Census
 

I had a business trip today and while driving I thought I would listen to some talk radio to see what all the fuss is about. On both beck and rush I heard them say to either not respond to the 2010 census or to only fill out the number in the household and that's it. What is the purpose of this?

They're trying to scare the dumber individuals in our society into thinking that the big bad government is using the census to spy on you. Minnesota Representative Michelle "Loony Tunes" Bachman (the same woman who thinks Obama is not only Muslim, but is in fact an actual terrorist) is the one that first spouted this theory. They seem to be trying to parrot her.

What he said.

Frankly, anyone who listens to this advice gets what they deserve. They'll end up being underrepresented in the results and potentially lose congressional districts and voices in congress.

Resistance to filling out the new, longer Census form goes back for at least the last two cycles. Various elements within the libertarian/anarchist community were urging the same type of monkeywrenching last time around, and were denounced by the O'Reilly/Beck/Limbaugh/Hannity crowd as paranoid, anti-American, anti-government crackpots.

Some folks object to the increasingly invasive nature of the questions (with newly-increased penalties for noncompliance). Others worry about the politicization of the Census (and since it's now under direct White House control, with ACORN doing a lot of the leg-work and promotions, they may have a point), with particular concern about its' potentially being used in politically- or racially-biased gerrymandering. The concern about ACORN is overblown, IMO, but given their recent and shameless Obama partisanship and willingness to engage in issue-specific advocacy and endorsement (in direct violation of the law as a 501 tax-exempt organization) I wouldn't be surprised at all if they -tried- to effect the Census in some way. Thankfully, ACORN seems to be almost as incompetent as they are corrupt, so this one doesn't really worry me personally.

If they ask me I'm only going to say the number of people and that's it. There's no reason to go more in depth.

I think they have two concerns...the one stated above by Dunedan that the longer form (the American Community Survey) is too intrusive (perhaps) and unconstitional (false)

And that ACORN is "doing alot of the leg-work and promotions" or being given a grant by Census (Michelle Bachman claim)....also false. ACORN is one of more than a thousand organizations, including the American Baptist Churches of the South, Boys and Girls Clubs, National Civic League...that have agreed to be Census "partners" and promote the Census.

Personally, I think Beck, Limbaugh are ultimately cutting of their nose to spite their face since the data is used not only for reapportionment, but also for federal grants to state/locals, etc.

The more Bech/Limbaugh followers who chose to break the law (yes, it is breaking the law to refuse to fill out the long form or to fill it out falsely), the less of their followers will be counted.

From the little bit that I heard on the radio, they were saying if you ignore the census and you have some legal punishment for it that it would get thrown out because it's unconstitutional. If this isn't true could beck and rush be in some sort of legal trouble themselves for giving bad legal advise?

The only thing you are legally obligated to give them is the number of people in your house, not all the other bogus questions.

Not according to the law.

Beyond the fine, your Congressional district will potentially lose big bucks (for the next 10 years), in the form of federal tax dollars returned to cities/states in numerous grant programs, if the undercount is significant enough by those who feel the need to protest.

The ultimate irony would be for Michelle Bachman's district to be so undercounted as a result of refusal of her loyal constituents to answer any questions to the point that she is re-districted out and loses her Congressional seat.

An as of yet unchallenged and (in my opinion) unconstitutional law. The Constitition states that the people will be counted for the purpose of apportionment. It does not state that you count their race, gender, income, religion, favorite color, dog's middle name, etc.

I for one will answer the enumeration question only. I may be fined. I will pay the fine and then sue.

What the Constitution says is:

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 law is codified.

i understand what the dunedan said--i don't agree with it, particularly not the nonsense about acorn, but whatever---but i wonder if there's something more to this action from the far right. what are they worried about exactly? the census is a useful policy tool at all levels of government: it's good to know populations, its good to know more information rather than less if you want to fashion coherent policy. don't you think?

because of what i worked on academically, i know more about the ways in which census data is used in the french context than in the american--there it's one of the more base-level datasets for the technocratic aspects of policy formation and implementation. it's also an ideological grid, but any survey no matter who does it is an ideological grid one way or another.

so i don't get it. is there more to these objections than what dunedan outlined?
btw this is a real question.
i genuinely am baffled by it.
maybe if i end up not spending the next couple days tied up with a music festival, i'll do some research, but haven't yet.

Enumeration means 1,2,3,4,5... "manner" means "how will you count them - door to door, survey, phone (obviously not relevant at the time). It doesn't mean what they can do it means they have the freedom as to HOW they can count.

I stand corrected. However, I thought that the only thing you had to provide was the number of people in the house due to what it says in the constitution. The other thing that solidified this in my mind was the countless people I've heard of that only answered the number of household members and were never fined or arrested.

Good luck on your court challenge!

BTW, I agree the long form is cumbersome and potentially intrusive, but I see the value of the data and dont see the nefarious intent projected by some (not you).

What beck was going on about was that the information would be redundant. He claimed that questions like how many square feet your house is or how man bedrooms is already a matter of public record and therefore doesn't need to be answered. I myself have never completed a census before. Not for any reason in particular, I don't think I ever received any info on it. I have been a homeowner for 4 years and haven't had any legal ramifications yet.

My answer in the simplest form is that the census in its current form is used to grow government - specifically the federal government. As you are aware, I oppose federal growth of the government.

I would guess it is highly unlikely that you would be fined, unless you go on Limbaugh and brag about it, and certainly wont be arrested.

The negative implications are of the federal tax dollar distribution formulas.

Don't dispair. The law he states is just that, a law. It is not "the Constitution." Laws get overturned all the time. Don't change your intent. I will happily pay $100 to fight this law. I already have two constitutional lawyers willing to fight the fine for free.
Who knows how far we can take it.

BTW, last census, I listed all of my family as "Native Americans", as we were all born here. I'll bet I just pissed some of you off. :D

So what's the underlying "fear" or downside to this Census? Is it not wanting to give too much information to the government?

I wouldn't mind letting them know basic information. Hell, if you pay taxes, you're giving the IRS quite a bit of info on yourself already, right?

In fact, there is a change for 2010:
If you get the American Community Survey (pdf - 14 pages of questions), you might have reason to bitch..but it is still required by law.

just because information exists at one administrative level doesn't mean that other levels have access to it.
you should look into what a problem it is to collect crime statistics nationally as a function of this information fragmentation. similar situation--though not as extreme--with epidemological information. and god knows what chaos there was when information sharing did happen effectively--why there were all those spies for the dept of agriculture about at one point providing soil and geological data and doing ph tests for farmers & gardeners---what were they really up to?

around here there are lots of fishermen. as an industry, regional fishing pursued rational self-interest in a relatively unregulated context to the point that they fished themselves out of a livelihood--you know, rationally using draggers that rationally destroyed the ecosystems that the fish they depended on required to reproduce. when the feds stepped in to put a stop to it, alot of fishermen blamed the regulations put in place to stop the wholesale destruction of the regional aquatic habitat for the problems that they had themselves created in the first place. so people think all kinds of stupid stuff, even in the face of reality, when it's right next to them.

are there questions about political affiliation on the census?

Congress has “directed” in Title 13 that the Census be carried out by the Bureau of the Census “as an agency within, and under the jurisdiction of, the Department of Commerce.” 13 U.S.C. 2. The Secretary of Commerce is directed to carry out the duties of this title and while he can delegate “the performance of such functions and duties,” he can only do so to “officers and employees of the Department of Commerce.” 13 U.S.C. 4.

If the Director of the Census now reports to the White House instead of the Secretary of Commerce, and the Census is not carrired out by officers of the Department of Commerce, penalty for non-compliance would be difficult to prosecute. Execution of the census without Commerce Dept. oversight is likely in violation of federal law and should be challenged.

Another myth. The White House intent is to be in the loop, not the agency to which the Census Director reports.

I just cited where federal law dictates who is legally required to conduct the Census, and it doesn't say a word about intent for any outside influence to be "in the loop". It is intentional that law prohibits such influence.

I'm afraid the only myth here is yours. I sincerely hope that this will be challenged in federal or the Supreme Court.

Every person in the Executive Branch is accountable to the President.

The myth that Obama intends to micro-manage the Census and circumvent the Secretary of Commerce is right up there with ACORN getting federal grants to conduct the Census.

for what reason is a challenge important?
i still have no idea what the point of this action is...maybe someone would be kind enough to fill me in?

I can't help but giggle that anyone would think they are accomplishing anything by boycotting the census. What a bunch of self-important nonsense.

Probably means more federal $$$ went to Native Americans, assuming others did the same. :thumbsup:

This idea is so absurd that only people who have never had to do any data management or were ever involved in any survey can buy it.

Let's assume for a moment that Obama is 100% willing and able to manipulate it to his advantage: why would he manipulate it at the micro level? At the individual level? Which would involve thousands upon thousands of interviewers? Besides, manipulating a census in real time at the micro level would require a sort of quasi-omniscience that is impossible to achieve. If he wanted to manipulate it, it would be much easier to do so through misleading "assumptions" when managing the data, and in that case truthfully answering the census would make the task much harder.

In fact, the census is the best way of influencing policy and letting the government know about your situation.

As for why Beck et al are actually doing this, my guess is that this is a preemptive attempt to delegitimize it. The biggest political problem facing capital R republicans is demographic. With a significant increase in minorities and urban areas (as most expect) redistricting could be very damaging to their political aspirations.

Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner.

:thumbsup:

THAR COMIN FER MA GUNNNNNNZZZZZZZZZZ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Seriously, though, it's just a bunch of petulant foot stamping by conservatives who are determined to make a case over every federal issue now that Democrats are in charge (where was this uproar when the Patriot Act went into effect?)

Some folks have been making an uproar since long before that, and have certainly included the monstrous USA PATRIOT Act in the aforesaid; folks like William Norman Grigg, who was fired from his position at the John Birch Society for his steadfast opposition to the actions of the Bush Regime. J. J. Johnson also comes to mind, likewise Dr. Ron Paul (14th Dist. TX).

Lets hope they really do disappear.

Shouldn't they just go ask the NSA for the info?

I mean, aren't we getting to the point where the government already knows all of this information? Can't they create the census with their own computers each year without input and expense from physically counting everyone? The local government knows who lives in which house and all the info on it, the IRS knows who you work for, the banks report how much money you made each year in interest, if people die, they get reported, the DMV knows if you have a driver's license and your picture, the schools know who the kids parents are, the police have information on criminal histories.

The only people that might not be counted are people who are really poor, people living overseas, and people who move a lot (without buying homes).

I love the fact that the same people who fear that the government know everything about them from monitoring the internet, phones, banking systems and so on are also frightened that the government are asking them questions about how many people live in their houses.

As has been said above, if the US census is used in the same way as the UK one, it will be used to apportion funding around the country and within each state.

This podcast explains why we should be concerned about the census:

http://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/1135/182..._100.3_KTLK-FM

summary please?

Cut and paste op-ed. Fail.

Is this simalar to? Dose stopid mofos think webe puting our heaters on dis paper!!!!!!

I will answer what I think is not intrusive, besides that I will leave it blank.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

$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.

Jumped to any conclusions lately?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

(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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.:shakehead:

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.

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

Whatever.

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.

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.

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. :thumbsup:

..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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

---------- 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.:thumbsup:

...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.

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).

Pretty much....labor laws, environmental laws, food/product safety laws, scientific/medical r&d, social safety nets, etc.

Call me stupid but I have yet to see where the Libertarian free market did this on its own....anywhere in the world at any time in history.

and we all know that a president would NEVER sign a law that was unconstitutional, right? Therefore, the alien and sedition acts signed by Adams must have been perfectly constitutional, even though jefferson later condemned it and pardoned anyone convicted of them.

I've yet to hear a libertarian successfully defend the notion that the "state" could run government better than the feds (outside of "but the framers wanted it that way!")

I live in Ohio, and our state government is a joke. They were billions over budget this year and went right to slashing things like education and libraries first (while ever championing adding casinos).

If you want the states to run/fund all this stuff, expect your state income tax to skyrocket (while your federal taxes, I imagine, stay the same).

No president since 1812 has seen fit to contradict or condemn Madison's interpretation of the role of the census....neither has any court.

pretty much what you're saying? that progressive is just the way it's going to have to be?

---------- Post added at 04:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:27 PM ----------

the 'old rich white guy slave owners' argument. gets em every time.

---------- Post added at 04:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:28 PM ----------

ok, if we pay the government to guarantee safe food products, how come they aren't held responsible when they fail at it?

I didn't mention slaves, but okay.

and no president or court has found that FDRs interpretation of the commerce clause allowing them to tell a farmer how much wheat they can grow for personal use is unconstitutional either, but we all know it is.

You guys crack me up!

You just cant stand the fact that your "free market, get government off our backs" ideology, while it may look great on paper to you and a handful of others (relatively speaking), has never been in the "people's" interest as a whole, but in the interest of the few.

---------- Post added at 05:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:34 PM ----------

dk...any government action that you dont like, you generally toss under the "unconstitutional" banner. That doesnt work for me.

We are not talking about dred scot here, or agricultural price supports or even the Patriot Act.

Back to the census.

Your interpretation of the unconstitutionality of the census beyond a simple "enumeration of people" is just that...one interpretation and a purely ideological one at that....and for the record, Madson, (the father of the Constitution?) disagreed with you by evidence of what he authorized by law for one of the nation's first censuses.

---------- Post added at 06:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:45 PM ----------

I honestly believe that this is what scares alot of people (not necessarily Libertarians, but many on the right):

Minorities, now roughly one-third of the U.S. population, are expected to become the majority in 2042, with the nation projected to be 54 percent minority in 2050.

US Census Press Releases

Pretending those minorities are not there, wont make that fact go away.

i just find it amazing.
the 18th century was a pretty interesting time in alot of ways, but jesus...living most anywhere in most any regular socio-economic situation was not pretty.
and there comes a point where these Panegyrics to the Grand Old Days based on seemingly no information about the period gets tired.

i'm certainly not saying the period was anything like a stone age.
i don't know where you got that idea.
but i do think that if most contemporary libertarians were to get sherman to set the wayback machine for, say, 1787 most places, they'd be dead in a matter of days. probably from some disease that had since been eradicated more or less. or strung up somewhere. and no-one would ever know. because record-keeping at that time--not real systematic.

but what i did say is the 18th century most libertarians evoke is the version you see in historical re-enactment parks.
which is fine.
just own up to it.

anyway, it was a digression and for that mea culpa.

Then a hundred years later....the Sherman Anti-Trust Act...but Peabody was the visionary!

This would be a major thread jack unfortunately, but a great new one.

Sound money, IE gold/silver standard, No central bank, 100% reserve banking,
government involvement restricted to fraud and property rights . . . I don't either, and that's the point. It would be a great read if you could share your knowledge about when in history it was tried and failed for reasons of its own implementation. Thanks

My point was that it has never been successful because a totally free market approach (not just banking and property rights) has never had the support of the "people" ...recognizing that in the past, it had benefited the few and not the many.
/end threadjack

and he wouldn't be the first elected president that endorsed an unconstitutional law after he came in to office. it's what elected officials do, talk about supporting the constitution and then find ways around it when they can't accomplish what they want to.

Or perhaps, unlike future presidents, Madison was a major author of the Constitution, and just might know the intent more than you.

Sweeping generalizations that presidents endorse unconstitutional laws after taking power does not make your position on the census any stronger.

and he conveniently left that intent out of all the debate papers and never contradicted major scholars like locke and justice marshall out of the loop? really?

nor does it make it any weaker. It merely shows that elected politicians always abuse the powers granted them.

um..dk? who do you mean by locke? john locke?

my bad, i was crossing two conversations. Not Locke, Tench Coxe.

The Census also has it's place in the medical field. Not having an acurate count of individuals and men/women can throw off medical/research funding, hospital facilities, placement of extremely expensive medical equipment, smaller clinics, etc.

Not to mention schools, fire stations, future water issues, land uses, police services and all that good stuff.

I bet 99.9% of Americans will respond to the census in a manner consistent with what they did in the past or based on their general predisposition to respond to something like the census without being influenced by imagined "movements". The enthusiasm surrounding this issue from the left reminds me of the fictional knight Don Quixote tilting at windmills, penned by Miguel De Cervantes Savedra.

For the record Glen Beck is not a champion of the "right". A few months ago I had never even heard of him, he is not accomplished in the private sector, the public sector, academia, religion, philanthropy... - other than being an entertainer what makes some of you think he has a special level of credibility and can have a measurable impact on how people respond to the census? Same question goes for Rush? These folks are first and primarily entertainers.

because the vast majority of their audience doesn't view them as entertainers. they view them as fonts of wisdom who sermonize from their radio pulpit about the evils of socialism and various other fairy tales. Don't confuse the motives of the entertainer with their audience