hotandheavy

Sorry, I didn't realize you needed to be spoon fed. Here it is in a nut shell, please listen to it for more detail.

The pod-cast explains how the census in 2010, for the first time ever, will not ask citizen status. 13 million census forms will be sent out in Spanish. These people will be counted as REGISTERED VOTERS.

They will carry the same weight as any one else for how congressional districts are re-drawn. We could end up with an entire district made up of illegal immigrants. That state would then have one more electoral vote in the presidency.

This shifts fed aid and electoral college votes.

This is a power grab by the LaRaza crowd, and a legal coo.

It is simply wrong (by any party) to be counting people who don't have the right to vote.

Derwood

what would be the advantage of having a district full of non-voters?

Cimarron29414

Let me try this again...what does it matter? If you can't see that as a failure of the system, then I don't know what to say. How about the fact that a district that is full of VOTERS is losing a seat? How about that? My God, but you will follow this government over the cliff.

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

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

Derwood

I understand that it's not something we want to happen, but generally, political corruption is motivated by political gains, so I'm asking what would be gained by gerrymandering the districts to get one full of non-voters? It's an honest question, not a defense of the corruption.

hotandheavy

Gee, I wonder how a congressional seat from a district of non-voters will vote on immigration reform?

Even if this was the GOP trying to create a (congressional seat) group of non-voters sympathetic to their platform, I would have a HUGE problem with this.

roachboy

i've read through this thread a couple times and i have to say this is easily the stupidest political action i've ever run across.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Rekna

Once again some of you are being incredibly ignorant and refusing to fact check your sources.

Here are the 2000 short form questions: http://www.census.gov/dmd/www/pdf/d61a.pdf it did not ask about citizenship. The long form did.

Here is the 2010 proposed questions: http://2010.census.gov/2010census/pd...CSnotebook.pdf the short form does not ask about citizenship but the long form does.

So once again we have people writing an op-ed full of inaccuracies and people blinding believing everything they hear as fact without even spending 5 minutes to fact check what they hear. It is sad it seems like this is happening more and more on this board lately.

dippin

Why must we spend so much time in these political discussions debunking complete lies? Why do people blindly follow these lies without checking for themselves? Talk about being spoon fed...

As Rekna has shown, the 2010 census asks about immigration status in the same way the 2000 census did, in the same way every census from the past century did. The only difference is that the "long form" of the census now has a different name, it's called the "American Community Survey," and will be administered every year. So, if anything, we will have more information on illegal aliens, not less.


Oh, and redistricting was never done based on registered voters. They always just looked at population, and even felons count towards the population of a district. So you've been doubly misled.

dksuddeth

because congress would NEVER write an unconstitutional law.......

---------- Post added at 11:33 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:30 AM ----------

the above info is necessary, why? and what authority do they have to obtain that info?

---------- Post added at 11:36 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:33 AM ----------

now Dunedan, you know that democrats and republicans alike discount anything we Libertarians have to say of just about anything. After all, we're just crazy radical anarchists.

---------- Post added at 11:40 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:36 AM ----------

If a political party can gerrymander a district of 100,000 people, 95,000 being illegal aliens and thus 'non-voters' while the the remaining 4500 are registered democrats....viola instant permanent democrat seat.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

dc_dux

Hey...have at it.....my point is that I dont think you have a case.

The laws governing the census have been pretty much the same since the mid-19th century...:

for example: 1840
Questions on agriculture, mining, and fishing are added to the census. The number of economic and demographic questions increase from the six asked in the first census to more than 70.

2010 Census: Census History

...and the constitutionality has never been successfully challenged.

The biggest change being that before the mid-20th century, a new law had to be enacted for each new census. It was codified in the 1950s so at that point, it no longer became necessary for a new law to be enacted every ten years.

IMO (not being a Constitutional scholar), it is clear that Congress can enact pretty much any law (in such Manner as they shall by Law direct) they want that does not limit other Constitutional rights (ie cant ask about religion).

The only recent amendment was to codify the protection and privacy of individual records for 72 years, after which it becomes public information, primarily for genealogical purposes.

I suspect that many who believe the census to be unconstitutional also believe the income tax is unconstitutional.

It takes no balls to scream and shout that you wont fill out the census form honestly and completely at the highly unlikely risk of a small fine. I'd like to see you guys not pay income tax and face that penalty.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

The_Dunedan

$5,000 per question is SMALL to you?!

Plenty have, and plenty have both suffered and gotten away. Ed and Elaine Brown are in jail, while Vernice Kuglin was acquitted and awarded court costs, besides getting to keep the $90,000.00 in alleged back taxes that she didn't owe.

Cimarron29414

Jumped to any conclusions lately?

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

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

dc_dux

The fine is not more than $500.

---------- Post added at 04:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:41 PM ----------

I said IMO, I dont think there is valid Constitutional argument ("...in such Manner as they shall by Law direct")

And again, IMO, it takes little courage and conviction to not fill out the census accurately and completely with almost no likelihood of prosecution and proclaim you are doing something noble and in defense of the Constitution.

It takes balls for one to stand up and make a public case of not paying federal income tax with a far greater likelihood of prosecution and jail time.

---------- Post added at 04:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:43 PM ----------

What I discount is the fact that you guys (Libertarians) tend to proclaim that you know the exact intent of the framers of the Constitituion and those who disagree with you dont know squat.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

dksuddeth

maybe I missed a post, but I haven't seen anyone say that the census count of number of people in a household is unconstitutional, especially since it says it right there in the constitution.

---------- Post added at 04:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:59 PM ----------

The diehard Libertarians base our constitutional opinions directly from the framers debates. What you're failing to take in to account and how you base your constitutional opinions is the result of 200 years of manipulation by the judiciary.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

dc_dux

The basic census form has been more than just a count of the number of people in a household for more than 150 years.

So you know exactly what the framers meant by specifically including...."in such Manner as they shall by Law direct."

I base my constitutional opinions on the fact that the framers also provided a role for a federal judiciary to interpret such vague directives:

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority....

You (Libertarians) characterize that as "judicial manipulation" if it does not conform with your interpretation while I believe it is the judiciary fulfilling its Constitutional role.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

dksuddeth

several times throughout the debates, questions were asked about those very phrases. Madison and Hamilton expressly mentioned that such manner and laws can never be taken to extend beyond the powers already assigned congress. to do otherwise would render such constitution moot.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

dc_dux

Right and yet, if enumeration only refers to counting "free persons" how was it constitutional, that in 1790, the very first census (I assume Madison and Hamilton participated) also counted "property" in the form of asking those "free persons" if they owned slaves and how many. Shortly after (1820), the census asked if one's occupation was farming, commerce or manufacturing.

If it was constitutional to ask if you owned slaves in 1790, 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 in 1820 (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.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Cimarron29414

(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."

dc_dux

Putting aside the property questions....you are suggesting that in 1820, it was unconstitutional to ask about occupation (farming/commerce/manufacturing)?

Based on what? Your interpretation of "enumeration" and "in the manner directed by law" is the only valid interpretation?

---------- Post added at 09:36 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:11 AM ----------

The third census in 1810 included data on "the arts and manufactures of the United States of America, for the year 1810" ....certainly more than a simple "enumeration" of persons.

Unconstitutional?

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

roachboy

i should have put this together before, but i didn't.
what this is about is conservative fear of "illegal aliens."
it's about the fact that some of this year's census is being taken in spanish.
so this is playing on anxiety about the conservative "real americans" being "overwhelmed" by a whole lot of Other-types.
the constitutional arguments don't make sense empirically, but they do as a way of channelling this anxiety into an illusion of stability--of course this stability presupposes that one also buy into a strict construction line, which is surreal as a position if you know anything at all about the problems of imputing intent to historical actors (on this, you can trust me...my academic training is as a historian, and i can tell you that the anchoring move of strict construction is entirely untenable. can't do it. so what it amounts to is that conservatives want to be in the position of making up intent for the framers to suit their own political ends.)

so the response is to mount this silly campaign to fuck up the counting. as if that changes anything. as if that would magically transform contemporary america back into some imaginary place where Real American Conservatives weren't being Persecuted from All Sides by the Forces of Evil.
which in this case is the census bureau of all things.
as an extension of the Evil State.

within this, there are obviously libertarians who may tag along for the ride on what they imagine to be other grounds--"constitutional" ones---but as you see here, the arguments hold no water. but they're worked regardless.
so i wonder how different the motives really are.


if this is the case, not only is the action goofy, but it's also a bit repellent.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

dksuddeth

yeah roach, that's what this is all about. glad you were here to figure it out for us.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

dc_dux

The fact remains that the collection of data beyond a simple count of persons is nearly as old as the census itself and such data collection has never been deemed to be unconstitutional.

Hell, I dont know for a fact, but I would guess than many of the framers were members of Congress in 1810 that enacted the legislation (directed by law) that the census be more than just a simple enumeration of persons , but for "such other purposes" as well including, as the oldest example, data on "arts and manufactures."

Libertarians like dk always make references to Madison/Hamilton (federalist papers) on constitutional issues. James Madison was president at the time...so why didnt he veto it if it was counter to the Constitution he drafted?

The question of Spanish language forms is absolutely part of of the new demagoguery of the Right.

Of course, that ignores history where in the early days of the country, many official government forms were bi-lingual - in german, french, swedish, etc. - depending on the demographics of the state/territory.

The only difference - white Europeans vs hispanic Mexicans.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

roachboy

dk---nice try.


i do think that is what the action is about.
but if that's the case, then a cynical person might wonder if that means the action is racist.
it's certainly a paranoid action.
there are assumptions behind it as well, most of which are particular to far-right paranoiac exercises concerning who votes for democrats. you see these delightful arguments in this thread. just read it, if you haven't. a bunch of them are here.


but i also said that libertarians might well latch onto it for their own reasons.
but the "constitutional" arguments seem to me so weak that i can't see those reasons appealing to anyone not already a libertarian.
so while it's obviously that case that, say, dunedan has a principled reason to latch onto this action, you can see in other posters more a bleed of register, sliding into the paranoid arguments and back out again.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Cimarron29414

I've started writing a response to this about 10 times, each one inevitably hovers close to you banning me. I guess I will just sit here and let you call me silly, stupid and all the other name calling luxuries which moderators possess.

Since, every post you make is some snide, academic mockery of anyone who doesn't believe exactly what you believe, there seems no point in continuing. You are clearly too smart to be wasting your time with knuckleheads like us.

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

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

Rekna

I take offense to this. roachboy has never abused his moderator powers nor is he calling you names. On this forum when moderator is posting as a member he is just that a member and must abide by all the same rules.

Derwood

He's not saying you're stupid, he's saying your position is. There is a difference.

Cimarron29414

Whatever.

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

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

dc_dux

Whatever is the fact that based on 200 years of precedent, your constitutional argument is weak if not baseless.

It is also a fact the right has perpetuated myths about this year's census (expressly intending to count illegals, paying ACORN,...) and it is reasonable to assume it is with a political motivation and not for noble principles to preserve the Constitution.

And that is all that roachboy and I and other have said.....there have been no personal attacks on your (or anyone's) intelligence.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Cimarron29414

Since I do not know the "purpose" of collecting that data at that time, I can't say. The Constitution states that the enumeration is taken for the purpose of apportionment and direct taxes. If the purpose of the question was to directly tax, then...

What I do know is that the purpose of asking the questions on today's census is to distribute federal money in entitlement programs. Asking the questions for that purpose is expressly outside the bounds of the Constitution and is therefore unconstitutional. As much as all of you would like to think that it is, you are wrong. Even Roachboy.

---------- Post added at 11:35 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:34 AM ----------

As I am not a part of the right, I don't care what they say. I draw my own conclusions from the actions of the government.

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

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

dc_dux

More of the same....the only correct and valid interpretation of the Constitution is the Libertarian interpretation. The rest of us are ignorant.

I get it.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Cimarron29414

..and yet somehow you can't point out where exactly I am wrong.

On the census which I took in 2000: "List the race of the people in your household...."

Does this affect apportionment? Nope.
Does this affect direct taxes? Nope.

All you've got is "but, but, they did it in 1820, so it must be okay."...even though you don't know WHY they did it in 1820 and if it upheld those two constitutional requirements.

There is nothing to interpret here. I am sorry it doesn't say what you want it to say so that you can justify your liberal/statist vision for America. Wait, no I'm not.

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

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

dc_dux

The same old Libertarian argument...."there is nothing to interpret here...blah blah blah"....you know every thought and every intent on the mind of every Framer in that room in Philadelphia 200+ years ago.

Read the original report (pdf) on the act that President Madison (one of the principal framers) signed into law to collect data on the "arts and manufactures" (pdf) as part of the 1810 census....it was not to affect apportionment...it was not expressly to affect direct taxes....it was to expand the knowledge base for the betterment of the country.

But you know better than Madison.

You guys are more informed than judges on the federal bench, who if they disagree with you, are (in the words of dk) "manipulating the judiciary."

I'm done......enjoy your noble quest to protect the Constitution for the rest of us.

MixedMedia said it best:
And you wonder why some (most Americans) dont take Libertarians very seriously.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Daniel_

Sorry - I think you're wrong.

There is government funding for translation services, for equal operortunity programmes, for all manner of health and educational needs that are different depending on the race and languages of the population in an area.

Does Alaska need as much to spend on Spanish translation as New Mexico? Proboably not.

Does Montana have the same need for treatment facilities for cycle cell patients as Georgia? Unlikely.

I contend that knowing the racial make up of the population IS important for apportionment, and therefore is constitutional by your definition.

__________________

╔═════════════════════════════════════════╗
Overhead, the Albatross hangs motionless upon the air,
And deep beneath the rolling waves,
In labyrinths of Coral Caves,
The Echo of a distant time
Comes willowing across the sand;
And everthing is Green and Submarine
╚═════════════════════════════════════════╝

Cimarron29414

Apportionment in the Constitution and dealing with the census is speaking to apportioning the seats in the House of Representatives in Congress based on the populations in defined areas. It is not referring to apportioning federal funds in entitlement programs based on need. Although, many liberals/socialists/statists believe that is what it means. Believe it or not, there weren't any federal entitlement programs at the time the Constitution was written, voted on, and ratified. Back then, people turned to their family, friends, church and community to solve individual problems. The framers would not have even conceived of giving federal funds to Fred when he lost his job at the blacksmith shop in Roanoke. Shocker.

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

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

Daniel_

That's a little disingenuous.

The federal government always spent money - the priorities have changed, but so has everything else. Certainly there was no unemployment assistance in the thirteen colonies, but I have never seen it suggested that apportionment only means "of congressional seats".

Social spending is not the only spending - there is military, infrastructure, policing, border control; hundreds of other things.

Look at it in this way - if a state is shown to have many more illegal immigrants than another, maybe it needs more spending on INS and border protection. Just a thought.

__________________

╔═════════════════════════════════════════╗
Overhead, the Albatross hangs motionless upon the air,
And deep beneath the rolling waves,
In labyrinths of Coral Caves,
The Echo of a distant time
Comes willowing across the sand;
And everthing is Green and Submarine
╚═════════════════════════════════════════╝

dksuddeth

it's not hard to conclude that we do when we see cases like slaughterhouse, dred scot, wickard v. filburn, kelo, and Dickerson v. Gretna police and Jefferson County Parish Sheriffs office just to name a few.

---------- Post added at 03:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:51 PM ----------

all of your instances are something that the feds should be forcing the states to do through the 14th Amendment, not taxing and spending on their own.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

dc_dux

Actually there are very few federal entitlement programs, although they do represent the big ticket budget items - social security, medicare/medicaid, veterans payments, food stamps, etc.

Beyond the primary purpose of apportioning Congressional representation, the census is most often used for the apportioning federal funds for for categorical or block grants to state and local governments and other such programs....programs that return federal tax dollars back to local communities.

---------- Post added at 05:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:05 PM ----------

But its not worth continuing another one of those endless discussions on constitutionality.

I'm with Madison, who as president, signd the bill into law that authorized the census to be used for other purposes for the betterment of the country (as noted above in the 1810 report on data on "arts and manufactures")...nothing to do with apportionment or taxes

On a lighter note, does Christopher Walken sound like a Libertarian in this SNL skit?

YouTube - how to complete a census

YouTube - how to complete a census

Lighten up, guys. Nothing personal, but dont take yourselves so seriously.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

roachboy

libertarians.

on the one hand, they'd prefer to erase all of reality since the late 18th century, while on the other they like to recapitulate the most one-dimensional kind of market ideology--all this 19th century horatio alger stuff (which of course wouldn't exist if they had their way and sent us all running back to the late 18th century.) and this all works better the less you know about what it might have been like to be alive in the late 18th century. you'd probably live 35-40 years. there'd be no running water, no plumbing, no electricity, no telecommunications--so we couldn't be having this discussion. chances are that you'd be illiterate in any event, depending of course on your family's economic situation, which would circumscribe most things about you. o sure, being some yeoman farmer might have been a grand exercise in self-definition, particularly if you could afford servants, but for the kids of most yeoman farmers, i imagine most of what they had to look forward to was being another yeoman farmer, like it or not.
unless of course you were wealthy.
but everyone wasn't.
unless you think the society of creative anarchronism style of restaging the mideval period (for example) is accurate. you know, everyone's a baron except for a couple maoists who like being peasants but no-one really talks to them.

but of course everything was better then because Grand Heroes Bestrode the Earth, Giants among men who wrote Words in the Constitution that must be interpreted in an absolutely literal fashion except for the words that set up a framework for historical development through precedent, which is of course a Bad Thing, particularly when it leads to outcomes that you don't like (take your pick) on other grounds....but whatever. fine fine fine.

life wasn't so great if you lived in most 18th century cities, so it's better to not think real hard about them because they get in the way of the notion of the Halcyon days by forcing you to look at stuff like epidemics (no modern medicine, no conception even that disease was spread by germs---miasma more like) and class and within that what tenuousness of existence really meant at the time. but hey, not a problem, leave that stuff all aside and why the hell not, it's a libertarian fantasy 18th century that we all want where everything is exactly as it is now except all the things libertarians don't like about the present have all gone away. so i assume that this 18th century is probably like some strange costume drama, sturbridge village maybe, someplace where you can take a break from dressing up as a blacksmith and being all authentic to go have a mass produced cigarette and maybe take a leak in a functioning bit of indoor plumbing and then maybe, if you're quick about it, stop and check your email or text a couple friends to see who's driving along the highways to the local watering hole where you'll get mass produced beer and engage in mass-produced conversation.

o yeah, and there weren't a whole lot of books to read. no radio to listen to, no tv to watch. no baseball to go to.

let's all scamper back.
no elbowing now.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Cimarron29414

...but first, they take 20 cents of it!

---------- Post added at 05:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:13 PM ----------

Uh, huh. And all of this "advancement" we have enjoyed all these many decades was made possible by the ever increasing control of the federal government? You really are the smartest idiot I've met on the internet - and I mean that as a compliment.

...and I know SCA isn't really how it was. I've never seen a single ancient tapestry with a duct-tape whiffle bat for a sword.

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

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

Derwood

Most weren't.

But the framers were.

Coincidence that they didn't want things like taxes, etc? When you take the small handful of rich, smart people in an infant nation and let them make all the decisions, it's no surprise that there is not language detailing helping out the poor and stupid (which was just about everyone else in the country at the time).