Census threat: $5,000 fines

I filled out our census form last night. They wanted our names, ages, race,and birth dates. I filled it out and mailed it today. Didn't appear to be intrusive in the least. Just basic information that probably already exists in a gazillion different places - governmental, banks, credit cards, employer, etc.

 

Pretty much stuff that is required when you fill out your taxes too...

 

I will gladly volunteer to be the first to be prosecuted.

 

I've received my census.
I've also change my plan as to how I will deal with it.

Please listen carefully and check to see if your form agrees with mine:

On the first page in the upper left corner is a large shaded box which contains two important items.
The first item is instructions related to question #1.
The second item is question #1.*

The rest of the questions contained in the census is not addressed in that box of instruction. Therefore I am answering the first question which is constitutionally required and skipping the other information as irrelevant for the purpose of the census.

* Question #1 "How many people were living or staying in this house, apartment, or mobile home on April 1, 2010?
Number of people = _ _

 

I second your request!

I thought people like you believed in the Constitution. I guess when it goes against your personal beliefs you sing a different tune. :laugh:

I doubt you are important enough to be bothered with, but if you are, you asked for it!

 

Seems like I heard on radio, some similar discussion related to law and enforcement in an area regarding 'constitutionality' where the judgement could go either way:

If a person is a party in a suit involving law and his defense is based upon the constitutionality of the law: Other citizens can join him in his defense by their request to be heard as having a vested interest in the outcome of the case as they, too, might become subject to the decision by the court and adversely affected if that person looses his case. The more who are willing to stand up in agreement with that one, the more persuasive is his (their) case and position especially if requested before a jury of peers. The court must then direct its attention more to the voice of the people and their rights and implications of its decision instead of the persuasions and effects upon one.

I wish we had a BB member practicing or retired attorney (or even a law student) who could clarify or give some guidelines or guidance about these things.

 

Who's being paranoid? And how are you qualified to give a medical diagnosis?

It is not a matter of 'harm' as long as we exercise our use of choice when presented with 'voluntary' decisions. But, the moment that enough people automatically 'volunteer' their exercise of choice and 'volunteer' beyond the requirements of being a good citizen under the constitution, they have voted by their choice, that it is an acceptable intrusion of government upon their rights to choose...... regardless of present or future conditions ....... and that the government may at some future point in time make such demands and intrusions upon the rights of the people as an act of law and not choice.

If one looks back in history, (in spite of the disclaimers regarding how the information will and will not be used which are posted in the census,) census data has been used to identify households of Japanese descent and rounding them up for placement in internment camps.

It is difficult to make a good prevailing argument for the federal government's need to know race or distribution of citizens by ethnic or racial origin. Whoever WE elect should be able to represent us regardless of their color or ours. Whoever represents us should be basing their decisions upon the very oath they take to uphold and defend the constitution and our republic from enemies from within or without.

Lastly, every poster has a right to express his opinion and to make his own decisions and choice concerning the census: But any poster who attempts to discredit another or mocks or ridicules another who has exercised their right of free speech to give their opinion, is being abusive to those whom he targets.

 

LOL, well now if that isn't ever the pot calling the kettle black.

 

:laugh: Now you're trying to be funny.:laugh:

 

I'm not a lawyer, but I am a political science major and I've studied the law and stuff in that. For a census failure to fill out/ false information case, that would be criminal. In the U.S. only a prosecutor or grand jury can file criminal charges.

 

If you fill out what is required by law and your haven't committed a fraud in doing that...... you have done your duty. If they chose to impose a $100 fine for failure to complete the rest of the form...... they MIGHT succeed. But they would hardly have a case to declare and indict you as a criminal. To do so would open up the whole issue as a constitutional question and should permit the entrance of other citizens as parties of interest to the suit.

 

I think the $100 fine for refusing or neglecting to fill out the form is a criminal penalty. I think you're confusing civil and criminal cases.

 

It would seem from all the questions about race on the form that Blacks are about to be replaced by the Spanish as the preferred pet group of the government.

 

I disagree...about the race and the income stuff.

The race questions are in place so our elected leaders can figure out who to pander to.

The income questions, IMO, are so they can "play the odds" and decide how many people are "evil rich" versus "middle class." They (and by 'they' I'm referring to BOTH D's and R's who are big-government proponents) have a fine line to walk while playing the class envy game. They can't classify too many people as "evil rich"--then they'd alienate too many voters. But they need some "evil rich" to blame, so they can be the scapegoats and summarily taxed.

 

By giving race info, we further propogate legalized, government-endorsed discrimination--Affirmative Action. Also, the purpose of racial makeup is so D's and R's can further gerrymander districts...making ridiculously-shaped districts, and actually hurting some folks by making their congressman represent twice as many constituents as others. Certain answers with regards to race are tantamount to saying, "I am a Democrat." This is used by both parties as ammo to gerrymander districts further. Since the D's hold the keys right now...they get to make the rules (in 2000, it was the R's). The result from this? More gerrymandered districts that look like deformed amoebas. Representation is not equal, nor is it geographically logical.

Then let them get it from those sources. For some of those sources, some of that info is pertinent. As to the census, it is not.

Is race?

This post had a somewhat ugly tone to it, IMO. If I'm reading it wrongly, then I apologize.

That's actually the whole point: The constitutionality. The purpose of the census is to get a count to divide districts. They don't need to know if I own or rent. They certainly don't need to know my race...not to find out pure numbers.

However...if they plan on pandering, or gerrymandering...then they need all kinds of info, so as to stay in power. I'm not interested in helping them do that.

 

So Ken...Let me quote your hero, Ron Paul...and perhaps you can tell me why you disagree with him on this issue:

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2004/tst071204.htm

I realize that you've been a libertarian 3-4 times in between your stints as a Democrat and a Republican. So it may be that I've simply lost track of your political affiliation this particular month.