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 Publius Huldah on March 15, 2010 at 10:12am

Steve, this is a forum for people to learn the original intent of the Constitution. It is not a forum for people to set forth what they think about the Constitution. We have had more than enough of that from federal judges, legislators & faithless presidents - and the enactment of those personal views has brought about the collapse of our constitutional republic. The Constitution has an objective meaning. We can ascertain that meaning by reference to The Federalist Papers, Madison's Journal of the Federal Convention, an old American dictionary, and a few other such references from the time.
Article V. means what it says. Check out what Hamilton & Madison said at Federalist No. 85, 43, & 39. What anyone of us happens to "think" it means is simply irrelevant!

Permalink Reply by Charlie on March 15, 2010 at 6:06pm

Though it was deleted, I'd like to address the last response to my comments (because I already had it written out):

========================================

Steve's response...

:) Let's try this another way.

Of what use is Art 1 Sec 8?

Of what use is Art 1 Sec 9?

Of what use is Art 1 Sec 10?

Finally, in Art 1 Sec 9 and 10 there are three limitations for both Congress and the States. If neither Congress nor the States have any power limit Habeas Corpus, Pass Bills of Attainder, or grant Titles of Nobility, then THEY CANNOT propose an Amendment to grant themselves that power.

It BREAKS the Constitution.

There could even be an amendment thousands of pages long that no on reads before voting on and which repeals & replaces the entire Constitution.

Is this a joke? May I ask your background?

========================================

My reply...

"Of what use is Art 1 Sec 8?"

To enumerate the legislative powers of Congress.

"Of what use is Art 1 Sec 9?"

To provide specific limits on congressional power.

"Of what use is Art 1 Sec 10?"

To limit the rights of the States.

"Finally, in Art 1 Sec 9 and 10 there are three limitations for both Congress and the States."

None of which are pertinent. The amendment process is distinct from the legislative process. That's one of the reasons why there is no presidential veto over any part of the amendment process. See Hollingsworth v. Virginia [3 USC 378 (1798)], wherein the Supreme Court wrote in a footnote, "The negative of the President applies only to the ordinary cases of legislation: He has nothing to do with the proposition, or adoption, of amendments to the Constitution."

"If neither Congress nor the States have any power limit Habeas Corpus, Pass Bills of Attainder, or grant Titles of Nobility, then THEY CANNOT propose an Amendment to grant themselves that power."

Non sequitur ("it does not follow"), there is no such prohibition. No language in the Constitution prevents Congress from proposing an amendment to grant itself a power it does not already have. In fact, multiple amendments have been ratified which do just that.

"It BREAKS the Constitution."

Nonsense. Amendments can repeal or supersede (among other things), but they can't "break" anything. That language doesn't even apply. The Constitution is not a contract.

[re: my snarky comment about voting without reading] "Is this a joke?"

Of course, but it is a true statement, as the constitutional amendment process requires no one to actually read what they're voting on. Remember, we're not talking about what's right & wrong, but rather what is constitutional.

"May I ask your background?"

Irrelevant. If I have made false statements, prove it with something other than claims based on an interpretation not supported by the text of the Constitution (or another similarly authoritative source).

Every last word in the Constitution is subject to repeal or supersedence by future amendment, excepting the single limitation in Article V that remains in force.

Permalink Reply by Publius Huldah on March 15, 2010 at 11:23pm

The sheer beauty of a logical mind + an ascerbic wit bring a smile to the face of publius huldah.

Permalink Reply by Charlie on March 16, 2010 at 6:55am

Acerbic... that's possibly the most pleasant way anyone's ever described my personality. :)

Permalink Reply by Marc Crawley on March 16, 2010 at 8:39am

As I sit here spinning in the turbulence enjoying the debate and attempting to grab something that will stop me from being pulled under, I'm struck initially by these things that I find troubling in your argument Steve. Please forgive me as I have not studied "Law" but do recognize it's exploitative nature.
First, I can not at any point see or recognize The Constitution of the United States as a mere "Contract" if so, where can you tell me are the signatures of the second party agreeing to the terms? It appears to me that the only signatures in place are those of the framers and supporters.
Second, I enjoy debate and am attempting to benefit from the free flow of ideas giving me an opportunity to weigh and compare some of these concepts,but I am having a difficult time with the personal attacks on PH and Charlie as well as the statement regarding Mr. Hamilton. "Elitist" or not my friend I found your statement unnecessary.

Permalink Reply by Charlie on March 16, 2010 at 9:15am

Thanks, Marc. When a debater resorts to ad hominem attacks it often indicates he or she is unable to attack the message rather than the messenger.

Permalink Reply by Charlie on March 16, 2010 at 9:11am

Steve,

Your perception of condescension is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. You are making unsupported claims that lead to flawed conclusions.

"The Original Intent of the Constitution was to secure AS MUCH Individual Sovereignty as could be kept knowing that we must give up some Liberty in order to keep it."

This is an unsupported assertion. It also has absolutely no bearing on what types of amendments can be proposed and ratified.

"…the 3/5th's compromise was agreed upon…"

When the 13th Amendment was ratified, rendering the three-fifths clause moot, was the Constitution "broken?"

Where do you see a prohibition against amendments superseding "original intent?" I can find no such limitation.

Again, you keep using this contract language, presumably due to your professed background in writing contracts. But, as has been stated repeatedly, the Constitution is not a contract and does not behave like one. Most of your claims apparently rest on that false assertion.

A Constitution Convention is not necessarily "terrible" by nature or in all circumstances, but it is certainly a terrible option given our present situation. With the prevailing ideology of the current political class (in the States and DC), what do you expect the results of a Constitutional Convention to be? Would it improve or degrade the existing Constitution? Would it increase or decrease our individual liberty?

Regarding titles of nobility, you are once again assuming limitations on the amendment process that simply don't exist.

The perceived rudeness with which a statement is delivered has no effect on the validity of said statement. Additionally, capitalizing an incorrect statement doesn't make it any less wrong.

Permalink Reply by Publius Huldah on March 16, 2010 at 9:34am

This is a good lesson for me in patience. I will try to be more patient.

‹ Previous
1
…
4
5
6
Next ›