Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, we can get into a little word game, trying to interpret exactly what "manner" means. I have found several definitions ("a way of doing or being", "the style or customary way of doing or accomplishing something", "a way of doing, being done, or happening; mode of action, occurrence, etc."), but much like the word, the definition is open to interpretation.
In subsequent posts, you mentioned the 1790 census (the first census) several times. Since this census was conducted 3 years after the Constitution was adopted, let's see exactly what was asked.
Even in this first census, we see that information was solicited that went far beyond a mere head count. In only six questions, the census got into areas of gender, and age, and race.
Name of the head of the household, though this was not used in a later, but notice it is only concerned with the head of the household, no other name of the others residing.
Each other question specifically is relevant to the need to asses representation. Though at the time, women could not vote, so as to the relevance of "free white females", there may have been some importance, but this I have not delved into.
Slaves is relevant to its determination as well as all free persons. all information other than the one mention and the need for the name (which I assume was for some aspect basic record keeping delineation), all are specifically purposeful and relevant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenGene
Let's look at another - the 1930 census.
House numbers for city dwellers.
Number of dwelling in order of visitation.
Number of family in order of visitation.
Name of each person.
Relationship of each person to the head of household.
Is home owned or rented.
Value of home if owned or monthly rental amount.
Does the family own a radio set.
Does the family live on a farm.
Sex of person.
Color or race of person.
Age of person at last birthday.
Is this person single, married, widowed or divorced.
Age when this person first married.
Did this person attend school since Sept. 1, 1929.
Is this person able to read and write.
Place of birth of this person.
Place of birth of the father of this person.
Place of birth of the mother of this person.
If person is foreign born, what is the native language.
What year did this person immigrate to the US.
Naturalization.
Is this person able to speak English.
Occupation, trade of profession of person.
Industry, or business name.
Class of worker.
Was person at work yesterday or the last regular working day.
If not, list the line number of the Unemployment Schedule.
Is this person a veteran of the U.S. Military or Naval forces.
What war or expedition.
Number on farm schedule.
Did people in 1790, and again in 1930, care nothing for our Constitution? Or, did they realize (as at least some of us realize today) that the Constitution directs Congress to make laws regarding the census?
Speculation. It does not properly identify legal legitimacy, nor does it explain how the additional information is relevant to purpose of apportionment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenGene
The Constitution (Article 1, Section 2) gives to Congress the power to make law regarding the manner by which the census is conducted.
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 Secretary shall, in the year 1980 and every 10 years thereafter, take a decennial census of population as of the first day of April of such year, which date shall be known as the “decennial census date”, in such form and content as he may determine, including the use of sampling procedures and special surveys. In connection with any such census, the Secretary is authorized to obtain such other census information as necessary.
Now this one I find interesting. Did you read the amendments concerning this section?
Quote:
AMENDMENTS 1976 - Pub. L. 94-521 substituted "Population and other census information" for "Population, unemployment, and housing" in section catchline, without reference to amendment of catchline by Pub. L. 94-171. Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 94-521 substituted "1980" for "1960" and "decennial census of population" for "census of population, unemployment, and housing (including utilities and equipment)", inserted "of such year" after "April", substituted "which date shall be known as the decennial census date" for "which shall be known as the census date", and inserted provisions authorizing the Secretary to take the decennial census in whatever form and content he determines, using sampling procedures and special surveys, and authorizing him to obtain other such census information as is necessary, in connection with the decennial census.[LEFT]
Read more: 13 USC 141 - U.S. Code - Title 13: Census - 13 USC 141 - Sec. 141. Population and other census information - vLex
[/LEFT]
So they added as to what he could choose in terms of content, but by what authority? I noticed a lot of revisions, edits, and strikes in much of this code. Even in the penalty sections, wording is changed that eludes to whether it was a crime or you were "required" to provide such for even the count itself. But this is where we get into the issue as you mentioned in the start, definitional meaning of a word and its exact intent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenGene
Of possible interest:
Questions beyond a simple count are Constitutional
It is constitutional to include questions in the decennial census beyond those concerning a simple count of the number of people. On numerous occasions, the courts have said the Constitution gives Congress the authority to collect statistics in the census. As early as 1870, the Supreme Court characterized as unquestionable the power of Congress to require both an enumeration and the collection of statistics in the census. The Legal Tender Cases, Tex.1870; 12 Wall., U.S., 457, 536, 20 L.Ed. 287. In 1901, a District Court said the Constitution's census clause (Art. 1, Sec. 2, Clause 3) is not limited to a headcount of the population and "does not prohibit the gathering of other statistics, if 'necessary and proper,' for the intelligent exercise of other powers enumerated in the constitution, and in such case there could be no objection to acquiring this information through the same machinery by which the population is enumerated." United States v. Moriarity, 106 F. 886, 891 (S.D.N.Y.1901).
Census in the Constitution - 2010 Census (http://2010.census.gov/2010census/why/constitutional.php - broken link)
The decisions by the court are interesting. The case made by the government is similar to the case made by some here concerning the usefulness of the information. The court affirmed that the Constitution does not define by its mention such additional powers and here is where I have a problem concerning the courts explanation and ruling. They explain that even though it does not define such additions, that the information by the government is useful for such purposes as to better facilitate its role.
Now that in my honest opinion is not a valid supported reason. First, the court essentially legislated from the bench by allowing such an addition to be assumed in its powers. The reasons for such usefulness, or ability are not within the bounds of the court to determine past the powers vested by the Constitution.
What should have happened here is that the court should have affirmed the limitations to the law and then congress if it felt such an issue was of importance should have taken steps to amend the Constitution to define such, lawfully extending the powers concerning the Census. They did not interpret (well they did, they admitted its limitation), but they went outside of the bounds to assume intent and legitimacy without validation to the constitutions declaration of powers.
The argument was even used concerning "The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years... ...in such manner as they shall by Law direct." which is honestly a circumvention of the context to find support for its misuse.
The lawyer arguing for the plaintiff did a very poor job arguing the case in my opinion and I am a bit disappointed in the position of the court concerning the evidence used to support the defendant.
Personally, I think it is a terrible case all the way around. Poorly argued and lacked a legitimate ruling.
You should answer question 1 and then send it in.
They only should need to know how many people you have at the current residence.
Anything else is not needed to determine schools, how many representatives and funding to your state.
If government is telling me some places are going to get funding based on race, religion, or if I rent, own a house etc I question if that is fair and goes against the concept of the constitution. Either way 10 questions will become 20 questions next year and if you answer all 10 you will be saying to them you will answer anything they want you too.
Sure they talk tough, but something tells me that most will comply and fill out the census. For all their talk of rebelling, they are conservatives, and as conservatives they will comply. They will pay their taxes and vote for the other major party in November. They will whine and complain while they do it, but they will do it.
Huh? Have you been drinking?
More ignorant rambling from someone that has no clue whatsoever about the tea party movement. You should try getting your news and information from sources other than Kos, HuffPo and MSNBC. I mean, I appreciate the free entertainment, but I'm not sure you intended to look so foolish...
OF COURSE RACE IS RELEVENT! Our districts were remapped because of race. The was done in federal court.The districts were only represented by white people and were predominatly hispanic. If you were a minority, would you not want representation?
When our country was founded it was by white Europeans, that is not who we are now. We are a diverse population and our elected officials should reflect that diversity!
REMEMBER TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION??????
The apportionment problem concerning issues such as you mention in respect to race is not an issue with the census, it is an issue with specific misconduct by those who drew the districts and more specifically a task to which is better suited for abuse when one knows specifically these answers concerning the population.
Now I can see some relevance in such as a position to combat such abuse, but that abuse is a result of misconduct, not a general purpose of proper representation itself. That is, only the count is important when we consider the representation. When one begins to consider drawing districts based on race, one is inserting nefarious purpose into the process.
So if your position is that a district should be drawn because of race, then I think that to be counter to the very purpose of a free and equal society. We do not seek a race to represent us, we seek a representative to which will properly hear and voice the concerns of those he represents. To imply that only those of like race could attend such... well... that is a rather racist view.
edit:
I have some more thoughts on the race issue.
First, how does race determine proper representation? By claiming it does, do we not state that for instance, a black person can better represent black people than a white person or the other way around? By what reasoning can we come to such a conclusion? Is not the role of a representative that of which to determine through discussion with those they represent their needs and then taking those needs to the table to be voiced? If we are a different race and you tell me that the schools are in dire shape in certain areas of town and by taking that concern, I bring legislation to the table which remedies such, have I not properly represented your concerns? So by what role does "race" play in this and how will attending to such racial position change the outcome of my example? Will a white person always properly represent white people? Will a black person always properly represent black people? If this is not a constant, they by what advantage does specifying such make in and how it concerns representation?
Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann told the Washington Times that she and her family will not be fully filling out the 2010 census forms.
Bachmann, a Republican, said her family will only be indicating the number of people in the household, because "the Constitution doesn't require any information beyond that."
Bachmann believes the upcoming census to be "very intricate" and "very personal" and expresses concerns about ACORN's involvement in the data collection. The community organizing program came under scrunity after charges of voter registration fraud during the 2008 presidential elections
Seems like only six months ago that Representative Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) was feverishly encouraging people to refuse to fill out their census forms, because of ACORN...and the Japanese internment camps...and, junk? It was, I'm sure, eloquently expressed at the time. But now, as the editors of the Minnesota Star-Tribune point out, this could all backfire on Bachmann, because as it turns out, it's really important for Minnesotans to participate in the census, lest they lose a seat in Congress:
Since supposedly there is total equality in this country, the questions are absurd.
As someone else suggested, the question of citizenship is useful. Additionally I can see where your residence is as revelant. Meaning geographic area, not specific address.
Anything else stands to be used for the agenda of politicians, especially race.
As long as questions like that appear on documents, racism will exist in America. Racism will become a thing of the past only when it becomes a nonissue. We need to stop having an option for people to enter their race on forms...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I may have surpassed the Tea Party Bunch.
