7. The CENSUS & the "Rule of Law".

Article I, Sec. 2, clause 3, U.S. Constitution, provides that the census shall be taken every 10 years for the purposes of apportionment of (1) direct Taxes and (2) Representatives to the House.

It also says the census shall be taken in such manner as Congress may direct. So, while the Constitution establishes the TWO purposes of the census; Congress decides the manner in which it shall be taken (e.g., by the U.S. marshals in the federal judicial districts, questionnaires mailed by the executive branch of the federal government).

In Federalist No. 54, last para, James Madison, Father of the Constitution, explains why it is a good idea to have a "common measure" [i.e., the number of people] for determining both the number of Representatives for each State and the amount of the direct Taxes each State is to pay: As the accuracy of the census depends on the cooperation of the States, the "common measure" discourages the States from overstating or understating the numbers of their population.

The Constitution is clear, and Madison confirms it: The purpose of the census is ONLY (1) to determine the number of Representatives each State is to get, and (2) to determine each State's share of the "direct Taxes".

So! The federal government has no constitutional authority to ask you anything but the number of persons living in your home. When they act outside their enumerated powers, they have abandoned the "rule of law" - i.e., The Constitution; and they have embraced the "rule of men". And they are the "men".

They have no constitutional authority to ask you how much you spend on heating, how much money you have, your disability status & how many toilets you have. See Jerry Day's (Matrix News) excellent video posted by our own C.W. Jovaras http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RsDhkPym01k & Dr. Edward L. Hudgins' (Cato Institute) testimony at: http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-eh072000.html

Alexander Hamilton understood that the People [that's us] are the "natural guardians of the Constitution", and he expected us to be "enlightened enough to distinguish between a legal exercise and an illegal usurpation of authority" (The Federalist No. 16, 10th para). In Federalist No. 33, 6th para, he said:

...If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify...

Hamilton also said that acts of the federal government which are not pursuant to its constitutional powers are "merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such." (The Federalist No. 33, 7th para). This is what it means to stand up for "the Rule of Law"! Shall we defend our Constitution? Or will we cooperate with the lawless federal government in subverting it?

0 members like this

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by William Person on March 3, 2010 at 8:56pm

Yes, you are corect and I realized my questions was inane after a few minutes. What I am curious about is what establishes a usurpation of the Consitution? There must be case history or am I to believe a judge has never been impeached for that crime?

Permalink Reply by Charlie on March 3, 2010 at 9:07pm

Q: "[W]hat establishes a usurpation of the Constitution?"
A: When the People figure they've had enough of "a long train of abuses..." and decide to do something about it.

Permalink Reply by Publius Huldah on March 3, 2010 at 10:20pm

PRECISELY! There is no rigid standard which must be met before a usurpation is bad enough to warrant impeachment, conviction& removal. Hamilton expected the people to be "enlightened enough to distinguish between a legal exercise and an illegal usurpation of authority", and he saw us as "the natural guardians of the Constitution". (Federalist No. 16, 9th para). So! Ultimately, when We The People want a judge or member of the executive branch impeached & removed for usurpations (i.e., not following the Constitution), then, impeachment & removal from office are proper. We demand that our Representatives & Senators in Congress do this. if they don't do it, we defeat them in the next election. (We're working on recall of U.S. Senators because 6 years is a very long time.)

Usurpation is not a "crime" or a "criminal offense". "Crimes" are acts such as murder, robbery, rape, perjury, arson, fraud, extortion, kidnapping, accepting bribes, etc. "Usurpation" is a political offense [disobeying the Constitution] against The People.

Permalink Reply by Charlie on March 3, 2010 at 10:45pm

Impeachment is a power of Congress. Do you think this (or any) Congress would be willing to impeach a president or multiple SCOTUS justices for constitutional malfeasance? I find that scenario highly unlikely.

I fear we're past the point of no return. The Constitution has been so watered down that much of it is meaningless by now. Thanks to the decades-long spread of "progressive" values, America has lost her thirst for liberty. Long live the Republic...

Permalink Reply by Publius Huldah on March 3, 2010 at 10:57pm

Charlie, This Congress would not impeach & remove the president, vice-president, or any federal judges for usurpations. It is up to the People to elect Representatives & Senators who will. But first, The People must learn The Constitution! Some are willing to learn. Will there be enough? Don't know! But I do know this - and it is a pure fact: "The opera ain't over till the fat lady sings." Which means, of course, we never give up - never.

Permalink Reply by Trinity Damon Persful on March 2, 2010 at 2:36pm

PH,

Largely because of this forum, I have decided to run for a County Commissioner seat, and stand up to some of the governmental abuses in my little piece of the world. There is an artlcle that might appear in the Tennessean about me talking about the 2010 Census. Thanks for the help.

Trinity

Permalink Reply by Publius Huldah on March 2, 2010 at 3:47pm

Congratulations, Trinity! I'm finishing up a formal paper on The Census: Rule of Law or Rule of Man? I'll send it to you. I have been having fights with those meddlesome door-to-door census proletarians for 40 years!

Permalink Reply by William Person on March 3, 2010 at 10:25pm

Thanks PH, I am learning

Permalink Reply by Publius Huldah on March 10, 2010 at 4:32pm

Folks: Here is a formal paper on The Census which is an expansion of the initial post. Please do read it as it contains some interesting quotes from Megyn Kelly (FOX News) & Rep. Michelle Bachmann. I also explain precisely what "Rule of Law" means.
http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/rule-of-law/

Permalink Reply by Publius Huldah on March 10, 2010 at 11:13pm

Joseph, going to federal court to ask them to uphold The Constitution is like hiring a fox and a red-tailed hawk to guard your chickens! See the earlier posts above in this discussion about federal courts. Megyn Kelly's mindset is the same as that of the federal judges. They believe that the Constitution means whatever they - the judges -say it means! They know nothing, and care nothing, about original intent. 40 some years ago, when I took federal constitutional law, we didn't even read the Constitution! Never talked about it. Never mentioned The Federalist Papers. Instead, we read U.S. Supreme Court opinions and studied what THEY said. That's what they teach in the constitutional "law" classes in law school. Almost all of the lawyers in this country have the same mindset as Megyn Kelly. That's why I say we have generations of constitutionally illiterate lawyers & judges. Michelle Bachmann is one of the few lawyers who avoided being indoctrinated.

Permalink Reply by Publius Huldah on March 11, 2010 at 11:25am

In my initial post in this discussion, I linked to Dr. Hudgins' (Cato Institute) testimony before Congress on the Census during July 2000. There, Dr. Hudgins' spoke of "the refusal of millions of Americans to answer many of its very personal questions." Dr. Hudgins' testimony is very good, and is consistent with Cato's high academic & intellectual standards. I think you will find it very bolstering.

Permalink Reply by William Person on March 11, 2010 at 12:14pm

Publius:
When taking a position regarding answering any questions other than the "enumeration", should anyone be concerned about answering any other questions and presenting a "selective" regard for the constitution? If I wind up in front of a judge and he asks me if I answered any other questions than the number of people in my household, would that potentially establish some "selective" regard for the intent of the Constitution and Census requirements?
When making this decission, is this one of those all or nothing (other than # of persons) situationsr?