Minn. lawmaker vows not to complete Census

[fightingquaker13]

+10 Alf, I am in 80% agreement.
FQ13

[Rastus]

...........The lawmaker should abide with the laws passed.  Well, unless congress wants to exclude itself from this law like it has with others......cause they're special.   (like smoking in federal buildings)...........

I've got a question Alf, but first several points to consider, then the question.

     I agree Congress must abide by the laws of the land. 
     I don't doubt there is a law stating all this information must be collected.
     I don't doubt, I mean, I really don't doubt that there is a fine and penalty that has been established for non-compliance.
     Is the law that is enumerated here constitutional?

The key is the final statement above.  We don't want to have congress people who are sheep and who will follow laws instituted by promulgation in the CFR in conflict with the U.S. Constitution by some bureaucrat do we?  Why would anyone want a lawmaker that is willing to submit themselves to a lesser entity's promulgation of law in conflict with a higher governmental law?  There is a lot of bowing down to follow the "almighty law" here, but I have not seen anyone dispute or adequetely discuss the constitutionality of the law.  The congresswoman's issue was not that a law existed, it was that the questions being asked were unconstitutional.

There are people we all know in our daily lives on and off this board who have failed to grow up and become real citizens.  I guess that's their level of understanding and as far as they can go with what they have available for now.  They rush headlong into "law worship" and the "rule of law" diatribe which is putting the horse before the cart.  I prefer to take a measured, less rash and irrational jump to a conclusion.

So...I ask the question, are the things that are asked by the census contrary to constitutional limits?  I'd really like some good discussion on this Alf, like the type you provide.  What I want to dismiss are the "I think that..." or the "This is just like....." or the "I know because my cousin Vinny...." type responses that don't go to the core of the question.  Are these things being asked constitutional?  I will only answer those things that are constitutionally required, so I want to know for certain what I can exclude. 

With everything going on and closing in on and around us, I plan on going to the mat on this one so I need to be confident I know the right answer.  It is our duty as U.S. Citizens to not be a doormat to bureaucrats or politicians.  If we cave in, we deserve the fruits of the sheep.

[Hazcat]

Rastus,

Read this.

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_cens.html

[tombogan03884]

 I have no problem with the Census being taken, it's Constitutionally mandated, it's how congressional districts are established and the questions on Alf links do not seem to be invasive. I have Major objections to the Census being run by the White House instead of under the authority that has managed it for the 200 years, and even bigger objections to involving an organization that has already been convicted of election fraud in multiple States in 2 election cycles.
The answer how ever is not in obstructing the census but the removal by whatever means needed of the socialist, illegal alien, usurping, bastard and his globalist cronies.

Rastus, Don't bother arguing with FQ, He would excuse sodomy as "following to close".

[Hazcat]

The White House gave it back to Commerce BUT, ACORN is still being contracted.

[Sponsor]

[fightingquaker13]

Ok Rastus
Here's your raw data:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. 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 Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such Enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.


This means the ability to conduct a census is not just an enummerated power, BUT an enummerated duty. The question then becomes, what can they ask? Like every law abiding republic (and yes I'm one of those sheep who think the rule of law should mean something) precedent matters. So, how have the the census questions changed since 1790? Should these changes be viewed as legit? Should we pretend we live in the 18th century? What safe guards should be in place to preserve privacy? Should we  ignore the fact that the government needs information to do its job? Are you willing to pay to hire Gallup to get that info outside of the census? These are are all valid questions Rastus, and I mean that sincerely. We just need to decide, at the end of the day whether we want to just count heads, or use the opportunity to gather other (under the current and forseeable system) necesary information. If not, how do we get it? A critique is one thing, but without a plan, its just noise.
FQ13

PS As far as administration, it was originally under the judiciary, then then the US Marshalls office, then commerce, then the White House, now back to Commerce.

PPS As far as sodomy, I would chalk it up along with smoking dope, drinking whiskey or not wearing a motorcycle helmet, as no one elses damn  business.

[Hazcat]

Simple, eliminate those programs that are necessitating the information.  For example Dept of Education.  It should be controlled locally NOT by the feds.

[alfsauve]

     Is the law that is enumerated here constitutional?

One might argue that it isn't "unconstitutional" for government to ask those questions.

Another might be that once you buy into the "interstate commerce clause" as the basis for most intrusions by the Federal government, then all the questions on the census and ACS just follow as necessary to conduct the programs.   

I'm with Hax, it's not a matter of the Census/ACS's constitutionality but that of all the intrusive programs.   

[tt11758]

As far as sodomy, I would chalk it up along with smoking dope, drinking whiskey or not wearing a motorcycle helmet, as no one elses damn  business.

When your behavior, whether it be smoking dope, drinking whiskey or not wearing a motorcycle helmet, ends up costing ME money (in the form of higher health insurance or car insurance premiums to pay for the cost of caring for the health problems YOU created for yourself) then it sure as hell IS my damn business.

[fightingquaker13]

When your behavior, whether it be smoking dope, drinking whiskey or not wearing a motorcycle helmet, ends up costing ME money (in the form of higher health insurance or car insurance premiums to pay for the cost of caring for the health problems YOU created for yourself) then it sure as hell IS my damn business.

Be careful what you wish for tt. As any good anti will remind you, you are far more likely to be the victim of a gunshot wound (with all attendant costs) if you own a gun than if you don't. Should you be required to have a personal injury protection policy to cover me from paying for you, just like with owning a car? Sarah Brady would say yes.
FQ13