Thread: Census
View Single Post
Old 09-01-2009, 05:07 AM   #58 (permalink)
Cimarron29414
Still Free
 
Cimarron29414's Avatar
 
Location: comfortably perched at the top of the bell curve!
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux View Post
Right and yet, if enumeration only refers to counting "free persons" how was it constitutional, that in 1790, the very first census also counted "property" in the form of asking those "free persons" if they owned slaves and how many. Shortly after, they counted how many acres of land one owned and if one's occupation was farming, commerce or manufacuting.

Any if that was constitutional, why is it unconstitutional today to enumerate other forms of "property" in terms of asking if one owns (or rents) one's home?

Or if it was constitutional to ask about one's occupation (farming/commerce/manufacturing), where in the Constitution does it prohibit the government from "directing by law" that the census include questions about one's race/ethnicity or education level?

It seems to me, right from the start, it was deemed constitutional to enumerate more than just the number of free persons... "as they shall direct by law" as long as it did not cross the line of other limits on the powers of Congress.
(Face-Palm...Deep Breath)

First of all, no one is saying that every action taken by the government, even early on, was constitutional. Whether anyone at the time saw it as unconstitutional and opposed it is likely, but generally unknown. So, the fact that they did things which were "unconstitutional" by your definition (which is ironic that you would bring that up to justify other unconstitutional acts) has little bearing on the argument today.

Secondly, and for the second time, the enumeration will occur in the manner directed by law. Manner means method. Enumeration means counting. Specifically, counting the people will be done in the method directed by law. In short, you can count the people in the most efficient method possible, as directed by law. You are spinning it to suit your argument, and you know it.

Third, the fact that you would bring up counting property (slaves) as an argument is asinine. You know good and well this mistake was corrected in the 14th amendment and in the civil rights movement. We all recognize that as a mistake which needed righted. As a matter of fact, after the first constitutional convention, all major arguments had been resolved except for two issues: apportionment of the congress and slavery. But, you probably knew that.
__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

Last edited by Cimarron29414; 09-01-2009 at 05:09 AM..
Cimarron29414 is offline  
 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360