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?
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Phil on -
Last census they tried that. I don't know anyone who went along with it. If it's a mass protest like last time I wouldn't worry about it. Plus that's what this movement is all about right? Restoring our constitution. Number in household is all they get from me. I can't wait to see April 15th!!
-
-
Permalink Reply by Publius Huldah on -
William, as a lawyer, I may not tell people not to answer the questions. But as a political philosopher, I may remind people that Peter said we must obey God not man (Acts 5:29), and that Hamilton expected us to be "enlightened enough to distinguish between a legal exercise and an illegal usurpation of authority." (Federalist No. 16, 10th para). I may also speak of what I will do. Originally, I planned to give only the number of persons living in my home. But last week, Rush Limbaugh, expressing outrage over the question asking your race, asked us all to check "other" and write in "American".
-
-
Permalink Reply by Charlie on -
Yes, the Constitution is alterable via the amendment process. That's how the 16th Amendment can nullify provisions in Article I Section 8, just like how the 21st Amendment can nullify the 18th Amendment and how the 25th Amendment can supersede Article II Section 1 Clause 6.
Yes, an amendment conferring on Congress the power to grant titles of nobility could be ratified. There's nothing in the Constitution that can't be changed via the amendment process. Fortunately, it is rather difficult to get an amendment ratified.
While I'm no fan of the 16th Amendment either, it remains constitutional ex vi termini/per definitionem ('by definition') [I'm not sure which (if either) is the Latin phrase preferred by constitutional law experts -- PH, care to clarify?] unless or until it is repealed. -
-
Permalink Reply by Publius Huldah on
-
Lawyers don't know the Constitution. And they sure don't know Latin! Our graduate schools are not places of "higher learning" - they are indoctrination centers. Greta van Susteren of FOX is a very nice lady, and I'm sure she never had a mean thought about anybody in her life, BUT: Her mind is like a blank sheet of paper which got stamped in law school!
-
-
Permalink Reply by Charlie on
-
It can't simply be "overridden" by Congress, as it takes much more than Congress to amend the Constitution. Via the amendment process(es), anything in the Constitution can be "overridden."
You're correct that the powers of Congress are limited to those that are enumerated. However, that enumeration can be added to or subtracted from via the amendment process(es). If an amendment somehow passed granting Congress the authority to regulate how many times a day you must wash your hands, such powers would still be "constitutional."
I'm not sure what the disconnect that you're experiencing is...? -
-
Permalink Reply by Charlie on
-
Yes, everything in the Constitution is amendable, including prior amendments. Detestable as you or I might find it, a 28th Amendment could even repeal the 10th.
There could even be an amendment thousands of pages long that no on reads before voting on and which repeals & replaces the entire Constitution. It could install a monarchy, declare Shinto as the official state religion, and require all citizens to become nudists. As long as it is ratified via the amendment process, it becomes constitutional.
Once an amendment has been ratified via the constitutional amendment process, it becomes constitutional by definition, even if it repeals or supersedes vast swaths of earlier parts of the Constitution. That's the whole point of the amendment process. Fortunately, it is very difficult to get an amendment ratified.
The Constitution has nothing to do with separating from England. In fact, much of the United States Constitution was about restoring natural rights previously enjoyed as Englishmen.
"As for Sec 9 alone, if Congress has no power to tax outside of capitation..."
That limitation no longer holds following the ratification of the 16th Amendment.
I think you need to review Article V of the Constitution. There are only two limitations on the affects of amendments: one limitation expired in 1808, and the other says "no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate." Everything else is fair game. To impose further limitations would, in effect, deny the People the liberty to peacefully alter their form of government. -
-
Permalink Reply by Publius Huldah on
-
Steve, The Constitution is not a "contract". Instead, WE THE PEOPLE are the Creators of the federal government. When WE THE PEOPLE created the federal government, we delegated to it certain enumerated powers. It is our "creature" [that is Hamilton's term: Federalist No. 33, 6th para]. The relation between The People and the federal government is "Creator" & "creature", not parties to a "contract".
Secondly: Everything Charlie said about amending the Constitution is precisely & equisitely correct.
Please: Lay aside what you think you know and start from scratch. Everything we have been told is school is a Lie or mush. -
-
Permalink Reply by Charlie on
-
Indeed, the Constitution is not a contract.
"I have written several service contracts and have made good use of language that forces a complete rewriting if certain principles are changed. As with the Constitution, if any core principles are changed, then it creates a domino effect that creates a need to reexamine the rest of the rules."
The U.S. Constitution contains no such provisos. -
-
Permalink Reply by Publius Huldah on
-
Steve, Article V. provides two methods of amending the Constitution: In the first method Congress proposes the Amendments, but the States (or the People of the States) must then ratify them before they are effective. And yes, anything in the original Constitution may be amended in this manner.
In the second method (and may we never be so blindly foolish as to go this route) we have a constitutional convention. Under this, the entire Constitution is on the chopping block. -
-
Permalink Reply by Charlie on
-
What evidence from the text of the Constitution (or the Federalist Papers, etc.) have you found to support your theory that "core principles" of the Constitution cannot be altered via the amendment process?
"We reserve all powers not vested in the Constitution."
Additional amendments can vest new powers. -
-
Permalink Reply by Charlie on
-
The only two limitations on what amendments can affect are in Article V, neither of which pertains to what you are talking about.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Publius Huldah on
-
Rules for this class include: If you can not support any assertion by citations to The Constitution, The Federalist, an old American dictionary, or other pertinent & relevant writings of our Founders, then don't make the assertion! Odds are, it's mere personal opinion, and that doesn't cut it in constitutional analysis.
There is a place for personal opinions, but not when dealing with the Constitution. The whole purpose was to enumerate the powers so that legislators, presidents and judges would look to the Constitution to see what they could do, not to their own opinions. -
© 2013 Created by Judson Phillips.
