Census 2010
This is off the subject tonight but I felt compelled to let you know about this letter. Have you received your census paperwork for 2010? I have and was quite disturbed by the invasive questions. I feel it necessary to let people know what is happening is really not constitutional. Yes the census is okay but the questions are not. My friend sent this to me. First of all I will let them know how many people are in my home and that is it. Please read on!!
To Whom It May Concern:
Pursuant to Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution, the only information you are empowered to request is the total number of occupants at this address. Since I wish to comply with the law and not violate the Constitution I will only provide you with the total number of people who live at this address.
Your request for additional information including my name, sex, age, date of birth, race, ethnicity, telephone number, relationship and housing tenure have absolutely nothing to do with apportioning direct taxes or determining the number of representatives in the House of Representatives, and therefore seem invasive and a violation of my privacy and in direct conflict with the U.S. Constitution.
Therefore, neither Congress nor the Census Bureau have the constitutional authority to make that information request a component of the enumeration outlined in Article I, Section 2, Clause 3.
In addition, I cannot be subject to a fine for basing my conduct on the Constitution because that document trumps laws passed by Congress.
Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F2d 946 (1973)
"... there can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional rights."
Miller v. U.S., 230 F 489
"The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime."
Interstate Commerce Commission v. Brimson, 154 U.S. 447, 479 (May 26, 1894)
Neither branch of the legislative department [House of Representatives or Senate], still less any merely administrative body [such as the Census Bureau], established by congress, possesses, or can be invested with, a general power of making inquiry into the private affairs of the citizen. Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U.S. 168, 190.
Boyd v. U.S., 116 U. S. 616, 630, 6 Sup. Ct. 524,―and it cannot be too often repeated,―
that the principles that embody the essence of constitutional liberty and security forbid all invasions on the part of government and it's employees of the sanctity of a man's home and the privacies of his life.As said by Mr. Justice Field in Re Pacific Ry. Commission, 32 Fed. 241, 250, “of all the rights of the citizen, few are of greater importance or more essential to his peace and happiness than the right of personal security, and that involves, not merely protection of his person from assault, but exemption of his private affairs, books, and papers from inspection and scrutiny of others. Without the enjoyment of this right, all others would lose half their value."
Note: These United States Supreme Court case has never been overturned.
Your claim of "Failure to respond to the census carries a fine of up to $5,000, although that law is rarely enforced" appears to be in conflict with the STATUES AT LARGE and the U.S. Supreme Court.
Sec. 221. Refusal or neglect to answer questions; false answers
-STATUTE-
(a) Whoever, being over eighteen years of age, refuses or
willfully neglects, when requested by the Secretary, or by any
other authorized officer or employee of the Department of Commerce or bureau or agency thereof acting under the instructions of the Secretary or authorized officer, to answer, to the best of his knowledge, any of the questions on any schedule submitted to him in connection with any census or survey provided for by subchapters I, II, IV, and V of chapter 5 of this title, applying to himself or to the family to which he belongs or is related, or to the farm or farms of which he or his family is the occupant, shall be fined not more than $100.
(b) Whoever, when answering questions described in subsection (a)
of this section, and under the conditions or circumstances
described in such subsection, willfully gives any answer that is
false, shall be fined not more than $500.
(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, no person
shall be compelled to disclose information relative to his
religious beliefs or to membership in a religious body.
Maybe you misunderstood and got confused. Here is what it says about Commerce Department personnel who disclose your personal information:
Sec. 214. Wrongful disclosure of information
-STATUTE-
Whoever, being or having been an employee or staff member
referred to in subchapter II of chapter 1 of this title, having
taken and subscribed the oath of office, or having sworn to observe
the limitations imposed by section 9 of this title, or whoever,
being or having been a census liaison within the meaning of section 16 of this title, publishes or communicates any information, the disclosure of which is prohibited under the provisions of section 9 of this title, and which comes into his possession by reason of his being employed (or otherwise providing services) under the provisions of this title, shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
Respectfully,
A Citizen of the State of Arizona
Categories: Important Message for you to know!
Tags: census constitution employees 2010
Excellent and well written letter. Thank you for sharing. It provided the specific sections and articles in the law and Constitution I was looking for!
Reply to this
I appreciate your comment and trust you will pass this on to others as we near the 2010 Census paperwork to be filled out. God Bless and have a great day.
Reply to this