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?
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_u...
I am a state citizen. I only need to answer the first two.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
I wish I would have done what you did. I did not mind answering the question about race, I had a melt down when it came to giving birthdates. In my line of work I can put in a name and bithdate and find out numerous things about a person. I set my pencil and the form down and my husband finished it. I was so uncomfortable giving such sensitive information to be in GOD knows whos hands/data bank. We didn't want the Census Police knocking on our door for "their" form. I guess I was just trying to be compliant and played by the rules, not realizing it's my rights that were being violated. With just a name and a birthdate identity theft can happen so easily. I am going to the store to buy a "NO SOLICITING" sign.
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.
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?
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…
[...] 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. [...]
[...] http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/03/19/census-is-for-counting-not-prying/ Easy AdSense by Unreal Bookmark It Hide Sites [...]
[...] 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. [...]
[...] Census Is For Counting Not Prying by Chuck Baldwin [...]