There's ten questions on the 2010 census questionnaire. I believe several of them cannot legally be required, and I won't be answering them.
The Constitution says on the subject:
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 point here is twofold: a. that the federal government gets to count us, and b. that they can do it in such manner the law directs. Implied in the latter part, of course, implies "that doesn't violate the Constitution." Otherwise, they could just make pass a law that says "no one may criticize the Census," and it would not violate the First Amendment.
That's obviously silly, but it's the argument they actually make when they say they can require us to provide any information they choose to force us to provide, despite the fact that the Constitution says they cannot.
There's four types of questions on the form. The first is the explicitly constitutional one: the number of people living there; the second is about whether those people sometimes live elsewhere; the third type is individual identification: name, phone number; the fourth is demographic information for the purposes of tailoring government programs: age, sex, gender, and home ownership.
The first type of question is obviously legitimate, speaking directly to the point of the census as explained in the Constitution. The second is arguably legitimate, as it can aid in preventing double-counting.
The third type -- personal identifying information -- is arguably legitimate as well, for the same basic reason: helping to get an accurate count. Naming each person can aid the respondent in listing all the people properly, and the phone number might be used for clarification if necessary.
The fourth type, though ... it's pure nonsense. In fact, the federal government explicitly states the purpose is all about government programs, instead of enumeration. The constitutional purpose of the census is not served. This questions can, arguably, still be allowed and required, however, if any other part of the constitution is not violated in the process.
Unfortunately for the government, however, the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments do protect my right to privacy. Government cannot compel this extra-constitutional information from me without following due process, and "passing a law" is not due process.
So in the end, I'll only be answering the questions about how many people live here. I am undecided whether I will provide any names of the people living here. The justification is shaky, and it's arguable either way. I'll give them my phone number, though. The Census Bureau will be free to call me and ask for clarification, which will include recitations of relevant portions of the Constitution and legal precedents like Griswold v. Connecticut.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at February 07, 2010 08:51 PM | Email ThisI am not really aware of anyone being hassled to answer them or punished for not.
What I don't get is why not give it? Its not super privileged information, nor is it anything that could be used for anything nefarious. It is however some pretty useful information for governments, historians, people 100 years from now building a family tree, etc. When I was doing some political science work census data was invaluable. Why not help out? Its not required, but it does seem like a perfectly fine thing to do.
Posted by: Giffy on February 7, 2010 09:49 PMFirst, federal law says they ARE legally required, and they have penalties for not responding. As far as I know it's been decades since they fined anyone though. And, of course, my point is that the legal requirement violates the Constitution.
Second, why not give it? Several reasons. The first is that they are trying to violate my Constitutional rights, and that's as good a reason as any. Maybe if they asked nicely instead of violating my rights by ordering me to respond, then I'd be more likely to respond, but rights fade away if they are not upheld. So that's a good enough reason on its own. If I had no other reasons whatsoever, this alone would justify my refusal.
Further, this information can be and is used for nefarious reasons, reasons I already gave: they use the information to try to tailor government programs based on an area's demographic makeup. It is "useful," as you put it, in designing and implementing programs in ways that many of us dislike (and in many ways that are, additionally, unconstitutional), and in taking tax money away from one area and giving it to another. I see nothing "perfectly fine" about this. Government should treat everyone equally, and, thus, has no reason to care about my sex, race, age, or home ownership.
The government could force us to tell them what we ate for breakfast; how many times we had sex last year, and with whom; what our favorite color is; who we voted for in the last election. This also could be "invaluable" information for government agents, or work in political science and other fields. Obviously, what someone finds "invaluable" is irrelevant to the question: what matters is what information is being taken, for what reason, and whether it's justified.
I am not interested in "helping" anyone's work here: I am interested first and foremost in securing liberty (which is supposed to be the government's primary job, according to the document that founded this nation, but since it's not doing that job, someone has to).
This is why, by the way, no one is penalized anymore: they know they would likely lose in court. But the penalties remain on the books so they can try to scare people. So they are being extremely dishonest, too: saying it's illegal to not respond and trying to scare people into responding, all the while knowing that the only reason they don't actually penalize anyone is because if they did, the law would change and they could no longer scare people into responding.
Which is another excellent reason to not respond to those questions.
I know that what you say is probially true. I do not believe that the goverment will come after me. However, If they do I will fight it in court. If I lose I will accept punishment. That is the price of Civil Disobedience.
So I will answer 1,2,5,6 and 7
I will answer 3,4,8,9 and 10 with NOYB or NBBM.
When I told the census worker ten years ago that I declined to answer any questions other than the number of people living in my house she got very snotty with me. I pointed out that the Constitution was pretty clear on what she needed to ask me and then terminated the interview by shutting my door. They came back a second time (a different person) and she was much nicer about it and didn't push the issue when I explained to her why I refused to answer. I really didn't appreciate the first girls attitude though. Nice to know they don't teach workers to be rude, better if they didn't ask questions under the guise of "counting the people" that are extra-Constitutional.
Posted by: Calvin A on February 8, 2010 05:54 AMThe census worker came to my house and I told her I wasn't going to fill it out, I would fill out the constitutional information on the decennial census but no more. She said OK and left. Lots of people report bullying and threats from census workers towards those who don't participate.
Don't answer race questions, and don't let the racist Progressives categorize people based on their color. People come in many different colors, just like flowers. What matters is our integrity, work ethic, attitude, achievement, and the rest of the content of our character.
Posted by: Jeff B. on February 8, 2010 07:52 AMThe last one I sent back in with magic marker stating I would fill it out as soon as they cut ACORN off from anything to do with the census.
Posted by: andy on February 8, 2010 09:59 AM"The government could force us to tell them what we ate for breakfast;"
It is already coming to that. King County government is mandating that, in order to receive the lowest out-of-pocket medical benefits, employees must complete a program in which they record, over several weeks, the intake of vegetables in their diet. This has been going on for the last several years now, and this year it is worse. Employees are now required to perform readings and take exams relating to their diet or exercise habits. If I remember correctly, this year�s programs will require and the average person spends 30 minutes per day for 50 days to complete. One does not have to participate, but the alternative is higher out-of-pocket expense for medical coverage. I suppose the next requirement will be notarized copies of grocery receipts. Sheesh! One can only imagine where this is leading.
You don't see anything there about noncitizens (except for untaxed Indians) being excluded from the enumeration. So unless those illegal aliens are untaxed Indians ...
The Indian clause has never been changed, but I believe it has long since been irrelevant as "Indians not taxed" referred to those in unsettled parts of the country.
Posted by: Bruce on February 8, 2010 10:24 PMSo really none of this needs changing, since ALL people are now "free Persons" (or Indians not taxed, which I think don't exist anymore).
The ads I have seen urge us to fill out the census to ensure that we get our fair share of pork.
Posted by: travis t on February 9, 2010 02:40 AM"Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed."
Posted by: Bruce on February 9, 2010 09:10 AMWe are watching the fall of the Grand Old Party -they have been taken over by the kooker wing that hates the census and America in general.
sad.
Posted by: American and Proud on February 9, 2010 02:25 PMI wonder if you even realize that you're the only one expressing explicit hatred of America here?
Only the head of household was listed by name until 1850 when each person was named.
By all means, decline to answer questions you think are too nosy, but if you have ever done any genealogy research, you know how valuable the censuses are to people who want to "find their roots".
Posted by: Seeker on February 12, 2010 11:09 PMAnd many people refused to answer. In the late 1790s, the Federalists violated the First Amendment. And conscription, a policy not much different from slavery that blatantly violates the most fundamental human rights, was used by the North and South in the Civil War. Saying it happened before does not justify it, then or now.
if you have ever done any genealogy research, you know how valuable the censuses are
If you have every done any historical research, you know what a slippery slope it is to allow government to assert powers over the people that it does not have. We allow the unconstitutional Social Security, and it is used to justify the unconstitutional Medicare, which are used to justify the unconstitutional "Obamacare." Lines must be drawn.
And let's be frank here: no genealogy research is more important than the rights of living people. Who has gone before us is interesting, but to sacrifice our rights on the altar of their memory makes no sense whatsoever.
If the government asked nicely, I'd consider it; if they claim they have the right to force me to answer, I will not answer.