I suppose that if the crazies do come out, it will be because you merely discussed the topic, not because of your treatment of it. I was reacting to them, not you. The alternative (to never discuss anything of value) would be absurd. In short, sorry.

First, the First Presidency mentions that the Census will be used to determine school boards, implying that some count of schoolage children is prudent. The age of citizens is certainly a count, though it’s also a count of an aspect of society used for governmental planning. While you could argue that no possible Constitutional application could come of the other data, it’s certainly not a different type of information gathering than that used by the Federal Census almost since its inception. (Besides, working an argument which passes your Constitutional muster into a Church statement while they are so clearly citing the importance the Census will provide to public schools is beyond silly.)

After this point I get pretty indignant.

The American Community Survey merely replaces the long form on the Federal Census which was included beginning in 1940, before which every household responding to the census was forced to answer a litany of personal questions including many of the following:

- Whether citizens could read or write (through 1930)

- Crop inquiries and manufacturing (1880)

- Number in the household deaf or dumb, mentally ill (1850 Census)

- Value of property (1850 and earlier)

- Vocation of individuals in the family whether agriculture, commerce or manufacture (1820(!)).

Have you seen those ancient, barely-readable Census forms? Yup, those fields for “race”, “occupation”, “place of birth”, “mother tongue” and “trade” aren’t typos.

Connor, the Census was always intended to be a decennial census, so I suppose you could make the argument that the scheduling of the ACS is itself unconstitutional, as they’re sending it out on a monthly basis in order for it to be fricking possible to send to so many people, but this becomes a matter of organization rather than form, and form is the argument you are so clearly making in your post. The sillier, more recent questions obviously intended for further pork spending are no more dangerous than these examples, nor do they represent more invasive questioning.

Your central thesis appears to be one of government intrusion and delusions of grandeur, which is a fair point to make but appears to be an urgent, pressing matter by your language and lack of context. In reality the new Census reflects merely the (only slightly) changing form of the document through the last 190 or so years of U.S. history, with very invasive questions included for nearly two centuries (since the 1820 Census, when the document began to include questions beyond counting the number of men, women, children and slaves in the household).

When you talk this way, you bring out the crazies who prefer to understand neither history nor context in the pursuit of constant outrage at this administration, and you oughta know it. You could make the case that the modern age of technology makes this data more ripe for abuse, or otherwise put your argument into historical context, but making your point this way only brings out the type of people who have little interest or motivation to understand the point you’re really making upon stumbling over here from the darkest, most hateful districts of cyberspace. Make the historical case (as you did), but points of convenience (such as portraying the ACS as unprecedented when in fact the entire census including those type of questions had been simplified in order to accomodate the ACS – everybody had to answer these questions a century back) do everybody a disservice.

Now, this GPS stuff, on the other hand, does frighten me. I can’t really find a source other than the partisan drivel at WorldNetDaily for the rationale behind this plan or think of a reason other than bureaucracy for the policy, though I think popular anonymity is an important check against tyranny and this has to go.

I really do believe that we need to do as Danika suggests and give officers the benefit of a doubt when protecting themselves, though those who abuse their authority or hurt those they are supposed to protect are scum.

To understand its use in the Constitution, it’s best to try to determine the definition of the word itself. For that, Noah Webster’s 1828 dictionary is a wonderful resource. Here is his definition of “enumerate”:

To count or tell, number by number; to reckon or mention a number of things, each separately; as, to enumerate the stars in a constellation; to enumerate particular acts of kindness; we cannot enumerate our daily mercies.

The Constitution, then, only authorizes a counting of individuals—not the collection of all sorts of demographical and personal information about them.

For my example, I’d like to use the Kevin Garn story that has been in the news lately about the Utah politician that had to resign because he hot-tubbed naked with a 15 year old girl. Garn was supposedly a fine, upstanding politician. He was a bishop and a Republican! In the minds of 75% of Utahns, and in the eyes of his wife and kids, Garn was one of the types of politicians that were above the sleaze and lies and corruption of 98.7% of all the other politicians who agreed with what he’d done by giving him a standing ovation when he confessed (implying that each one of the ones standing in the ovation had skeletons in their own closets!). But, as we know, once a politician aquires some authority as he supposes, he WILL usually exercise unrighteous dominion. As we now know, Kevin Garn was one of the corrupt ones, much to the surprise of his spouse and kids and the public.

So, I submit again, that 98.7% of cops are in the same position as the corrupt politicians. Everyone supposes them to be one of the few who are NOT corrupt, but I submit that almost all men, once they get a little authority, as they suppose, will end up exercising unrighteous dominion.

You’ve missed the point of my post, apparently. The only constitutional authority they have is to ask how many people live in your home. That’s all. No names, no ages, no birthdays, no race, etc.

As for the other, more invasive questions, those are part of the American Community Survey which is being sent to 1 in every 6 households, declared as mandatory, and backed up with fear-mongering and threats of a fine of up to $5,000 for non-compliance.

No straw men here.

Nearly every comment by rmwarnick on this blog consists of such an ignorant attack. I’ve called him out on it several times, but he doesn’t listen. Instead, he goes a couple months without commenting here, and then pops his head up on some other occasion to say essentially the same thing… over and over and over again.

It’s quite tiresome, but it’s apparently all he knows.

Whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force.

I thought this quote by Joseph Smith might help persuade any LDS who don’t understand what Jefferson meant:

Shall we be such fools as to be governed by its laws, which are unconstitutional? No!…The Constitution acknowledges that the people have all power not reserved to itself. (Joseph Smith, Latter-day Prophets and the United States Constitution)

Indeed, some laws aren’t legal.

Where were you and the other newly-anointed right-wing constitutional guardians when Congress passed the USA PATRIOT Act, the Military Commissions Act, and the FISA amendments?

I was arguing with other people (who professed to be conservatives) that the patriot act and the military commissions act were were un-Constitutional (therefore illegal). Don’t assume that just because I’m a “Constitutional guardian” today that I wasn’t during Bush’s administration.

Nice try smearing me with that broad brush tactic though.

You want me to take the “some laws aren’t legal” argument seriously? Where were you and the other newly-anointed right-wing constitutional guardians when Congress passed the USA PATRIOT Act, the Military Commissions Act, and the FISA amendments?

Great job refuting the legal and moral issues that Connor presented in this post. We’re all convinced… The economic ends justify the intrusive/illegal means. Anyone who isn’t completely obedient to their government are Luddites. Gotcha!

Fortunately, the few Luddites who don’t like the Census don’t have the power to stop it.

I think it’s hilarious that Rep. Michele Bachmann stopped urging her constituents to break the law when she realized that a Census under-count might lead to the elimination of her seat in Congress.

One of my issues is that the requested information is in no way anonymous or private. There is a bar code on the form with our address, so therefore there is no option for an anonymous survey. If the government really feels it needs to know how many flush toilets are in my house, or what my husband’s job was last week, or how much our property taxes are, or how much we pay for sewer/garbage/water, then provide a method for that information to be collected anonymously. I wouldn’t mind doing it then (maybe). But having it forced on me without any option to stay anonymous is ridiculously intrusive.

I’m also not crazy about the Census Bureau essentially stalking me to get the form back. That’s just plain obnoxious and does NOT make me willing to provide any more info than I absolutely have to provide. I wonder if the First Presidency knows about the American Community Survey and realizes how bad it is. I was frankly amazed at the response online when I said I wouldn’t provide all the information on that survey. You’d think I’d said that Joseph Smith wasn’t a prophet or something. Not at all the same thing, in my opinion. This is not a gospel principle to follow; it is governmental intrusion of the highest order.