Saturday, June 22, 2019

Ten Years ago on this blog

It was census time, and since a fellow with a (D) after his name occupied 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue it was the GOP freaking out.  Now that's all swapped but the song remains the same.

On advise of Counsel, I respectfully decline to answer ...

Seems that the Census folks will be asking a lot of questions this time around. Some folks are planning on telling them how many people live in the house, and then telling them to clear off:
Outspoken Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann says she's so worried that information from next year's national census will be abused that she will refuse to fill out anything more than the number of people in her household. 
In an interview Wednesday morning with The Washington Times "America's Morning News," Mrs. Bachmann, Minnesota Republican, said the questions have become "very intricate, very personal" and she also fears ACORN, the community organizing group that came under fire for its voter registration efforts last year, will be part of the Census Bureau's door-to-door information collection efforts. 
"I know for my family the only question we will be answering is how many people are in our home," she said. "We won't be answering any information beyond that, because the Constitution doesn't require any information beyond that." 
Seems that the good folks at Census don't much like this:
Shelly Lowe, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Census Bureau, said Mrs. Bachmann is "misreading" the law.

She sent a portion of the U.S. legal code that says anyone over 18 years of age who refuses to answer "any of the questions" on the census can be fined up to $5,000.
Well now. I wonder if you have to sign the Census form, under penalty of perjury?

One of the unanticipated consequences of the left's statist agenda is that people end up trusting the government less over time. The government needs that trust, or a lot of things simply break down.

Me? I wonder if the expression Come back with a warrant would make them unhappy?


B said...

All they get from me is the number of people living here.

All else requires a warrant...Signed by a judge.

Eric Wilner said...

Ackshually, it should be the number of people living there excluding Indians not taxed.
In a sane world, foreign nationals wouldn't count for apportionment, but having large numbers of foreign nationals present (and counted) at Census time seems to be a modern development, and the Constitution hasn't caught up. I'm sure the corporate masters of Silicon Valley appreciate having their votes amplified by the number of non-voting serfs on their plantations.
... There was that one time I gave my race as "Terran." They sent someone around to count me in person.

The Lab Manager said...

I remember the census in 2000 I got a call. I told the guy that one person lives here and I identify as 'Aryan'. I'd love to see the census bureau start fining people. The outrage and backlash should be enjoyable to watch.

Richard said...

False equivalence. There was a clear and present danger that the Left would abuse the information. The complaints this time are the usual Leftist BS about vote suppression. The theory is that illegals will dodge the census, thus lowering representation in areas where they concentrate. Since illegals aren't supposed to vote anyway and it isn't the census that determines this, I suspect the real issue is money. Many grant programs are driven by population numbers irrespective of citizenship status.

Ken said...

I think there's a difference between the decennial Census itself and the ongoing American Community Survey: the latter is reputedly quite a bit more intrusive, and supposedly affords less legal protection for answering (for example) "three." There's a fine for noncompliance, though I believe it's waiting for a suitable case for the Miracle of Selective Enforcement to be applied.