How to Answer the Census.
in [Physics]
|
From: Remy McSwain on 23 Mar 2010 16:36 In news:f2961683-17eb-4d2b-8d04-883559067975(a)g4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com, Benj <bjacoby(a)iwaynet.net> wrote: > Well, sure. Kooks are always so fanatical that they want a law > to mean exactly what it says. Sensible people on the other hand > know that laws and documents are "living things" that must be > interpreted by a current administration in the light of present > conditions and times. Without such a freedom to "adapt" how > could government function smoothly? So if those in power say > you are to provide certain information you have to provide it or > pay the consequences. It's pretty simple. Well, I can't say that I totally agree. The idea that once laws are written, they kind of float in a pool of infinite meanings until a court decides that today, it'll mean this, but tomorrow, it'll mean that, is rather senseless to me. If that were the case, then lets just throw out a bunch of gibberish, and let the courts tell us what they want us to do. The Constitution requires that the legislative body pass laws. This necessarily means that they propose them, write them, discuss them, debate them, and vote on them. They don't do so based upon what they mean today, but that tomorrow a court could rule a substantially different meaning. If we want the law to chage later, we need to pass a new law, and not just let the courts have at it. That's not their job. IMO, the whole notion that laws mean what the courts say they mean is more in the way that laws are applied to specific circumstances, the nature of which probably could not have been envisioned when the laws were passed. This could either be because technology has changed so much, or because life is just too complex to ask a law to address each and every case. But words do count, and the legislative history of the passing of a law should count when it comes to intent. In the case of the Census, the meaning of the word "enumerate" seems to be at the crux of the issue. Some people claim that it means to count only. However, other people claim (rightly so, IMO), that the word goes just a bit further than that, and that certain, limited questions can be asked for general, administrative the purposes. But I must confess that I am sensitive to the fear that the Census could be used by the government to collect all sorts of information on individuals that the government really doesn't have the right to collect, and to keep it associated with particular individuals. For instance, it's fine by me that they ask about gender, and ethnicity, but I don't think they then need to maintain access to the information that associates me with my gender and my ethnicity. IOW, I can see where the government might need to know the number of people in my town, and how it breaks down in terms of ethnicity and gender, but they can glean that data without maintaining a record that shows that *I*, specifically, am a male, and that *I* am Chinese, and that *I* have a particular income. Our democracy is much more fragile than most of us believe it to be. We've become too accustomed to believing that "that could never happen here". Well, it can, and it could, and it has, and, if we're not very, very careful, it will again. So to your point, if we just take a casual attitude that the Census can evolve into anything that any courts someday may claim it to be, we may very well find that before we know better, the government has collected a whole dossier on each one of us that they can reference specifically as it pertains to each one of us any time they wish. That is the natural possible consequence of a "living law", and it would be horribly wrong.
From: Strabo on 24 Mar 2010 00:36 Sue... wrote: > On Mar 23, 11:00 am, Strabo <str...(a)flashlight.net> wrote: <snipped> >>>> 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. >> >> Of course that would do away with the rule of law. >> >> It does have its merits. I would advocate anarchism, gather >> my troops and establish a kingdom from which I could sally forth >> and slay my enemies. Better to be a king than be wrong. > > > Sallying with forth won't even get you a slot > "Dancing with the Stars". Hone your tickle-fighting > skills and try for a lawmakers job. Then you > can live like a king at the public's expense > instead of depleting your royal resources. > And I can have a palace in the Dominican Republic just like Charlie Rangel! > > Who hires those crooked lawmakers anyway? > Crooks. >> >> >>> The Constitution is under >>>> common law. Since the adoption of the USC courts ignore >>>> unalienable rights and the BOR. Of course certain questions >>>> could violate the 4th and 5th A. but the courts don't care. >>> The Constitu >> >
From: Strabo on 24 Mar 2010 00:54 Remy McSwain wrote: > 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: <snipped> >>>> 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. > A Latin word that means the same thing today as it did in 1787 or a thousand years ago. enumerate 1. to mention separately as if in counting; name one by one; specify, as in a list: Let me enumerate the many flaws in your hypothesis. 2. to ascertain the number of; count. One head, two heads, three heads, four heads...ad infinitum. > > >> 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. > Privacy is inherent in private persons and property.
From: Chief Egalitarian on 26 Mar 2010 20:09 "Remy McSwain" <Paradis70080(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:MYudnch_jpkZkTTWnZ2dnUVZ_judnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >> "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. Main Entry: enu·mer·ate Pronunciation: \i-ˈn(y)ü-mə-ˌrāt\ Function: transitive verb Inflected Form(s): enu·mer·at·ed; enu·mer·at·ing Etymology: Latin enumeratus, past participle of enumerare, from e- + numerare to count, from numerus number Date: 1616 1 : to ascertain the number of : count 2 : to specify one after another : list — enu·mer·a·tion \-ˌn(y)ü-mə-ˈrā-shən\ noun — enu·mer·a·tive \-ˈn(y)ü-mə-ˌrā-tiv, -ˈn(y)üm-rə-, -ˈn(y)ü-mə-rə-\ adjective
From: Sue... on 26 Mar 2010 20:29
On Mar 24, 12:36 am, Strabo <str...(a)flashlight.net> wrote: > Sue... wrote: > > On Mar 23, 11:00 am, Strabo <str...(a)flashlight.net> wrote: > <snipped> > >>>> 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. > > >> Of course that would do away with the rule of law. > > >> It does have its merits. I would advocate anarchism, gather > >> my troops and establish a kingdom from which I could sally forth > >> and slay my enemies. Better to be a king than be wrong. > =============== > > Sallying with forth won't even get you a slot > > "Dancing with the Stars". Hone your tickle-fighting > > skills and try for a lawmakers job. Then you > > can live like a king at the public's expense > > instead of depleting your royal resources. > > And I can have a palace in the Dominican Republic just like Charlie > Rangel! "You Bet!" --Sara > > > ========== > > > Who hires those crooked lawmakers anyway? > > Crooks. Oh! I see. :-( <<There is no need to sally forth, for it remains true that those things which make us human are, curiously enough, always close at hand. Resolve then, that on this very ground, with small flags waving and tinny blast on tiny trumpets, we shall meet the enemy, and not only may he be ours, he may be us. Forward! >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pogo_%28comics%29#.22We_have_met_the_enemy....22 Sue... |