How to Answer the Census.
in [Physics]
|
From: Remy McSwain on 23 Mar 2010 12:09 "Strabo" <strabo(a)flashlight.net> wrote in message news:SP3qn.6447$Ek4.5091(a)newsfe24.iad... > Remy McSwain wrote: >> In news:rJSpn.17025$3D3.14393(a)newsfe19.iad, >> Strabo <strabo(a)flashlight.net> wrote: >>> Remy McSwain wrote: >>>> In >>>> news:874b520f-e398-4b45-8cb3-37e7b4e695aa(a)u19g2000prh.googlegroups.com, >>>> knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>> On Mar 22, 4:48 am, "Remy McSwain" <Paradis70...(a)gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> Innews:685f3be2-d96f-4cdd-8998-18e4b8f40240(a)t32g2000prg.googlegroups.com, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>> Here is what I did. >>>>>>> I took the "Census Privacy Notice" and wrote on it. >>>>>>> "Yes. We will stand on our 5th Amendment "Right to privacy." >>>>>>> 2 Human souls @ this abode. >>>>>>> Then I copied the Ten Questions here: >>>>>>> http://www.frugal-cafe.com/public_html/frugal-blog/frugal-cafe-blogzo... >>>>>>> I typed at the top: >>>>>>> "I will answer your questions for the 2 human souls at this >>>>>>> abode when >>>>>>> you give me the answers to these questions." >>>>>>> 1. The Constitution authorizes government to count people >>>>>>> but >>>>>>> it does >>>>>>> not authorize the taking of private information or even the >>>>>>> names of >>>>>>> individuals. From where does the Census Bureau derive >>>>>>> authority to >>>>>>> demand our private information? >>>>>> It says " in such Manner as they [Congress] shall by Law >>>>>> direct." >>>>>> >>>>> What part of "enumerate" don't you understand? >>>> I understand the whole thing. >>>> >>> Then you know that enumerate means to count heads, not toilets >>> and money. >>> >>> >>> >>>>> All it has purview to do is COUNT. >>>> Not true. Why do all of you KOOKS always think that something >>>> is as you think it should be? >>>> >>>> The Constitution, which you are so quick to quote, also says >>>> that the final arbiter of what the Constitution means is >>>> whatever the Courts rule it to be. As this concerns the >>>> cencus, the courts have ruled as follows: >>>> >>> The jury nullifies your interpretation. >>> >>> The Constitution is the law of the land, not the courts. >>> >>> Enumerate means to count heads, not toilets and money. >> >> >> >> >>>> The census does not violate the Fourth Amendment. Morales v. >>>> Daley, 116 F. Supp. 2d 801, 820 (S.D. Tex. 2000). In concluding >>>> that there was no basis for holding Census 2000 >>>> unconstitutional, the District Court in Morales ruled that the >>>> 2000 Census and the 2000 Census questions did not violate the >>>> Fourth Amendment or other constitutional provisions as alleged >>>> by plaintiffs. (The Morales court said responses to census >>>> questions are not a violation of a citizen's right to privacy >>>> or speech.) "�[I]t is clear that the degree to which these >>>> questions intrude upon an individual's privacy is limited, >>>> given the methods used to collect the census data and the >>>> statutory assurance that the answers and attribution to an >>>> individual will remain confidential. The degree to which the >>>> information is needed for the promotion of legitimate >>>> governmental interests has been found to be significant. A >>>> census of the type of Census 2000 has been taken every ten >>>> years since the first census in 1790. Such a census has been >>>> thought to be necessary for over two hundred years. There is no >>>> basis for holding that it is not necessary in the year 2000." >>>> The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the >>>> District Court decision on October 10, 2001, 275 F.3d 45. The >>>> U.S. Supreme Court denied petition for writ of certiorari on >>>> February 19, 2002, 534 U.S. 1135. No published opinions were >>>> filed with these rulings. >>>> >>>> These decisions are consistent with the Supreme Court's recent >>>> description of the census as the "linchpin of the federal >>>> statistical system � collecting data on the characteristics of >>>> individuals, households, and housing units throughout the >>>> country." Dept. of Commerce v. U.S. House of Representatives, >>>> 525 U.S. 316, 341 (1999). >>>> >>> The SCOTUS is arguing commercial law. >> >> Wrong. The SC is validating that the Cencus, in its current >> form, is consistent with the Constitution. Whereas the >> Constitution means what the courts say it means, it means that >> you're wrong. >> > > That explains your hostile nature. > > If the Constitution means only what the courts say it means, we > can just eliminate that piece of paper and be ruled by judges. And yet, I didn't use the word "only", did I. I said that the courts rule on what that piece of paper means. There has to be a piece of paper there to do that.
From: knews4u2chew on 23 Mar 2010 14:30 On Mar 23, 4:49 am, "Remy McSwain" <Paradis70...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Innews:30db54d7-6c0e-4be2-be68-de2294b01d0a(a)f13g2000pra.googlegroups.com, > > > > knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > On Mar 22, 12:05 pm, "Remy McSwain" <Paradis70...(a)gmail.com> > > wrote: > >> Innews:874b520f-e398-4b45-8cb3-37e7b4e695aa(a)u19g2000prh.googlegroups.com, > > >> knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >>> On Mar 22, 4:48 am, "Remy McSwain" <Paradis70...(a)gmail.com> > >>> wrote: > >>>> Innews:685f3be2-d96f-4cdd-8998-18e4b8f40240(a)t32g2000prg.googlegroups..com, > > >>>> knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >>>>> Here is what I did. > >>>>> I took the "Census Privacy Notice" and wrote on it. > >>>>> "Yes. We will stand on our 5th Amendment "Right to privacy." > >>>>> 2 Human souls @ this abode. > > >>>>> Then I copied the Ten Questions here: > > >>>>>http://www.frugal-cafe.com/public_html/frugal-blog/frugal-cafe-blogzo... > > >>>>> I typed at the top: > > >>>>> "I will answer your questions for the 2 human souls at this > >>>>> abode when > >>>>> you give me the answers to these questions." > > >>>>> 1. The Constitution authorizes government to count people but > >>>>> it does > >>>>> not authorize the taking of private information or even the > >>>>> names of > >>>>> individuals. From where does the Census Bureau derive > >>>>> authority to > >>>>> demand our private information? > > >>>> It says " in such Manner as they [Congress] shall by Law > >>>> direct." > > >>> What part of "enumerate" don't you understand? > > >> I understand the whole thing. > > >>> All it has purview to do is COUNT. > > >> Not true. Why do all of you KOOKS always think that something > >> is as you think it should be? > > >> The Constitution, which you are so quick to quote, also says > >> that the final arbiter of what the Constitution means is > >> whatever the Courts rule it to be. As this concerns the cencus, > >> the courts have ruled as follows: > > >> The census does not violate the Fourth Amendment. Morales v. > >> Daley, 116 F. Supp. 2d 801, 820 (S.D. Tex. 2000). In concluding > >> that there was no basis for holding Census 2000 > >> unconstitutional, the District Court in Morales ruled that the > >> 2000 Census and the 2000 Census questions did not violate the > >> Fourth Amendment or other constitutional provisions as alleged > >> by plaintiffs. (The Morales court said responses to census > >> questions are not a violation of a citizen's right to privacy > >> or speech.) " [I]t is clear that the degree to which these > >> questions intrude upon an individual's privacy is limited, > >> given the methods used to collect the census data and the > >> statutory assurance that the answers and attribution to an > >> individual will remain confidential. The degree to which the > >> information is needed for the promotion of legitimate > >> governmental interests has been found to be significant. A > >> census of the type of Census 2000 has been taken every ten > >> years since the first census in 1790. Such a census has been > >> thought to be necessary for over two hundred years. There is no > >> basis for holding that it is not necessary in the year 2000." > >> The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the > >> District Court decision on October 10, 2001, 275 F.3d 45. The > >> U.S. Supreme Court denied petition for writ of certiorari on > >> February 19, 2002, 534 U.S. 1135. No published opinions were > >> filed with these rulings. > > >> These decisions are consistent with the Supreme Court's recent > >> description of the census as the "linchpin of the federal > >> statistical system collecting data on the characteristics of > >> individuals, households, and housing units throughout the > >> country." Dept. of Commerce v. U.S. House of Representatives, > >> 525 U.S. 316, 341 (1999). > > >>> 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,...get it? > > >http://usgovinfo.about.com/blctjurisdiction.htm > > The complex role of the Supreme Court in this system derives > > from its authority to invalidate legislation or executive > > actions which, in the Court s considered judgment, conflict > > with the Constitution. This power of judicial review has given > > the Court a crucial responsibility in assuring individual > > rights, as well as in maintaining a living Constitution whose > > broad provisions are continually applied to complicated new > > situations. ................ > > I'd like to see that "living constitution" in the Constitution > > too. ................... > > While the function of judicial review is not explicitly provided > > in the Constitution, > > > Hoooboyyyy..... > > > it had been anticipated before the adoption of that document. > > Prior to 1789, state courts had already overturned legislative > > acts which conflicted with state constitutions. Moreover, many > > of the Founding Fathers expected the Supreme Court to assume > > this role in regard to the Constitution; Alexander Hamilton and > > James Madison, for example, had underlined the importance of > > judicial review in the Federalist Papers, which urged adoption > > of the Constitution. > > > Hamilton had written that through the practice of judicial > > review the Court ensured that the will of the whole people, as > > expressed in their Constitution, would be supreme over the will > > of a legislature, whose statutes might express only the > > temporary will of part of the people. And Madison had written > > that constitutional interpretation must be left to the reasoned > > judgment of independent judges, > > > Aaaahhhh... > > There's the rub. > > Ahhhhhhh, so you'll quote the USC when you think it supports your > positions, as invalid as they might be, and yet, you'll simply > dismiss it when it doesn't. That's why you have no credibility with > anything you say. > > The census, in it's current form, has been ruled to be > Constitutional through a process which is consistent with the > precepts of that same Constitution. All of your claims that it's > not Constitutional are the rantings of someone who knows about as > much of the Constitution as he does about simple mechanics, physics, > math, and metallurgy. Nothing. > > QED "Enumerate" Very plain language. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9...... I don't need guys in Black Robes to "interpret" it for me. 4th and 5th Amendment.
From: knews4u2chew on 23 Mar 2010 14:35 On Mar 23, 4:51 am, "Remy McSwain" <Paradis70...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Innews:c3346ab9-c477-42e3-b2e6-c684270b3137(a)s20g2000prm.googlegroups.com, > > > > knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > On Mar 22, 12:05 pm, "Remy McSwain" <Paradis70...(a)gmail.com> > > wrote: > >> Innews:874b520f-e398-4b45-8cb3-37e7b4e695aa(a)u19g2000prh.googlegroups.com, > > >> knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >>> On Mar 22, 4:48 am, "Remy McSwain" <Paradis70...(a)gmail.com> > >>> wrote: > >>>> Innews:685f3be2-d96f-4cdd-8998-18e4b8f40240(a)t32g2000prg.googlegroups..com, > > >>>> knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >>>>> Here is what I did. > >>>>> I took the "Census Privacy Notice" and wrote on it. > >>>>> "Yes. We will stand on our 5th Amendment "Right to privacy." > >>>>> 2 Human souls @ this abode. > > >>>>> Then I copied the Ten Questions here: > > >>>>>http://www.frugal-cafe.com/public_html/frugal-blog/frugal-cafe-blogzo... > > >>>>> I typed at the top: > > >>>>> "I will answer your questions for the 2 human souls at this > >>>>> abode when > >>>>> you give me the answers to these questions." > > >>>>> 1. The Constitution authorizes government to count people but > >>>>> it does > >>>>> not authorize the taking of private information or even the > >>>>> names of > >>>>> individuals. From where does the Census Bureau derive > >>>>> authority to > >>>>> demand our private information? > > >>>> It says " in such Manner as they [Congress] shall by Law > >>>> direct." > > >>> What part of "enumerate" don't you understand? > > >> I understand the whole thing. > > >>> All it has purview to do is COUNT. > > >> Not true. Why do all of you KOOKS always think that something > >> is as you think it should be? > > > Funny how it's the "Kooks" that want to follow "the letter of the > > law." > > The "letter of the law" is, as has been affirmed by many court > rulings now, that the Census is completely Constitutional. I NEVER said it was not. You are lying and say I did. The "invasion of my privacy" is not allowed under the Constitution. "Enumerate" Very plain language. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9..... 4th and 5th Amendments 2 human souls.
From: Remy McSwain on 23 Mar 2010 14:46 In news:579c94ef-3413-46b0-b2a2-9829a125fec6(a)a37g2000prd.googlegroups.com, knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Mar 23, 4:49 am, "Remy McSwain" <Paradis70...(a)gmail.com> > wrote: >> Innews:30db54d7-6c0e-4be2-be68-de2294b01d0a(a)f13g2000pra.googlegroups.com, >> >> >> >> knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>> On Mar 22, 12:05 pm, "Remy McSwain" <Paradis70...(a)gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>>> Innews:874b520f-e398-4b45-8cb3-37e7b4e695aa(a)u19g2000prh.googlegroups.com, >> >>>> knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>> On Mar 22, 4:48 am, "Remy McSwain" <Paradis70...(a)gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> Innews:685f3be2-d96f-4cdd-8998-18e4b8f40240(a)t32g2000prg.googlegroups.com, >> >>>>>> knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>> Here is what I did. >>>>>>> I took the "Census Privacy Notice" and wrote on it. >>>>>>> "Yes. We will stand on our 5th Amendment "Right to >>>>>>> privacy." 2 Human souls @ this abode. >> >>>>>>> Then I copied the Ten Questions here: >> >>>>>>> http://www.frugal-cafe.com/public_html/frugal-blog/frugal-cafe-blogzo... >> >>>>>>> I typed at the top: >> >>>>>>> "I will answer your questions for the 2 human souls at this >>>>>>> abode when >>>>>>> you give me the answers to these questions." >> >>>>>>> 1. The Constitution authorizes government to count people >>>>>>> but it does >>>>>>> not authorize the taking of private information or even the >>>>>>> names of >>>>>>> individuals. From where does the Census Bureau derive >>>>>>> authority to >>>>>>> demand our private information? >> >>>>>> It says " in such Manner as they [Congress] shall by Law >>>>>> direct." >> >>>>> What part of "enumerate" don't you understand? >> >>>> I understand the whole thing. >> >>>>> All it has purview to do is COUNT. >> >>>> Not true. Why do all of you KOOKS always think that something >>>> is as you think it should be? >> >>>> The Constitution, which you are so quick to quote, also says >>>> that the final arbiter of what the Constitution means is >>>> whatever the Courts rule it to be. As this concerns the >>>> cencus, the courts have ruled as follows: >> >>>> The census does not violate the Fourth Amendment. Morales v. >>>> Daley, 116 F. Supp. 2d 801, 820 (S.D. Tex. 2000). In >>>> concluding that there was no basis for holding Census 2000 >>>> unconstitutional, the District Court in Morales ruled that the >>>> 2000 Census and the 2000 Census questions did not violate the >>>> Fourth Amendment or other constitutional provisions as alleged >>>> by plaintiffs. (The Morales court said responses to census >>>> questions are not a violation of a citizen's right to privacy >>>> or speech.) " [I]t is clear that the degree to which these >>>> questions intrude upon an individual's privacy is limited, >>>> given the methods used to collect the census data and the >>>> statutory assurance that the answers and attribution to an >>>> individual will remain confidential. The degree to which the >>>> information is needed for the promotion of legitimate >>>> governmental interests has been found to be significant. A >>>> census of the type of Census 2000 has been taken every ten >>>> years since the first census in 1790. Such a census has been >>>> thought to be necessary for over two hundred years. There is >>>> no basis for holding that it is not necessary in the year >>>> 2000." The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit >>>> affirmed the District Court decision on October 10, 2001, 275 >>>> F.3d 45. The U.S. Supreme Court denied petition for writ of >>>> certiorari on February 19, 2002, 534 U.S. 1135. No published >>>> opinions were filed with these rulings. >> >>>> These decisions are consistent with the Supreme Court's recent >>>> description of the census as the "linchpin of the federal >>>> statistical system collecting data on the characteristics of >>>> individuals, households, and housing units throughout the >>>> country." Dept. of Commerce v. U.S. House of Representatives, >>>> 525 U.S. 316, 341 (1999). >> >>>>> 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,...get it? >> >>> http://usgovinfo.about.com/blctjurisdiction.htm >>> The complex role of the Supreme Court in this system derives >>> from its authority to invalidate legislation or executive >>> actions which, in the Court� s considered judgment, conflict >>> with the Constitution. This power of �judicial review� has >>> given the Court a crucial responsibility in assuring individual >>> rights, as well as in maintaining a �living Constitution� whose >>> broad provisions are continually applied to complicated new >>> situations. ................ >>> I'd like to see that "living constitution" in the Constitution >>> too. ................... >>> While the function of judicial review is not explicitly >>> provided in the Constitution, >> >>> Hoooboyyyy..... >> >>> it had been anticipated before the adoption of that document. >>> Prior to 1789, state courts had already overturned legislative >>> acts which conflicted with state constitutions. Moreover, many >>> of the Founding Fathers expected the Supreme Court to assume >>> this role in regard to the Constitution; Alexander Hamilton and >>> James Madison, for example, had underlined the importance of >>> judicial review in the Federalist Papers, which urged adoption >>> of the Constitution. >> >>> Hamilton had written that through the practice of judicial >>> review the Court ensured that the will of the whole people, as >>> expressed in their Constitution, would be supreme over the will >>> of a legislature, whose statutes might express only the >>> temporary will of part of the people. And Madison had written >>> that constitutional interpretation must be left to the reasoned >>> judgment of independent judges, >> >>> Aaaahhhh... >>> There's the rub. >> >> Ahhhhhhh, so you'll quote the USC when you think it supports >> your positions, as invalid as they might be, and yet, you'll >> simply dismiss it when it doesn't. That's why you have no >> credibility with anything you say. >> >> The census, in it's current form, has been ruled to be >> Constitutional through a process which is consistent with the >> precepts of that same Constitution. All of your claims that it's >> not Constitutional are the rantings of someone who knows about >> as much of the Constitution as he does about simple mechanics, >> physics, math, and metallurgy. Nothing. >> >> QED > > "Enumerate" > Very plain language. Which you fail to understand. If the authors of the Constitution wanted to limit the meaning of the word enumerate to that of a simple count, they would've used the word 'count'. They did not. The word 'enumerate' has other meanings besides 'count', and the courts have decreed what the USC meant by the use of that word in that context. The very same USC which you're so fond of quoting says that it'll be the courts that define how the meaning of the USC will be applied to specific cases, and the courts have done so. > 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9...... > I don't need guys in Black Robes to "interpret" it for me. Apparently, you do. > 4th and 5th Amendment. Doesn't say anything about a Census, or any right to privacy either.
From: Remy McSwain on 23 Mar 2010 14:52
In news:7a037867-e7c7-4bf0-bd4c-bc0f8bce7166(a)k4g2000prh.googlegroups.com, knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Mar 23, 4:51 am, "Remy McSwain" <Paradis70...(a)gmail.com> > wrote: >> Innews:c3346ab9-c477-42e3-b2e6-c684270b3137(a)s20g2000prm.googlegroups.com, >> >> >> >> knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>> On Mar 22, 12:05 pm, "Remy McSwain" <Paradis70...(a)gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>>> Innews:874b520f-e398-4b45-8cb3-37e7b4e695aa(a)u19g2000prh.googlegroups.com, >> >>>> knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>> On Mar 22, 4:48 am, "Remy McSwain" <Paradis70...(a)gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> Innews:685f3be2-d96f-4cdd-8998-18e4b8f40240(a)t32g2000prg.googlegroups.com, >> >>>>>> knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>> Here is what I did. >>>>>>> I took the "Census Privacy Notice" and wrote on it. >>>>>>> "Yes. We will stand on our 5th Amendment "Right to >>>>>>> privacy." 2 Human souls @ this abode. >> >>>>>>> Then I copied the Ten Questions here: >> >>>>>>> http://www.frugal-cafe.com/public_html/frugal-blog/frugal-cafe-blogzo... >> >>>>>>> I typed at the top: >> >>>>>>> "I will answer your questions for the 2 human souls at this >>>>>>> abode when >>>>>>> you give me the answers to these questions." >> >>>>>>> 1. The Constitution authorizes government to count people >>>>>>> but it does >>>>>>> not authorize the taking of private information or even the >>>>>>> names of >>>>>>> individuals. From where does the Census Bureau derive >>>>>>> authority to >>>>>>> demand our private information? >> >>>>>> It says " in such Manner as they [Congress] shall by Law >>>>>> direct." >> >>>>> What part of "enumerate" don't you understand? >> >>>> I understand the whole thing. >> >>>>> All it has purview to do is COUNT. >> >>>> Not true. Why do all of you KOOKS always think that something >>>> is as you think it should be? >> >>> Funny how it's the "Kooks" that want to follow "the letter of >>> the law." >> >> The "letter of the law" is, as has been affirmed by many court >> rulings now, that the Census is completely Constitutional. > > I NEVER said it was not. Then why do you keep quoting the Constitution? You're either doing so to show that it's not being followed, or you're just being ignorant. > You are lying and say I did. I didn't say that you did, and so you are lying to say that I did. > The "invasion of my privacy" is not allowed under the > Constitution. You're lying about that too. No where in the Constitution is there any general right to privacy. > "Enumerate" > Very plain language. Which you do not understand. > 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9..... > 4th and 5th Amendments.... .....say nothing about any right to privacy. But why do you quote the Constitution? Do you think we should all adhere to it? > 2 human souls. Many of whom are very confused. |