on Zip code; the first district is 10000 - 10000, the second district is, etc. Anyone declaring themselves to be "within the jurisdiction" is considered to have primary U.S. citizenship, as a "person" under U.S. law. Their privileges and immunities are spelled out, literally, in the 14th amendment here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt14toc_...
The states, and the state citizens are unaffected.
PPHFFFFT! They can ask anything they want, in the end they will get what USC title 13 says they are lawfully entitled too, age, demigraphic and number of people in the household. I have been through this before and that is all you are required to give them by law and that is all they are going to get from me. The last time I got a phone call annd simply quoted the USC to them and politely but FIRMLY told them not to call again. Thank you have a nice day....... IN my neck of the woods we still have old moonshiners and such, these folks could go up a holler and never come out, out here usaully no means NO and it will be followed up by a round of buckshot, thats jjust how people are in the styx. Personally, I am sticki ng with USC13 give em what the yare entitled to and nothing more . BUY MORE AMMO
" So now that we understand that the only proper “constitutional duty” is to simply count the people in a given area (not their address, gender, work status, ethnic background, number of toilets, etc.), then why are all these very personal and private questions asked in the first place?"
RATIONAL OBEDIENCE, i.e. nobody wants to go to BREAK the law and suffer the consequences-- or spend the time and money to CHALLENGE it-- for the benefit of everyone else: it's just not worth it to be a martyr.
The "Gestapo" came to my door this morning. And, left an envelope with a form telling me that they would be obligated to repeat the behavior until I responded. I have neglected to fill out the American Community Survey because it is an all or nothing proposition. Deliberately not answering it completely will be categorized as fraud and penalized more greatly than total non-compliance. They have created a situation where I cannot comply with my civic duty to report a head count. Guess it's time to shop for a good constitutional lawyer, eh?
FYI-during some research yesterday I came across the provision of the Constitution the Census Bureau claims gives them "the constitutional authority" to ask for all the info over and above the number of people residing in the home. It is Article !, Section 8, Clause 18...commonly known as the Necessary and Proper Clause. This provision grants Congress the power:
“To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”
The purpose and extent of this clause was put in simple language by George Nichols in the Virginia Ratifying Convention of 1788:
“The committee will perceive that the Constitution had enumerated all the powers which the general government should have, but did not say how they were to be exercised. It therefore, in this clause, tells how they shall be exercised. Does this give any new power? I say not. Suppose it had been inserted, at the end of every power, that they should have power to make laws to carry that power into execution; would that have increased their powers? If, therefore, it could not have increased their powers, if placed at the end of each power, it cannot increase them at the end all. This clause only enables them to carry into execution the powers given to them, but gives them no additional power.”
They are claiming the additional info is necessary and proper because it is being used to carry out other granted powers. That is like saying federal agents can rob your house as long as they claim it is necessary and proper because it is raising revenue and that is a granted power.
And we thought the perversion of the Commerce Clause was bad!
Howver the 1800 Virginia Assembly was also clear that their state could nullify federal law if it became abusive, i.e. if the people believed it was being abused. Otherwise, it wouldn't matter WHAT the Constitution said, the fed could still expand it using any logic it pleased.
For example, the phrase "the powers not delegated to the United States," would be meaningless, snce the FED would decide which powers were delegated-- and its word would be final, making it the judge of its own powers.
Madison was clear in 1800, that state nullification and sovereignty were the ONLY safeguards of the Constitution against federal abuse.
Bob Greenslade: Yes! When dealing with all offices of government, it is your responsibility to RTFM.
What is the purpose of the census? To apportion representation, and taxes. Both to be dealt with thru the state.
Divergence alert! Today, we have what is known as a citizen of the United States, with primary allegiance to the US, and not the state, but who is RESIDENT in a state.
Those PERSONS would need to fill out the U.S. forms completely. State citizens only need to say "I live here, with my wife and three minor children. Have a nice day."
"It's the People Stupid".
We the People.
The Founders told us from the get go that the Constitution is wholely unsuited to give us Freedom and Liberty, if the owners of this nation (We the People) do not want that Freedom and Liberty.
Please folks, focus where the problem exists, with those who hold the absolute power within this nation, that is We the People. They have allowed themselves to be dumbed down and accepting of the crap being shoveled out of D.C., they no longer understand what Liberty is about.
The Constitution establishes all the tools that We the People need to ensure Freedom and Liberty for us and our children, if we just buck up and utilize them (hint, none of these tools need be firearms, if we simply take on our role as owners, not subjects).
The Tenth Amendment Center is one prong on the right path. Getting We the People to understand what their obligations are on the local and state level is where a Liberty restoration needs to begin.
There IS no "we the people of the United States," any more than the UAW is one single giant human; it's a LEGEND, just like Pal Bunyan represents all lumberjacks merged into a single gigantic one. That's why there is no Constitutional power to override the federal government by mass-vote.
"The People of the United States" was simply used because it wasn't known WHICH states would ratify. Howver each state ratified the Constitution a a sovereign nation, and it never SURRENDERED that status in any way-- it's just a brute-force suppression of the truth which perpetuates this fallacy, , via political "third-rails" which kill the career of anyone who speaks against the NATIONAL authority of the FEDERAL government-- a clear oxymorn, but power defeats logic.
Brian McCandliss: If there is no "We, the People" then there is certainly no United States.
Maybe you are right, but I don't think so.
I received the survey; it's incredibly invasive. Neither my roommate nor I felt like filling it out but were concerned about their retribution. I read up a little bit on it, and I found that the courts sided with the Census Bureau in a challenge to the ACS's Constitutionality. This was rather disconcerting, but not altogether surprising given the power-creep towards Washington.
We didn't return the paperwork the first 2 times they sent it. Eventually somebody knocked on our door and left a note with the portions of the U.S.C. relevant to our "obligation" to answer the survey. We called back and asked if they could said it again, but they refused. Eventually they took our answers over the phone, but surprisingly they didn't read us the entire survey, instead asking us only the number of residents in the household, and maybe one or two less invasive questions. I'm just happy we satisfied them without having to answer all their ridiculous questions.
Notice the path the Census worker was attempting to lead shriketexas down..."refusing to answer the census?" Trick question. No he was not refusing to answer the Census...he was willing to answer the Census. He did not want to answer the questions that exceed the constitutional purpose of the Census.
Why did the Census worker ask shriketexas that question? Because "refuse" is a trigger for the penalty provision.
Pursuant to Title 13, U.S.C., Section 221, refusing to provide the requested information or willfully neglecting to complete either survey subjects you to a fine of not more than $100.00. Willfully giving information that is false subjects you to a fine of not more than $500.00. However, the Census Bureau claims:
“Title 18 U.S.C. Section 3571 and Section 3559, in effect amends Title 13 U.S.C. Section 221 by changing the fine for anyone over 18 years old who refuses or willfully neglects to complete the questionnaire or answer questions posed by census takers from a fine of not more than $100 to not more than $5,000.”
This statement is deceptive because it fails to inform the public that the $5,000.00 fine referenced in section 3571 is not a simple fine; it is a post conviction fine that only applies to an individual who has been charged and convicted of a federal crime defined in section 3559. Unless an individual has been charged and convicted of some criminal offense connected to the Census and the crime falls within section 3559, this $5,000.00 fine does not apply.
Just like taxes, it is not unlawful to avoid a tax but it is illegal to evade a tax. Same principle here. Do not refuse to answer questions openly- find a way to avoid answering the questions that exceed the constitutional purpose of the Census.
Since the Census provision of the Constitution authorizes the federal government to take an enumeration (headcount) for the sole and express purpose of apportioning direct taxes among the several States and determining the number of representatives in the House of Representatives, the other questions are N/A to the constitutional purpose of the Census.
A possible course of action would be to answer the headcount question and write N/A to all the other questions. Thus, I would have completed the survey irrespective of whether they liked the answers. If I included the Census Clause explanation from above, none of the N/A answers would be false.
simple and sweeter
Bob Greenslade: The term "United States", as used in this title [18] in a territorial sense, includes all places and waters, continental or insular, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, except the Canal Zone."
Does this include North Korea? No.
Does this include Disneyland? No.
Does this include Alpha Centauri? No.
Does this include Minnesota? No.
Does this include the District of Columbia? Yes.
See what I'm getting at? You can eliminate a lot of cruft from your argument by reading the directions.
I must be missing something. I cited a quote form the Census Bureau concerning Title 18 and the Census. Their quote not mine. Section 221 of Title 13 enumerates the conduct that triggers the violation...not Title 18. So even if your assertion is correct concerning Title 18 and we send it to Alpha Centauri or Disneyland along with the $5,000.00 fine, one would still want to craft a response that avoids the $100.00 or $500.00 fine in section 221 of Title 13.
Just one of many small defenses you can use against federal snooping. “Title 18 ... in effect amends Title 13 U.S.C. Section 221 by changing the fine for anyone ..."
Anyone? EVERYWHERE? Of course not! Anyone "subject to the jurisdiction"? Certainly.
Who would be subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.? A citizen of American Samoa? Yes. A citizen of the District of Columbia? Yes. What are these people called? Citizens of the United States.
But would a citizen of one of the compact states be "subject to the jurisdiction"? Explain to me HOW!
Sorry if I'm not being clear. This is a difficult concept to communicate; that there are two different types of U.S. citizens, with two totally different relationships to the U.S. government.
You focus only on conduct "are you refusing to answer?" I look at jurisdiction "who wants to know?"
"all places and waters, continental or insular, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, except the Canal Zone" means the District of Columbia, federal territories, forts and dock-yards which have been ceded to the federal government. It does not mean everywhere, and it certainly does not describe the compact states of the Union.
The "citizen of the U.S." of Puerto Rico never had recourse to the first ten amendments. Neither did the "citizen of the U.S." of the District of Columbia. Why? Because these are "subject to the jurisdiction". State citizens, hearing the limited freedoms associated with this national citizenship, will often mistakenly assume that THEIR freedoms and access to the original provisions of the Constitution are limited as well.
The citizen of the state's response to the census takers should be with the same indignation as the Founding Fathers: "Show me your authority to ask that question of this citizen, or go back to that miserable patch of swampland we gave you".
And take your national health insurance with you!
Just one of many small defenses you can use against federal snooping. “Title 18 ... in effect amends Title 13 U.S.C. Section 221 by changing the fine for anyone ..."
Anyone? EVERYWHERE? Of course not! Anyone "subject to the jurisdiction"? Certainly.
Who would be subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.? A citizen of American Samoa? Yes. A citizen of the District of Columbia? Yes. What are these people called? Citizens of the United States.
But would a citizen of one of the compact states be "subject to the jurisdiction"? Explain to me HOW!
Sorry if I'm not being clear. This is a difficult concept to communicate; that there are two different types of U.S. citizens, with two totally different relationships to the U.S. government.
You focus only on conduct "are you refusing to answer?" I look at jurisdiction "who wants to know?"
"all places and waters, continental or insular, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, except the Canal Zone" means the District of Columbia, federal territories, forts and dock-yards which have been ceded to the federal government. It does not mean everywhere, and it certainly does not describe the compact states of the Union.
The "citizen of the U.S." of Puerto Rico never had recourse to the first ten amendments. Neither did the "citizen of the U.S." of the District of Columbia. Why? Because these are "subject to the jurisdiction". State citizens, hearing the limited freedoms associated with this national citizenship, will often mistakenly assume that THEIR freedoms and access to the original provisions of the Constitution are limited as well.
The citizen of the state's response to the census takers should be with the same indignation as the Founding Fathers: "Show me your authority to ask that question of this citizen, or go back to that miserable patch of swampland we gave you".
And take your national health insurance with you!
The states ARE subject to United States (i.e. federal) jurisdiction, under Article VI. So it does include Minnesota, Disneyland (i.e. California) and all the other states.
You're referring to Article VI, clause 2, right? Here it is: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby; any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
Please point out the exact phrase that places "Minnesota, Disneyland (i.e. California) and all the other states" under the authority of the federal government.
I will point to the exact phrase which shows you are wrong:
"under the Authority of the United States".
About 8 years ago I get a letter in the mail from the census gestapo, on the front of the envelope it says to fill it out, its the law, well I just ripped it in half and through it in the trash. If they would had of said please read and fill out and return I would have at least opened it, but don't threaten me Big Brother. Well they sent me several more letters and I through those away without opening them. Then I get a call from them and I tell them I don't believe they are who they say they are and tell them to give me their number so I can verify it, which I do, and I will call them, I didn't call. A few days later I get a call from the Gestapo and he wasn't playing games, I have to laugh, and I tell him I will call him back at the number I had already verified. I call him and he starts with his questions, for every question he asked i told him it was none of their business and he says you are refusing to answer this census ? I told him not at all, two people live in my house and if you don't like that answer I will be here waiting for you and then I hung up on him. Never heard from them after that, all they had to do was play nice, I still would give them the same answer though. Hold your ground!!
thats the ticket, simple and sweet.
To those who are upset with me for saying I don't think much of the constitution, let me explain. I am a libertarian in the very strictest sense of the word. What this really means is that I am more an anarchist than anything else. I am certainly a follower of Murray Rothbard. I don't disrespect the constitution or many of the men who drafted it, but it is simply a document that was drawn up by fallible men. As I mentioned above, if it was followed to the letter, I would gladly accept it, but that is not the case. Those who put their faith only in a piece of paper are bound to lose their freedom, for only the people can claim and retain their liberty; this whether any constitution exists or not. Today, our constitution is a dead letter. If you want to revive it, something other than the simple and corrupt political process must be advanced. I do believe that what i said about the census is very credible, this whether I agree with you about the constitution or not. I hope this will help clear the air a bit.
The fact is that most American's don't know much about this issue in depth.
We were brought up to "stand and be counted."
By the way, I worked for the Census Bureau in '99 & 2000. Most of the people who do are not leftists or socialists or busybodies- they are just people who need a job. And the Census pays well compared to everything else in rural areas.
I spent most of my time drawing dots on maps that showed where people lived and dropping off questionaires in bags on front doors. very little of my work was actually asking people questions. Most people just send the forms back in.
While you may not agree with the Census, (and I am not sure that I do!) please be kind to your local Census worker- they just want to pay their bills and have found a temporary work situation to help them do that.
JRT: I, too, worked for the 2000 Census and was just as you describe: a human being doing a job as well as she could, thinking that she was helping her country. I never harassed those that I contacted. I respected their right to answer or not. NOW, however, I fully realize that I was participating in the trampling of the Constitution and answered the ONE QUESTION only on my form. I will be kind to the census worker but FIRM and will do my best to educate her/him as to WHY I will answer that one question. I will even give that worker a booklet that contains the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence, and selected quotations. We were all stupid at one time or another and the vast majority of us need to awaken before it's too late.
Please help me understand this. According to the Constitution, the only item that is needed for apportionment purposes is the number of persons (human beings) residing at my residence. It doesn't matter their age, gender, race/ethnicity, relationship between the persons (which would possibly include sex slaves), or even citizenship status (which could possibly describe the sex slaves), not to mention the other items listed. So regardless of which form I get, I can respond to only those question(s) which ask about the number of persons residing at my residence, and either not respond to the rest or simply tell the Census Bureau that I either plead the Fifth or its none of their business, understanding that they may harass me later if I choose to limit the information I provide them.
what else is sad, this will "add" over 1 million jobs. The Obamunists will say that the stimulus created these jobs
Well, the key, of course, is the brutal honesty. I'm sure Mr Barnett would give his reason along these lines - if the Constitution did such a good job, why do we have this nearly unlimited government we have today? He alludes to this in his caveat after that sentence, which was "because I consider it too weak and too broad in nature"
It's a reasonable argument - one I can understand the motivation behind even if I don't agree.
So why focus on this one point that you disagree with and distract from the overall message, which is spot on? Any thoughts about the census as the government is abusing your liberty - again?
The Constitution has done a fine job. It's those entrusted to defend and uphold it who have not been so great, including the people who voted people into office to allow them to trample all over it.
The tenthamendmentcenter.com to me is all about how the Constitution is powerful enough to stop the erosion of rights of individuals and sovereign states in our union. I completely disagree that it's too weak. Again, I argue it is one of the greatest, and most powerful, documents man has ever created.
I agree with the author's thoughts on the census and fully intend to answer with a number of persons in my home only when asked by an official of the federal government. I simply focus on the one point about the Constitution because it's a BIG one to me and therefore a distraction. Maybe it's just me, but I have a great respect for the Constitution (that's why I read tenthamendmentcenter.com) and think an understanding of it would go very far in getting us back to a union of sovereign states like the founders intended.
Well, the key, of course, is the brutal honesty. I'm sure Mr Barnett would give his reason along these lines - if the Constitution did such a good job, why do we have this nearly unlimited government we have today? He alludes to this in his caveat after that sentence, which was "because I consider it too weak and too broad in nature"
It's a reasonable argument - one I can understand the motivation behind even if I don't agree.
So why focus on this one point that you disagree with and distract from the overall message, which is spot on? Any thoughts about the census as the government is abusing your liberty - again?
"I will preface my remarks by saying that I don’t think much of the constitution in the first place"
Then why post on a website devoted to an Amendment of the Constitution? The author's disdain for arguably the greatest document ever created in the history of man concerns me. While I see his points about the census, it is quickly drowned out to me by the disrespect for the Constitution in this article.
To miked,
If the constitution were followed to the letter, I could accept it. It has never been. But one of the major flaws in my opinion is that it allows for the federal government to have an UNLIMITED power to tax. In our first contitution, The Articles of Confederation, which in my opinion was better but also flawed, the federal government had NO power to tax. I firmly believe that Hamilton's main purpose was to vastly expand federal power and he was the driver of our current constitution. Regardless of any of this, only the people can demand a limited government; no piece of paper holds this power. Thank you for your comments and I hope this helps you better understan my comment.
Sincerely ... Gary Barnett
I am, in total agreement with "miked". The moment the author made the statement "I don’t think much of the constitution in the first place", was the very moment that what had to say was no longer important nor credible. What else is there to say?
"Constitution" is not a magic word. Nor is it a talisman against tyranny and oppression (just ask any surviving citizen of the former Soviet Union...they had a constitution).
You are, of course, free to engage in slavish worship of that ancient scrap of paper. But, some serious research would confirm for you the fact that the US Constitution was written in secret, under suspicious circumstances and intent.
The men who agitated most vigorously for a "new government" were monarchists to the core, and were quite disappointed when their new Constitution did not grant them the all-powerful nation-state they so desperately desired (to implement their neo-mercantilist fantasies).
What good that did come of the constitution was shortly undone. For when the sun set on Appomattox Courthouse that fateful day in 1865...the sovereign states for which our forefathers bled and died in their efforts to secede from England had just been forced into subjugation to the republican dreams of empire by a genocidal war of oppression.
Following but a few short decades later, we had an international empire, complete with military adventurism round the world. Now, it can be truthfully said that "the sun never sets on the American empire."
"The Constitution has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist."
--Lysander Spooner
If you build a bridge and those charged with maintaining it fail to do their job and the bridge collapses into the river does that mean the design was defective? I say no but it appears Spooner would have said yes.
Those who wrote, debated and ratified the Constitution asserted that the States would protect the people from federal encroachments.
In the New York Convention, Melancton Smith stated:
“The state constitutions should be the guardians of our domestic rights and interests, and should be both the support and the check of the federal government.”
Gilbert Livingston would add:
“[I] conceive the state governments are necessary as the barrier between the people’s liberties and any invasion which may be attempted on them by the general government.”
In Federalist Essay No. 28, Alexander Hamilton said:
“It may safely be received as an axiom in our political system, that the State governments will, in all possible contingencies, afford complete security against invasions of the public liberty by the national authority.”
And in Essay No. 26 he stated:
“[T]he State legislatures, who will always be not only vigilant but suspicious and jealous guardians of the rights of the citizens against encroachments from the federal government…will be ready enough, if anything improper appears, to sound the alarm to the people, and not only be the VOICE, but if necessary, the ARM of their discontent.”
The States have been sitting on their asses for way to long.
.
I agree with you. His point in reference to filling out the census is one thing, however, his statement in reference to the Constitution is not how I feel. I respect and hold dear the Constitution of the United States. It is what makes us the great country we are.
I will resist on religious grounds
Very good. I, too, considered doing this and expect to end up in federal court. I know my reasons for calling this survey a violation of the prohibition of Congress passing legislation infringing religious freedom (or establishing a specific religion). If you are still reading these posts, I would very much like to hear your reasons.
Thank you.
Kayrun
Mark: You ask a good question, and you ask it in the loaded terms that have been successfully used to control the public.
"According to the Constitution, the only item that is needed for apportionment purposes is the number of persons (human beings) residing at my residence."
Where does it say this? Somewhere in the "everybody knows" clause maybe?
Is a "resident" the same as a citizen? I think not! Neither is a "person". They are words of art used to describe corporate franchises of the U.S. Read just the index here http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt14toc_user.html and tell me this is not so.
And you don't "plead the Fifth" (see above reference, it's in there); you stand on your right as a state Citizen not to be bothered by their questions.
Since your representation versus the representation of illegals and leftists is at stake, take the census!
The way to oppose the illegal expansion is to use that representation to make the executive branch and the Commerce department obey the Constitution.
Sounds like the kind of excuses that those same people give:
"'we've got an emergency about health care, so don't worry about the constitution on THIS issue!"
"we've got a crime emergency in our cities, so don't worry about your gun rights - everything will be ok!"
It's just THAT attitude that's given us the government we have today. We prefer to demand that politicians follow the constitution - every issue. every time. no exceptions. no excuses.
"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."
Subscribe to entries
Subscribe to comments
All content © 2012 by Tenth Amendment Center
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by TenthAmendmentCenter, Yuri Vieira, Jason Trommetter, liberty activist, dorothy1961 and others. dorothy1961 said: The Unconstitutional Census Gestapo : http://tinyurl.com/yca6jzv RESIST. civil disobedence begins [...]
[...] Read More Here If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed! Posted in Big Brother, Big Government, Constitution, Constitutional Limits of Government, Federal Powers, Intimidation, Statism, Unconstitutional | Tags: Abuse of Power, Census, Federal Agencies, Federal Powers, Government Spending, Intimidation, Leftist Agenda, Power Grab, Privacy, Role of Government, Statism, Unconstitutional [...]
[...] Read more at The Tenth Amendment Center. [...]
[...] The Unconstitutional Census Gestapo [N]ow that we understand that the only proper “constitutional duty†is to simply count the people in a given area (not their address, gender, work status, ethnic background, number of toilets, etc.), then why are all these very personal and private questions asked in the first place? Why does the U.S. Census Bureau not only ask unconstitutional and personal questions, but demand that they be answered? Why in fact do these same cretins threaten anyone who doesn’t comply with their Gestapo-style tactics? [...]