You're required by law to answer...

[Romulus]

Is what the census worker told me. I told him the Constitution only allows for you to ask how people reside here. And that's what I told him, and said I wont answer anymore questions. He said someone will come back, then left. Seemed like he was aggravated.

 

[Elwar]

Let them come back.

 

[Michael Landon]

I told them the same thing and he said "okay" and left.

- ML

 

[Danke]

You're not required to do anything, include answering how many people live in your home.

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Not that it hasn't been reiterated time and time again around here but something like this...

Notice to U.S. Census Bureau

Per (whatever U.S. code you want to cite) that authorizes the government to collect census information.

I spoke with such and such on such and such day and provided such and such lawful required census information of whatever.

The census worker threatened someone will be back and I am not in compliance with the law.

This letter shall serve notice against trespass. In addition I have posted no trespassing or no solicitation sings on my property.

Any future unlawful solicitations from the U.S. Census Bureau before the next lawful census to collect unlawful personal information will be trespass and harassment unless the census bureau responds withing ___ days citing the law that compels me to provide requested information.

Trespass or harassment will be subject to damages for my time at a rate of $x.xx per hour.

Send a notarized affidavit to the census bureau via certified mail. If they do not respond with _____ days send a followup, then a third. If there is no response and someone returns ask the person to leave and send the census bureau a bill.

 

[Romulus]

according to this, it is the law:

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_cens.html

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Ignorance of the law is not an excuse. According to government you ought to know what the law is.

 

[NerveShocker]

Well.. funny story here kinda. The census worker showed up when me and my friend were taking some practice shots in the yard with a pump-action gun that shoots small .177 cal and darts and such (definitely can be lethal though). This guy froze in the middle of my yard when he saw the gun and was nervous as heck the entire time and finally asked what my apt number was and if I could answer his questions.

I didn't really know the number and didn't wanna deal with him so I just had my dad talk to him. He probably told him everything though.. they already had the paper filled out to send in the census information anyways.

 

[Mini-Me]

according to this, it is the law:

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_cens.html

They cite the elastic clause in conjunction with this line:

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 question here is, what is meant by, "in such Manner as they shall by Law direct"? The above webpage essentially argues that it sanctions pretty much any question they may ask, and they briefly cited debates among the Founders/Framers about what kind of additional questions they should pose. Honestly, even if I don't like it, I find their argument hard to totally refute on this issue, especially given the historical context they provide.

Personally, I still think they may be incorrect, even if it's probably impossible to convince people of it. The explicit wording of the Constitution itself sounds to me that Congress is merely authorized to legislate the logistics of carrying out an enumeration (head count). The reason is, the Constitution explicitly mentions the information to be recorded by the enumeration - like separate counts of men and women, etc. - in the same article and section (altered by the Fourteenth Amendment). This seems to imply that the subsequent "in such Manner as they shall by Law direct" phrasing refers to the matter of logistics alone. For instance, it seems to me to refer to legislating issues like: Do we ask questions of the head of household eye-to-eye, or do a head count of each person eye-to-eye, or ask the head of household to fill out a census form, or what? The "Necessary and Proper" clause shouldn't really sanction additional questions either, since additional questions are clearly not necessary to perform the enumeration task as directed by the Constitution.

Still, I think we should count our lucky stars that the "expansive interpretation" merely includes asking more probing questions, rather than obtaining the minimal authorized information in increasingly intrusive ways. After all, strictly speaking, taking the Constitutional wording literally could be a bit dangerous on the census issue: It seems to imply that ANY manner of enumeration is appropriate...like running people through a Soylent Green processing plant and counting the resulting volume of people snacks. Obviously, you could make a lot of Bill of Rights arguments against that one, but still, the point is that it could probably be a lot worse.

 

[BuddyRey]

I happen to know that a lot of libertarians are actually volunteering for the census and using the opportunity to monkeywrench the system by not insisting on answers to those invasive questions, and by refusing to mark certain people down as "hostiles."

Don't ask me how I know this, but I do.

 

[Mini-Me]

I happen to know that a lot of libertarians are actually volunteering for the census and using the opportunity to monkeywrench the system by not insisting on answers to those invasive questions, or by refusing to mark people down as "hostiles."

Don't ask me how I know this, but I do.

Were you being figurative or literal when you referred to not marking people down as "hostiles?"

 

[BuddyRey]

Were you being figurative or literal when you referred to not marking people down as "hostiles?"

Literal, and serious as a heart attack.

 

[pacelli]

Is what the census worker told me. I told him the Constitution only allows for you to ask how people reside here. And that's what I told him, and said I wont answer anymore questions. He said someone will come back, then left. Seemed like he was aggravated.

"First amendment objection, fourth amendment objection" is an answer. It might not be what they want to hear, but it is an answer.

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Is what the census worker told me. I told him the Constitution only allows for you to ask how people reside here. And that's what I told him, and said I wont answer anymore questions. He said someone will come back, then left. Seemed like he was aggravated.

I didn't answer the door for the US Census, but I took a job with the US census... figure that one out

 

[Romulus]

I didn't answer the door for the US Census, but I took a job with the US census... figure that one out

Is there a point where you able to mark people down as 'hostiles' ?

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Is there a point where you able to mark people down as 'hostiles' ?

hehe. What? In NJ? Only for being a white guy

 

[Romulus]

hehe. What? In NJ? Only for being a white guy

You'd have to mark down everyone as hostiles in NJ I bet. Lol.

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

You'd have to mark down everyone as hostiles in NJ I bet. Lol.

Only most people. The few eccentrics I can get along with.

 

[damiengwa]

Ignorance of the law is not an excuse. According to government you ought to know what the law is.

What about when the government is ignorant of the law itself?

Do you all even KNOW what the law is? What they pass in congress is not the law, it is STATUTE. Look it up. If you are charged with a violation of a federal law, the constitution guarantees a jury trial if the matter concerns more than $20. Of course that has been reinterpreted, particularly in light of the 14th ammd, which created this thing called due process.

Nowadays, due process is whatever the Supreme Court says it is for federal cases, with limited extensions to lower levels of gov't.

In any case, in a felony criminal trial, ignorance is in fact a defense. To be guilty of a felony one must have criminal intent. But that is never explained to the jury, neither is it taught in school. YOu know a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, it still fell, but if nobody knows about it, the tree might not as well ever even existed.

The problems we have are less about what the vast body of statutes say, and more about how courts have abdicated their role in enforcing solid legal principles. District court judges do not allow a defendant to argue law, they view that as somehting that *must* be done on appeal while you rot away in prison. WHATEVER the statute says they will apply it, no matter how asinine. They will only let a defendant argue facts, testimony, evidents and circumstance and only to the extent that it is *relevant* to the charges.

We have a lot of crappy defense attorneys who don't know their ass from their elbo and don't want to create any waves. They just will argue witness credibility and cast doubt on evidence... They will never walk in and tell the court that the Statute is unconstitutional or the nature of the charge (felony) is inappropriate b/c the prosecutor failed to even make an allegation of criminal intent in the complaint (they rarely do).

 

[aGameOfThrones]

Lets say that the 1790 census allowed the government to ask more questions than a simple headcount. Lets also say that it was perfectly fine they did. But was it perfectly fine they did after December 15, 1791 when the Bill of Rights went into effect?