Census Is For Counting Not Prying

  • Share on Tumblr

by Chuck Baldwin

The constitutional requirement for the Census is found in Article. I. Section. 2. Paragraph. 3. "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 purpose of the Census is that of counting the US population in order to apportion among the states the number of representatives in the US House of Representatives. That’s it. Nothing more. Nothing less.

There is nothing in the Constitution requiring or even suggesting questions regarding race, ethnicity, whether one owns or rents his or her home, income status, disability status, education, or anything of the sort. The only purpose of the Census is to count the US population.  Anything beyond that is nothing more than an intrusive government prying and snooping into our lives: something the federal government is doing with greater and greater frequency and intensity these days.

As to the phrase, "[As] they shall by Law direct," Paul Galvin rightly notes, "This language merely goes to the mechanics of the counting (who will do it; when it is to be done; how, when results are to be reported; and so forth); it does not enlarge what may be counted. Constitutionally the only permitted enumeration is the number of people in the United States. Why? Because that count is the determinant for apportionment and therefore the only pertinent information needed."

See Galvin’s column at:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig10/galvin2.1.1.html

In the original Census of 1790, the information requested was simply the number of persons in each household and the name of the head of each family. That’s it. Accordingly, when I filled out my Census form earlier this week, the only information I provided was my name (as the head of my household) and the number of people living in my home. The rest of it I left blank.

Furthermore, the idea that the information gathered about us via the unconstitutional and invasive Census form will not be shared with anyone is so ludicrous it is laughable. The federal government passes around virtually everything it learns about us to any number of departments and agencies. Does anyone really believe that all the information obtained with this unconstitutional Census form will be locked away in a vault somewhere, never to be used or shared? What a crock! Why, the federal government cannot even ensure that its own employees will abide by its own rules.

Consider the new full-body scanners that are being installed in airports all around the country. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) assures passengers that the photos of their naked bodies are not pornographic and will not be stored or shared. Of course, we can trust the federal government to tell us the truth, right?

First, are the images pornographic? You be the judge. Check out this online story. I caution you, however: there are actual images of naked bodies taken with an airport full-body scanner included in this story. But if you are offended at what you see, remember that this is potentially what TSA agents will be looking at every time you, your wife, your son, your daughter, or your father and mother board a commercial jetliner.

See the story at:

http://tinyurl.com/tsa-body-scans-worse

So, will someone please tell me how the scanned images taken of the naked bodies of small children by these airport full-body scanners do not constitute child pornography? Good grief! Some parents have been arrested for possessing child porn for something as innocent as taking photos of their small children in a bathtub. Yet, TSA agents will be photographing nude images of small children all day long in a private video booth at an airport check-in, and not only will they not be arrested, THEY WILL GET PAID FOR IT.

Beyond that, there are already documented cases where airport screeners have stored and shared the naked images of people. According to published reports, "Claims on behalf of authorities that naked body scanner images are immediately destroyed after passengers pass through new x-ray backscatter devices have been proven fraudulent after it was revealed that naked images of Indian film star Shahrukh Khan were printed out and circulated by airport staff at Heathrow in London."

See the report at:

http://tinyurl.com/film-star-body-scans

Would you trust your neighbor–or your friends at church or work–with photos of your naked body or the naked bodies of your wife and children? Then, why would you trust an employee of the federal government? And why would you trust federal bureaucrats at the Census Bureau to keep private any and all information you give them via the Census form?

But whether you care or don’t care that the federal government sticks its nose into your private affairs–or that its employees gawk at your naked images–is really beside the point. The fact is, it is totally unconstitutional for the federal government to behave in such a manner, and those citizens who do not object to this unconstitutional conduct are facilitating the demise of their own liberties. They should be ashamed of themselves!

What is even worse is the number of churches that are cooperating with and facilitating the advancement of this unconstitutional Census. I see churches in my area advertising for their congregants to become Census-takers. Of course, each of these workers will be schooled in how to cajole or even coerce members of their communities to participate in an unconstitutional Census, and to give up personal information that is absolutely beyond the proper purpose and scope of the Census. Shame on those churches! Shame on those pastors!

I also include the following two links for readers to use in helping them to understand and fulfill their duties under the US Constitution. This one might be helpful when a Census worker attempts to harangue and threaten you with a $5,000 fine if you do not answer all his or her questions:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=128409

By the way, should a Census worker come to my home and demand that I answer the questions I left blank, I will simply plead my 5th Amendment/Miranda rights to "remain silent." What are they going to say to that?

This one contains a sample letter that some have mailed back with their Census forms:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/52847.html

As for me and my house, along with the form completed as stated above, I put this note in the Census envelope (this was forwarded to me by an unknown source. I would give them credit, if I knew who it was):

"Article I, Section 2 of the US Constitution gives Congress the right to ENUMERATE the number of citizens in order to apportion members of congress: ‘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.’

"Enumerate means ‘to count, or determine the number of’. Congress can COUNT the number of citizens–but it can’t demand to know what race we are, how much we earn, how many big screen TVs we own, etc.  So when I get the census forms, I fill out the first question (the one asking how many people live at my home), then paste a copy of Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution right below that, along with a statement that I have fulfilled my duty as a citizen by helping them enumerate, and I’m not required to answer any more questions."

Participating in the national Census is an honor for every US citizen. Each of us should be thankful for the constitutional republic that was bequeathed to us by our Founding Fathers. Under that Constitution, therefore, I am proud to have my household counted in the US Census in order to apportion among the states the number of representatives in the US House of Representatives. But, as I am expected to live under the laws and duties of the US Constitution, so is the federal government. Hence, I answered only those two questions that are constitutionally prescribed and refused to answer any and all others.

P.S. We have recently substantially upgraded our web site. You will find the site much sharper and much more professional. The new design also allows us to run paid ads from likeminded sponsors. I would especially like to see constitutionalist candidates for State office promote their candidacies on my web site. Therefore, if you, or someone you know, would like to utilize my web site as a vehicle to get out your message of constitutional government to thousands of Chuck Baldwin supporters, please contact my office about pricing and availability. The email address to use is:

admin@chuckbaldwinlive.com

And here is the web site url:

http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/

*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:

http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?page_id=19

(c) Chuck Baldwin

NOTE TO THE READER:

Chuck Baldwin is a syndicated columnist, radio broadcaster, author, and pastor dedicated to preserving the historic principles upon which America was founded. He was the 2008 Presidential candidate for the Constitution Party. He and his wife, Connie, have been married for 37 years and have 3 children and 7 grandchildren. See Chuck’s complete bio at:

http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?page_id=6

Enjoyed This Post?

We cannot succeed without your help, as we will never accept government grants or handouts. Please help us by investing in the Constitution and freedom today!

Enjoyed This Post?

, ,

13 comments
debbie
debbie

I don't believe you need to or should answer number two, pertaining to the ownership of the house. There is nothing in the Constitution indicating that you should. Perhaps if one needed to own property in order to be represented....and there was such a time and not a bad idea at all....but I don't see that in the Constitution, especially considering Article 1, Section 2. So why talk about who owns the house?
Giving the number of citizens who dwell in the house is being generous, I believe. They have the right to the number of inhabitants in any giben region and we are assuming we have to give numbers per house....but even that is a gift, correct?

Escapee
Escapee

Question #1 asks the number of people living in the house. A perfectly lawful and constitutional question.

Question #2 asks about the ownership of the house.

The remaining questions ask the private details of "persons", not citizens. Persons are a special class enfranchised "under the jurisdiction" of the U.S. government. Since they are not proper citizens, they are treated as subjects of the federal government.

Don't believe me? Read the document:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt14toc_user.html

I am a state citizen. I only need to answer the first two.

Steven G. Poyzer
Steven G. Poyzer

The only information I provided was the number of persons residing in the dwelling and that no other persons would be residing in the dwelling on April 1, 2010. My reading of Article One, Section 2, allows them to take a head count and that is all.

aldomeir
aldomeir

There is no question on the form about citizenship...therefore the count will be invalid. But who said that the information provided would be used in its RAW form. Every indication I have says that the census information will be subject to statistical analysis and the count adjusted (for cities especially). So not only will the Census Bureau be counting citizens and non-citizens (to be treated equally), but that certain population areas will be treated differently, thus violating the 14th amendment's "equal protection" as well.

Escapee
Escapee

We have some sharp people here! They know that the word "people" is not the same as the loaded term "persons".

Unfortunately, a few need to learn that a "resident" is not the same as a Citizen.

wood
wood

Worked at the census for years. Believe me, when you have thousands of forms coming in on a daily basis, and are required (on a standard) to enter the data into a computer asap, including notes and such, census clerks could care less about individual answers. You become like a robot just typing in data. The computer data goes to D.C. So if your comfortable with whom you elected, no problem.

Paranoid
Paranoid

They get those census forms if you put them in the recycling bin, right?

hallingood
hallingood

Calling BS on the body scan image. The image has hair which is basically the same as fiber in clothing. Anyone with half a brain would know that Millimeter waves go through hair like a hot knife through butter. Also, here is a link to the pic. http://www.photoalto.com/index/fa/c.image/pid/PAA...

Army Officer
Army Officer

I plan on answering in accordance with the Constitution (number of people at residence - nothing more). A larger question is how this can be legal in regards to military members. I am a Florida resident assigned to a Fort in Maryland therefore my numbers should be used to support the Florida apportionment since I vote in Florida. This sounds like a legal challenge waiting to happen. I should only have to answer for numbers for Florida, not Maryland.

Mark R
Mark R

I answered only questions 1 (# of people at the residence) and 2 (is there anyone there not in the number from question 1). Everything else I answered "Will not provide". Not my name or the name of anyone else who may be at my residence, not my race (actually I answered that one "human"), not my phone number, nothing. Then I mailed it back. I have had for a long time a "No Soliciting" sign on my door so if someone comes there I will simply point them to the sign and then close the door. If they remain I will call the police and have them arrested for trespassing.

zebo
zebo

I sent a note in with our census form, stating that the person receiving the form should read Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution. The census is taken for the sole purpose of determining how many representatives each state is appropriated in the House of Representatives.

I gave them only the names and ages of the two people residing at our home, so that they could then verify that information if it was necessary. I further stated that the other questions were not relevant to that purpose and refused to answer them.

Bob Greenslade
Bob Greenslade

Did your Census Packet Meet this Requirement?

Compare the Privacy Statement in your 1040 Booklet to the bogus one the Census Bureau sent you.

United States Code, Title 5, Section 552a-

e) Agency Requirements. - Each agency that maintains a system of

records Census Bureau shall -

(3) inform each individual whom it asks to supply information,

on the form which it uses to collect the information or on a

separate form that can be retained by the individual -

(A) the authority (whether granted by statute, or by

executive order of the President) which authorizes the

solicitation of the information and whether disclosure of such

information is mandatory or voluntary;

(B) the principal purpose or purposes for which the

information is intended to be used;

(C) the routine uses which may be made of the information, as

published pursuant to paragraph (4)(D) of this subsection; and

(D) the effects on him, if any, of not providing all or any

part of the requested information;…”

Unless the folks at the Census Bureau can show us where they were exempted from these requirements, it would appear they are in violation of this provision of Title 5...but what else is new?

zebo
zebo

Article I, Section 2 is all that is relevant to the purpose of taking the census.

Trackbacks

  1. Social comments and analytics for this post…

    This post was mentioned on Twitter by ACandyTweet: @RonPaul_2012 Census Is For Counting Not Prying http://bit.ly/bFy5eD #tlot #tcot #RonPaul…

  2. [...] An example of an appropriate place for civil disobedience in today’s Tenth Amendment activities might come in the form of the intrusive and unconstitutional questions of the 2010 Census. [...]

  3. [...] An example of an appropriate place for civil disobedience in today’s Tenth Amendment activities might come in the form of the intrusive and unconstitutional questions of the 2010 Census. [...]

  4. [...] Census Is For Counting Not Prying by Chuck Baldwin [...]