How to Answer the Census.
in [Physics]
|
From: Remy McSwain on 23 Mar 2010 07:55 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. 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: Remy McSwain on 23 Mar 2010 08:04 In news:40020a36-8f1b-474c-be17-1f364c4e0384(a)l24g2000prh.googlegroups.com, knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Mar 22, 1:27 pm, "P. Maffia" <pmaf...(a)centurytel.net> 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. >> > > Why does one have to get so smart to be so stupid? > http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/enumeration > Who pays these guys in Black Robes that "interpret" this plain > language? The people who are voluntary members of this society. > In the common law courts the people are the judge, jury, and > executioner. But you raised the issue of Contitutionality, not your version of common law. > The Law of the Land says "enumerate." The "law of the land" is that this society will conduct its affairs consistent with the USC, and the USC says that the USC, and all other laws, will be applied as the courts say it will. And the courts have ruled that the Cencus is constitutional in its current form. > 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8...... That's your limited perception of the word "enumerate". Not the USC's.
From: Sue... on 23 Mar 2010 08:34 On Mar 23, 8:04 am, "Remy McSwain" <Paradis70...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Innews:40020a36-8f1b-474c-be17-1f364c4e0384(a)l24g2000prh.googlegroups.com, > > > > knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > On Mar 22, 1:27 pm, "P. Maffia" <pmaf...(a)centurytel.net> 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. > > > Why does one have to get so smart to be so stupid? > >http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/enumeration > > Who pays these guys in Black Robes that "interpret" this plain > > language? > > The people who are voluntary members of this society. > > > In the common law courts the people are the judge, jury, and > > executioner. > > But you raised the issue of Contitutionality, not your version of > common law. > > > The Law of the Land says "enumerate." > > The "law of the land" is that this society will conduct its affairs > consistent with the USC, and the USC says that the USC, and all > other laws, will be applied as the courts say it will. And the > courts have ruled that the Cencus is constitutional in its current > form. > > > 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8...... > > That's your limited perception of the word "enumerate". Not the > USC's. Don't discourage the miscreant from wrongdoing. His neighbours have informed me the fire brigade is in desperate need of two new tyres. The penalty for failing to file might be just enough to cover the purchase. Sue...
From: Strabo on 23 Mar 2010 11:00 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. 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. > > 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: Sue... on 23 Mar 2010 10:42
On Mar 23, 11:00 am, Strabo <str...(a)flashlight.net> wrote: > Remy McSwain wrote: > > Innews:rJSpn.17025$3D3.14393(a)newsfe19.iad, > > Strabo <str...(a)flashlight.net> wrote: > >> Remy McSwain wrote: > >>> In > >>>news: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. > > >> 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. > > 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. Who hires those crooked lawmakers anyway? > > > > > 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 > > |