How to Answer the Census.
in [Physics]
|
From: Strabo on 22 Mar 2010 20:06 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. 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. <snipped>
From: Strabo on 22 Mar 2010 20:13 P. Maffia wrote: > As usual Knews displays his utter ignorance of the law and Constitution. > > Although over the years a lot of questions have been raise about some of > the data collected by the Census. And there are some good arguments > against some of that. > > However, no Court at any level has ever declared that any of the > information finally collected was, as knowsnothing contends, > unconstitutional. > And therefore you conclude that these administrative courts are all that matters. > > There has never been any question raised, except by ignoramuses like > Knowsnothing, or objections made to collecting the names, addresses, > ages, occupations, income and ethnic make up of everyone counted. > > That has been done IN EVERY CENSUS since the very first, when the > framers of the Constitution were all alive and could have easily made > objections that expressed their intent. > Not it hasn't. The census has varied in the few questions that were asked and these were often added for the benefit a county or city. Go ahead and tell them that you've got a family of beaners living in your shed and that you have a cash job on the side. If you're stupid enough to answer those questions then do so. Just remember that anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. <snipped>
From: P. Maffia on 22 Mar 2010 19:45 What a moronic comments. But what else can we expect. For example, no where do I mention any Administrative Courts. The rest of your comments are just as idiotic as Knowsnothing. And you display just as much ignorance as he about what questions have been asked since the very first Census. There are enough real problems with this Congress and the current Administration actually doing things that are in fact questionable. But when morons like you and knowsnothing raise moronic objections, all you do is divert anyone reading your gibberish from focusing on reality. And, at the same time, provide cover to those who are pushing the limits by giving them the excuse they need to scream, "See the morons opposing us." Thereby branding anyone who opposes their agenda a whacko like yourself. "Strabo" <strabo(a)flashlight.net> wrote in message news:XPSpn.6131$Ek4.2397(a)newsfe24.iad... > P. Maffia wrote: >> As usual Knews displays his utter ignorance of the law and Constitution. >> >> Although over the years a lot of questions have been raise about some of >> the data collected by the Census. And there are some good arguments >> against some of that. >> >> However, no Court at any level has ever declared that any of the >> information finally collected was, as knowsnothing contends, >> unconstitutional. >> > > And therefore you conclude that these administrative courts are > all that matters. > > >> >> There has never been any question raised, except by ignoramuses like >> Knowsnothing, or objections made to collecting the names, addresses, >> ages, occupations, income and ethnic make up of everyone counted. >> >> That has been done IN EVERY CENSUS since the very first, when the framers >> of the Constitution were all alive and could have easily made objections >> that expressed their intent. >> > > Not it hasn't. The census has varied in the few questions that were > asked and these were often added for the benefit a county or city. > > Go ahead and tell them that you've got a family of beaners living in > your shed and that you have a cash job on the side. > > If you're stupid enough to answer those questions then do so. Just > remember that anything you say can and will be used against you > in a court of law. > > <snipped> >
From: Remy McSwain on 23 Mar 2010 07:49 In news:30db54d7-6c0e-4be2-be68-de2294b01d0a(a)f13g2000pra.googlegroups.com, knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2chew(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
From: Remy McSwain on 23 Mar 2010 07:51
In news:c3346ab9-c477-42e3-b2e6-c684270b3137(a)s20g2000prm.googlegroups.com, knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2chew(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. |