How to Answer the Census.
in [Physics]
|
From: Remy McSwain on 19 Apr 2010 14:16 In news:4a7301bd-5442-4ec8-815f-f82be9376202(a)x3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com, knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Apr 19, 10:49 am, "Remy McSwain" <Paradis70...(a)gmail.com> > wrote: >> Innews:088e1b9a-5ee1-4bbe-8378-2963b643cdc6(a)g30g2000yqc.googlegroups.com, >> >> >> >> knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>> On Apr 19, 9:06 am, "Remy McSwain" <Paradis70...(a)gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>>> Innews:83ec2383-5287-4d0f-9a58-226f5b9a696b(a)c21g2000yqk.googlegroups.com, >> >>>> knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>> On Apr 19, 6:42 am, "Remy McSwain" <Paradis70...(a)gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> Innews:5ef8caea-5537-45f1-93d5-6e71bef7f5e3(a)r18g2000yqd.googlegroups.com, >> >>>>>> knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On Apr 18, 8:42 am, Iarnrod <iarn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>> "Enumerate" means count the people. >> >>>>>> No it doesn't. That's only YOUR interpretation. >> >>>>> Gee, my "interpretation" seems to be just what it says in the >>>>> dictionary. >>>>> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/enumerate >> >>>> Not in THIS dictionary: "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. " >> >>>> "as if in counting" doesn't mean simply to count. It means to >>>> list, which means note by description. >> >>>>> Plain and simple. >> >>>> Only to a plain simpleton. >> >>>>> Just as the law should be. >> >>>> The USC was never intended to be written as though to >>>> "enumerate" each and every way it should be applied to each >>>> and every case which could possibly arise in such a complex >>>> society. That's why it also says that it will be up to the >>>> courts to decide how the law should be applied to any given >>>> case. And the courts have decided that the current census is >>>> consistent with what the law says. Or do you reject that part >>>> of the USC which you've claimed to accept as valid? >> >>>>> We don't need Black Robed Cultists to tell use "new" >>>>> definitions for old old words. >> >>>> The USC, which you've said that you fully embrace, says >>>> differently. So do you embrace it, or not? >> >>> I stand on the common law. >> >> Do you accept the validity of the USC, or not? When I said that >> you did not, you called me a liar. Therefore, that must mean >> that you do. So do you, or not? >> >>> Common definitions. >> >> And the common definition of enumerate means to list by >> description. >> >>> I am not under the jurisdiction of "code." >> >> Who said that you were? >> >>> Code comes from military jurisdiction. >>> I deny the jurisdiction of the law of Admiralty as I am not in >>> "commerce' when being "enumerated." >> >> No one said that you were. >> >> >> >>> The Constitution was written in common language that all can >>> understand. >> >> Except, obviously, for you. Clearly, you do not understand the >> full meaning of the word 'enumerate'. >> >>> "Enuerate" needs no REINTERPRETATION or EXPANSION by Black >>> Robed Cultists under Admiralty Law. >> >> It does for people like you who do not understad what it means. >> And, if you DO accept the validity of the USC, then you accept >> the fact that the law means what the courst say it means. > > The constitution says "enumerate." Yes, and the definition of 'enumerate' means more than just to count. > It doesn't say classify or list characteristics of the > population. It means to "list separately" and "specify" as in a list. To list (i.e., specify) separately requires more than a simple count. To specify means to include as must specificity as is required to specify. > It means count the people. It means much more than that, as a simple dictionary definition will show. > Plain and simple English. And yet, you misunderstand it anyway. > It is for the purpose of "apportionment." Agreed. > It is not for the purposes of social programs and allocating > resources. But it can be used for those purposes anyway. Do you accept the validity of the US Constitution, or not? If you believe in plain English, then you should be able to respond with a plain 'yes' or 'no' answer, and yet, you do not.
From: Strabo on 19 Apr 2010 14:41 Remy McSwain wrote: > In > news:fa557803-700f-44c6-b869-75102f3763a0(a)5g2000yqj.googlegroups.com, > knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> Yes they were. >> Enumerate: >> http://www.google.com/search?q=enumerate&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a > > > "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." > > To "list" means to note by description. > > With regards to the census and enumeration, what is to be listed what is to be described?
From: Remy McSwain on 20 Apr 2010 16:15 In news:b96eaf7c-e171-47b1-9b71-ee9964361c4e(a)b39g2000prd.googlegroups.com, knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com> wrote: Where, in the USC, is the government prohibited from compelling you to answer the questions asked in the 2010 Census questionnaire? Even if your flawed interpretation of 'enumerate' were correct as used in the USC, how does the USC prohibit the government from compelling you to provide additional information? Given your claim that the USC is written in plain and simple English, please provide an exact quote of the plain and simple language in the USC, which therefore requires no interpretation whatsoever, which would prevent the government from compelling you to answer the questions asked in the 2010 Census questionnaire.
From: knews4u2chew on 20 Apr 2010 17:42 On Apr 20, 11:21 am, "Remy McSwain" <Paradis70...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Innews:b96eaf7c-e171-47b1-9b71-ee9964361c4e(a)b39g2000prd.googlegroups.com, > > > > knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > On Apr 20, 4:37 am, "Remy McSwain" <Paradis70...(a)gmail.com> > > wrote: > >> Innews:a4128f98-ca77-4664-888a-cd2a9a63a3bd(a)w32g2000prc.googlegroups.com, > > >> knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >>> Name calling and "catagorizing" proves nothing. > >>> If you are afraid to stand up for your privacy rights you are a > >>> lazy > >>> traitor to America. > > >> Ohhhhhh, the irony! Do you, or do you not accept the validity of > >> the US Constitution? Why have you never answered that simple > >> question? > > > I answered the simple Constitutional "enumeration" question. > > Do you, or do you not accept the validity of the US Constitution? > Either you do, or you do not. You know that plain, simple English > of which you're so fond? Use it to answer this simple question. > > > How many people at the abode?, "two." > > Now bug off. > > What's the matter? Simple questions got you stymied? Simple, plain > question requires a simple, plain answer. I gave a simple answer to a simple Constitutional question. "Enumerate" the people in your abode? Two. "Any law made in contravention to the Constitution is invalid on it's face."
From: knews4u2chew on 20 Apr 2010 17:48
On Apr 20, 11:34 am, pv+use...(a)pobox.com (PV) wrote: > knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com writes: > >I answered the simple Constitutional "enumeration" question. > >How many people at the abode?, "two." > >Now bug off. > > No you didn't. a) because enumerators aren't on the street yet to hear your > claimed "x human souls in this building" spiel, and b) you're too much of a > trembling, scared-of-your-own-shadow type to actually confront someone you > disagree with in a place where it would actually mean anything. > Shows just how much you don't know pea brain. I did the same thing in 2000. Just told her and repeated over and over the number of souls on the property until the "enumerator" went away. Never heard a word since. If you don't stand up for your rights you lose them. Most people don't even know their rights and few that do will ever stand up for them. It's just more "convenient" to roll over like a good little slave. That is why America is Fucked with a capital F. |