March 20, 2010
Many of you by now have received your 2010 Census form in the mail and have waded through the questions. I must admit I was braced for much more intrusive questions but was still wondering why the federal government needs to know whether I own or rent the dwelling I am inhabiting and how that allows them to ascertain my states representation.
On the very front of the envelope it states “U.S. Census Form Enclosed YOUR RESPONSE IS REQUIRED BY LAW.” And I thought to myself, oh really? If the central government is defined by the constitution and all other powers are reserved to the states or to the people (10th Amendment) where do they get their power to go beyond that?
So I did a bit of research and this is what I found:
Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution states: “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 word enumeration means to count or list one after another. The clause further defines the reason for ascertaining this number and that is to determine the number of representatives for each state and for the purposes of apportionment of direct taxes. And the definition of Census simply means “a complete enumeration of a population.” But I guess Census was easier; after all who wants to go around saying enumeration all day?
And as far as the closing stanza the term “in such manner” means the method in which it is to be completed shall be directed by law from Congress. It says nothing of adding additional purposes to the enumeration, I mean census, and the entire Federalist Paper #55, believed to have been written by James Madison February 13, 1788, speaks only of counting the inhabitants of each state for the purpose of ascertaining the number of representatives for those states.
Now remember I said that the envelope stated you had to answer the questions “by law?” Well that is found under Title 13 U.S.C. Section 221(a) and (b) which assigns a fine of $100.00 for each unanswered question and a fine of $500.00 for any false question.
Okay, I found the law but for any federal law to be valid it must by constitutional. And anyone who has done any research at all into the constitutionality of federal law knows that the federal government will stretch any logic it can to build a nexus from the Constitution to the law even if it is absurd. It doesn’t make them right it just makes them wrong with a gun.
In Morales V. Daley Secretary of Commerce, dealing with a challenge to the 2000 Census; Morales believed the various questions asked on the census form was an invasion of his privacy and was unconstitutional. I think we can all guess the outcome of this case but what is interesting is not the predictable outcome but the reasoning’s for that outcome.
The court cited a Supreme Court Case of McCullough V. Maryland (1819) in which the court stated: “The Constitution orders an enumeration of free persons in the different states every ten years. The direction extends no further Yet Congress has repeatedly directed an enumeration not only for free person in the States but for free persons in the Territories, and not only an enumeration of persons but the collection of statistics respecting age, sex, and production. Who questions the power to do this?”
It is amazing to me that the Supreme Court flat out admits that Congress is acting outside the constitution when they state “The direction extends no further Yet Congress has repeatedly directed…” A clear example of Congress acting as it wants regardless of the Constitution solely because they want it and the Constitution be damned! We will see more of this shortly.
The Morales case goes even further by citing United States V. Moriarity (1901) stating: “This does not prohibit the gathering of other statistics, if ‘necessary and proper,’ for the intelligent exercise of other powers enumerated in the constitution… For the national government to know something, if not everything, beyond the fact that the population of each stated reaches a certain limit, is apparent, when it is considered what is the dependence of this population upon the intelligent action of the general government.”
I don’t know about you but when I read the foregoing utterance by a justice of our government I could only think “What Arrogance.” They wish us to believe that they can do anything under any pretense if they can tie one action with a separate power. With that logic why not have the IRS collect and determine postage rates. After all they deal with money, our money, but money none the less. And the audacity to think that the federal government has the authority to not only know anything about you but EVERYTHING because we are all just a bunch of serf dependents waiting to be told what to do by our intelligent general government. Do you wonder now why we have so many Big Brother conspiracies out there? Makes you wonder if they are really conspiracies or maybe finders of the truth when our own government speaks of the people this way.
The Morales case argued that many of the questions go beyond the enumeration of states inhabitants to areas that are not part of the powers of Congress. The government responded that the courts in Wisconsin V. New York (1996) “makes it clear that the Constitution has given to Congress very broad discretion in conducting the census.” Really, maybe they read a different Constitution from the one I have? It seemed pretty cut and dry to me – count the number of people to determine representation and direct tax apportionment. Where is the broad discretion listed in the Constitution if not only in the minds of those that want it that way? A typical tactic of the left is to read the Constitution for what it can do for them not for what is says.
Morales goes on to explain further citing “Department of Commerce v. U.S. House of Representatives, 525 U.S. 316 (1999), notes that the census as mandated by the Constitution is for enumeration so that congressional districts may be established, but that the census-taking process has a long history of including much more than a simple headcount.”
So now we actually have a little truth streaming through the clouds of government obfuscation; “the census-taking process has a long history of including much more than a simple headcount.” So you see asking for more than just a head count is beyond the constitutional power of the Congress BUT we’ve been doing it this way for such a long time and the stupid dependents have given us the information so we keep on doing it.
The Morales case goes on to argue that because of the historical fact that the Census has always asked questions that apparently any question may be asked when it stated: “The Census Bureau points out that from the very first census, performed in 1790, Congress authorized questions pertaining to age, gender, and race. It also points out that the Supreme Court defers to the statutes of the First Congress because so many Framers of the Constitution were members of that congress. The fact that the First Congress included questions in addition to the head count is strong support for the constitutionality of additional questions as a general proposition.”
And though technically correct, they did answer questions pertaining to race and gender due to the apportionment rules within the Constitution that required it. Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3, prior to what was mentioned above states: “…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…” So you can see that in order to determine the correct number for apportionment/representation they needed to establish the separation of these numbers and it was not JUST to gain more statistical data.
You can read the history of the First Census from the Census Bureau’s own report archived at their web site. Contained within this archive is the pertinent information gathered which states: “The schedules which these officials prepared consist of lists of names of heads of families; each name appears in a stub, or first column, which is followed by five columns, giving details of the family. These columns are headed as follows:
Free white males of 16 years and upward, including heads of families.
Free white males under 16 years.
Free white females, including heads of families.
All other free persons.
So even though they may have “asked” or counted based on family names it was at its basis solely an enumeration of the population garnering the numbers within a household and nothing more. The justices use of this as a basis for the full expansion of “knowing everything” is a far cry from the purpose and intent of the enumeration clause.
What I find very interesting is the government’s assurance in the Morales case that we can trust the government to do what they say. In particular they stated: “the Census Bureau assures him and the court that the law forbids the Bureau from attributing Van Fleet’s answers to Van Fleet.” (Van Fleet was a codefendant on the case) So if the Census Bureau does not attribute our answers to our names then why do they need our names? After all the majority of the census is based upon place of residence, to include unusual places such as college, nursing homes, etc, and with the exception of the homeless which is also discussed in the census documents. So why connect all this data to individuals if there is no intent to tie that information to the individual?
The answer will surprise most of you but it is for historical reasons. From the very first census the data has been made available to certain groups such as genealogical societies, veteran groups, and others. In fact the very first census, under President Washington, Congress passed an amendment to the bill to provide for selling the data to genealogical and patriotic groups to assist in the recovery of funds. Again we are asking more and more questions because that’s the way we’ve always done it, but it is not constitutional.
The final argument by the court was: “Applying the Wyoming v. Houghton analysis, it is clear that the degree to which these questions intrude upon an individual’s privacy is limited, given the methods used to collect the census data and the statutory assurance that the answers and attribution to an individual will remain confidential. The degree to which the information is needed for the promotion of legitimate governmental interests has been found to be significant.”
So again we see their logic; the government wants the data so they pass the questions to the Census Bureau and have them add it to the census and make it a crime not to answer the question. And if anyone dares question their authority they risk thousands of dollars in fines. And of course they ask us to trust them because they have done so well in the past like with social security.
Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!
The bottom line is that under the strict interpretation of the wording of the Constitution the expanded questions, like do you rent, mortgage, or own your home outright, are outside the constitutional authority of the government. But they have passed the law, constitutional or not, that empowers them to do so. Again, it doesn’t make them right it just makes them wrong with a gun and for most in this country that is enough to get them to comply and that is just what they expect from this dependant population.
� 2010 Michael LeMieux - All Rights Reserved
LeMieux was born in Midwest City, Oklahoma in 1956 and graduated from
Weber State University in Utah with a degree in Computer Science. He served
in both the US Navy and US Army (Active duty and National Guard) and trained
in multiple intelligence disciplines and was a qualified paratrooper.
He served with the 19th Special Forces Group, while in the National Guard,
as a Special Forces tactical intelligence team member. He served tours
to Kuwait and Afghanistan where he received the Purple Heart for injuries
received in combat.
Mr. LeMieux left military duty at the end of 2005 after being medically discharged with over 19 years of combined military experience. He currently works as an intelligence contractor to the US government.
Michael is a strict constitutionalist who believes in interpreting the constitution by the original intent of the founding fathers. His research has led him to the conclusion that the republic founded by the Constitution is no longer honored by our government. That those who rule America today are doing so with the interest of the federal government in mind and not the Citizens. Michael believes that all three branches of government have strayed far from the checks and balances built into the Constitution and they have failed the American people. A clear example is the Second Amendment, which the Supreme Court and the founders have all said was an individual right and could not be "infringed" upon, now has more than 20,000 state and federal laws regulating every aspect of the individuals right, a definite infringement. He has traveled around the world living in 14 States of the Union including Hawaii, and visited (for various lengths of time) in Spain, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Korea, Scotland, Pakistan, Mauritius, Somalia, Diego Garcia, Australia, Philippines, England, Italy, Germany, and Puerto Rico.
Michael now lives in Nebraska with his wife, two of his three children, Mother-in-Law and grandchild. His hobbies include shooting, wood-working, writing, amateur inventor and scuba diving when he can find the time.
Contact Michael through his Website: www.constitutiondenied.com