1 In 3 Americans Failed To Return Census Forms

Originally posted by inthesticks
reply to post by Sestias

 

I think Protoplasmic Traveler was saying that the Constitution was suspended in 1961 along with that session of Congress. I don't think I agree.

IF you have done the research, you would agree but ..........obviously, you haven't.

On March 28, 1861 the United States Congress adjourned sine die (without assigning a day for a further meeting or hearing, for an indefinite period to adjourn an assembly sine die). In other words Congress went home at the start of the Civil War with no intention on returning. To call the Congress back into session De jure (concerning law and principal) would have required the Speaker of the House and Majority Leader of the Senate to set the date at a later time.

This never ever happened. Let me repeat there has been no legally sat Congress or Senate per the United States Constitution since March 28, 1861.

The Congress was called back into session de facto (concerning fact and in practice) by President Abraham Lincoln who had not the Constitutional Authority or Power to do so.

Legally, technically and factually the Constitutional Government of the United States ceased to exist forever March 28, 1861. It became a de facto War Time Emergency Government a CORPORATE Government operating under Contract Law because at that point the United States Constitution became desuetude (an outdated doctrine that causes statutes and similar legislation to become unenforceable by a habit of non-enforcement or lapse of time.)

Legal doctrine says that when something falls into desuetude and continued non-use that it is rendered invalid.

Not only did Lincoln not have the legal authority to call Congress into session under the Constitution, the Congress being illegally sat, lacked a quorum (In law a minimum number of members of a deliberative body necessary to conduct business of that group). A legislative body not meeting a quorum can not vote. The seceding States were only seceding over an unlawful attempt to infringe upon the Constitution and over an attempt to amend it illegally without a quorum and that is what caused the legal Congress to convene sine die. Lincoln’s illegal and dictatorial actions in decreeing Congress in session de facto while in sine die prevented the real Congress from ever reaching a Constitutionally legal agreement to call it back into session de jure by the Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader in the Senate. Thus the Constitution was violated at its core and fell into desuetude.

Very few legal scholars or history professors would attempt to refute this!

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


You raise some valid points about "rights." Have you ever heard the stand-up bit by George Carlin titled, "You have no rights?" He makes a good point that I think you would agree with: If every country has a different set of rights, then they aren't really "rights" at all.

Nevertheless, 300 million people is a population far to large and complex for the laws to go by whatever rights individual people say they have. Such a system would lead to anarchy, with people insisting that killing, stealing, and other general insanity is within their rights while powerful people would insist that people have no rights at all.

Something has to be written down somewhere, a consensus has to be reached. It's the only way to keep society intact. That's where the Constitution comes in. Also, a set of rules has to exist for Congress to follow, otherwise they could pass whatever laws they want. Sadly, the power of the Constitution grows weaker every day as the scum in Washington wipe their filthy butts with it. As adherence to this piece of paper diminishes, our laws encroach more and more on our liberties.

Even with the Constitution, the government infringes on our rights with each new, worthless law. If we didn't have it at all, they would have no constraints whatsoever and they would have turned this country into a dystopian nightmare a long time ago.

HOWEVER, when the Bill of Rights was written our founding Congress knew that by creating a list of what our rights are, the government could, in the future, use that as evidence that we have no rights except those specifically listed. It's clear that they recognized our right to retain fundamental rights besides those specifically mentioned. In my opinion, that is why the Ninth Amendment was written:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

The Constitution exists to protect and define our rights, not to limit them. Without it, you could one day be arrested in violation of your rights and you would have no defense. You would say, "This violates my right to _____!" And the Judge would say, "According to what?." You might be inclined to answer "According to me," but stating that won't remove cuffs from your hand or open your cell door.

Remember that the Constitution is amendable. You don't have to like everything in the Constitution. You don't have to accept the fact that certain things are not in it. The solution is to become politically active and try to make a difference. I really don't like the census either, and I for one would like to see the Constitution amended to repeal the authority of the census. Until that day comes, I must side with the census. If it were in my power to pick and choose which parts of the Constitution applied to me, then it would be in everyone's power to pick and choose which parts of the Constitution apply to me.

As for the authority of our current Congress, that's a matter I haven't researched myself and therefor I cannot comment on it. I will say that I find it hard to believe that such a huge matter would have simply gone unresolved.

reply to post by Yummy Freelunch


I filled out my census the day I got it, and mailed it back. I thought those that were so against it were nuts, but you my friend have a point I NEVER considered. By our ss number THEY know I exist.............enough said.

thank you for pointing this out. Albeit, too late for me to rip up my census.

I did it because I am an avid camper in the summer, and if the census gives us more money for the state parks I stay in, then I am all for it. But I truly see your point.

Although they know we exist by our SSN; they don't know where, and that might be of some relevance.

yeah i didnt send mine back either, didnt feel like it, ...so apparently they send a census person up to six times to your door? and then what?

Originally posted by Abiotx
yeah i didnt send mine back either, didnt feel like it, ...so apparently they send a census person up to six times to your door? and then what?

Super sweet avatar.

That is kind of what i am curious about. What will they do if you refuse to participate?

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


yo thx, yeah i dunno either i just heard they keep coming til u cooperate and then they finally come with the sheriff but surely they cant force you to do anything. but then again who knows.

[edit on 18-4-2010 by Abiotx]

This thread is hilarious.

The need for a census is spelled out in the constitution.

If you can't be bothered to reply out of laziness, whatever, none of my business. But if you honestly think the census is a conspiracy and they're using it to come get you, you're paranoid and need some perspective.

The credit rating industry and IRS already know more far about you than what is asked on a the census form.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by Abiotx
yeah i didnt send mine back either, didnt feel like it, ...so apparently they send a census person up to six times to your door? and then what?

Super sweet avatar.

That is kind of what i am curious about. What will they do if you refuse to participate?

One of the posters on another Census thread, said they worked as a supervisor in the 2000 Census. They basically said they make six attempts to get the information in person, if that fails, they just give up.

To their knowledge no one was arrested.

Personally I would love to be dragged in front of a judge on such a matter.

As you know I have some very serious accusations to level at them, and would simply use it as an opportunity to do so.

I personally plan on telling who ever comes to my door the same things I say here on ATS.

I anticipate once the first supervisor comes out and speaks to me, they won't want anyone else being subjected to my perspectives.

That will be that.

reply to post by mattifikation

Nevertheless, 300 million people is a population far to large and complex for the laws to go by whatever rights individual people say they have. Such a system would lead to anarchy, with people insisting that killing, stealing, and other general insanity is within their rights while powerful people would insist that people have no rights at all.

This is dogma manufactured and perpetuated by the rulers of the artificial scarcity system, which creates an intense competition for horded resources that creates a chaos that the very same oligarchs that are doing the hording, then are turned to, to create rules for security. Mostly their own security and maintaining the artificial scarcity paradigm is the security arranged through these laws.

There is no reason human beings can not live in universal brotherhood, save the artificial scarcity system, and the dogmas it perpetuates.

If you believe you and your brother are incapable of living in harmony, then the only ones responsible for that chaos would be people who believe that.

Most of the six hundred thousand codes on the book punish people, for victimless crimes, where no property or person is hurt and damaged, and no real loss occurs, simply for the profit of the state.

What true crime does occur, occurs from those who would like the wealth and privilege bestowed upon those with the genuine divine right of Kings. Monarchs are above the laws, and most of them derived their very wealth and lands through violent theft of it. We are ruled by a don’t do as I do, do as I say system. If an individual emulates what the Monarchs have done, who are immune from their crimes, because they sit at the top of the pyramid, they are punished for it, even though it was the Monarchs behavior that set an example for such things.

I will not make excuses for this system, or sell myself or my fellow humans short. I believe we can achieve universal brotherhood, once people are willing to let go of their false doctrines, and dogmas, that keep them firmly trapped in the artificial scarcity paradigm.

The earth creates the resources, not the Oligarchs who horde them, the resources of the earth should be shared then equally and in accordance to us all, also being a resource and bounty of the earth.




[edit on 18/4/10 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


What if they arrest you? Convict you? Put you in jail? Do you not feel that you can accomplish more outside of prison?

I do think it's unlikely it would come to that, but it's a possibility.

Originally posted by mattifikation
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

 

What if they arrest you? Convict you? Put you in jail? Do you not feel that you can accomplish more outside of prison?

I do think it's unlikely it would come to that, but it's a possibility.

If this were to happen, it would only because, the universe itself had some purpose for me, in such a place. Therefore I would be precisely where I was supposed to be, and be able to do precisely what I was meant to do.

The whole system of artificial scarcity is based on fear. Fear though is an illusion. Who is to say what the future will actually bring. Imagining the worst only invites it. It can also paralyze a person to innaction.

It can also cause a person to make a poor choice.

Filling out the census and identifying myself as belonging to the Barcoded number attached to the form, to be cataloged by the department of commerce as corporate property, and to in that process, contractually agree to the whole system, is not a good choice for me.

That is in fact what they are asking me to do, and I am not inclined to do it now or ever.

Thanks!

Edit to add: Yes I saw George Carlin's skit on rights. George understood the fallacy and hypocracies of it all.

The truth is when you look at the real truth, its so sad it is funny.





[edit on 18/4/10 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]

Personally I don't find the census offensive, intrusive or probing in any other way that to obtain general information on the local population.

I have read here that some people are absolutely against it because they think there is some global conspiracy and the government is out to get you by getting all your names and addresses, and if they know what race you are, they can file you into their fema camps more efficiently, right? Not likely.

In this case the simplest answer is the right one, basic census information is used to allocate city and state money based on the demographics and population of an area.

I used to work as an assistant manager for a big box retail chain. The reason that this census doesn't offend me in the slightest is that I know from a retail perspective just how demographics affect the city and all those who live in it.

Take for instance a general market store:

The store is located in a predominantly mexican or african american neigborhood. This store should be carrying products that cater to their particular market, (without being stereotypical here), pigs feet, chitlins, collard greens, burrito/taco kits, rice and beans to name a few food products. These products can extend over to general goods like clothing and household products as well. For this store to stay profitable, they must be able to give the customers what they want based on a demographic understanding of the local population. This is a major part of ordering products for the store, trust me, I used to do it every week.

Now let's say that this predominately mexican/african american store was instead in a caucasian neighborhood:

These products would be dead items and would result in major loss in sales for the stores on a first daily, then weekly and finally montly basis. Each lost sale affects the store's overall budget so much that hours have to be cut to allow for the store to be profitable.

This is where it affects the household income.

By taking hours away from the workers, obviously they make less money and have less to spend on the products they need for that given week/month.

The census helps "update" the current demographic model in each city, state and town.

I do not feel that it is racist or overbearing in any way and I filled mine out quickly not because I am better than anyone else, but because I don't want the hassle of having someone come to my door either. It is simple and easy, it's done.

To all the big conspiracy touters here that viamently disagree with what I've just said, try looking up your families history if your ancestors just said "I dont' want to do it cause it's none of your buisness" or "they are out to get me".

Just like a previous poster said, if the government really required you to fill it out, you would. Credit card companies, mortgage companies and even your local bank have more information about you than your census collectors. In this current age of technology, any government agency hasn't lift a single finger to write you a note asking for your personal info, they merely just steal it from your virtual wallet (I.E. Internet).But the threat of fines is merely like that of a child making funny faces and her mother says it will get stuck that way if you keep it up. Half of us listened, half of us didn't , but in the end we are all normal, technically speaking.

I don't have anything against anyone who opposes the census, but personally I am trying to find out where my family came from, and I have been waiting for this census to fill in the blanks for about 4 years now, so please just answer a few questions, if not for yourself, but for the good of your community.

(I am not a census worker by the way...Let the flaming begin.....)

[edit on 18-4-2010 by Kingalbrect79]

reply to post by Kingalbrect79


I think you are incorrect, to a certain degree. I do not believe that the US Census information is very useful to stores. Perhaps I am wrong.

Initially, when a new chain store is going to open they do what is called "Due Diligence". This means they hire someone to go out and do feasability studies on various locations. Some firms will even go out and find a location that fits your business model.

Once this feasibility study is done, the reports are reviewed by the real estate functions of the corporate office, who will begin securing bids for the contract work, gathering estimates, and submitting purchase orders to get the ball rolling on the buildout.

The initial study may use some demographic information to let the company know what types of people are in the area. From a customer standpoint it is important to know so you can build strategy. But more than likely the strategy is built first, and the location is picked to fit the 5/10 year growth strategy that is in place.

I am surprised that you actually did ordering. In many of the national level chains, ordering is done automatically based on purchase trends (this is why they scan every item...Cherry pop tarts are not the same as blueberry). Each week the store recieves what a central supply chain system has decided it needed, based on purchasing trends and forecasting that includes weather data, time of week/year/season/month purchasing trends, etc (behavioral analysis is a burgeoning aspect of the forecasting profession).

The US census role in purchasing for your average grocer is minimal, at most.

To an extent you are correct, a grocer is not the main impact, and yes there is a very long time period when data is collected about the population in which the store will be built.

In regards to the census, I was merely drawing an example between how such a subtle form can have drastic effects down the line. People in general only see the immediate affect, not the effect that it can have on them in the near future.

As far as ordering for the stores, yes, it is a regular occurance. Stores are mostly inventory automated now to cutback on bringing in items that are dog sellers, however the system cannot compensate for the "rainy day shopping spree" or the warm weather weekend on the lake with the BBQ. Manual ordering must still be maintained to suppliment these systems to keep up with demand. However since it is a human ordering the products and not a system, you have to know your demographic in order to order the proper amount, the right product and the right time.

All of these things are taken into account when trying to provide to the public.

However I think that this is borderline off-topic now so I will state another point.

And I am waiting for ProtoplasmicTraveler to step in screaming on this one but:

We are tracked from birth; each of us is given a serial number to carry with us for the remainder of our lives, all under the guise of retirement funds. Credit card companies have a record of every purchase we make to establish credit and other companies look at this information to market new products to the individual based on your "Lifestyle".

My point is: Why would we be so concerned with the census when the government already knows every thing we have ever done already? The census isn't the "Top Secret" red stamp put on the file folder that everyone must keep hush hush or they will throw you in jail. If they really wanted to, they would have done it already, but they won't. Why would a government conspiracy come right out and say, "here is the paper for you to give us your personal information, but don't tell anyone why we really want to know!"

It's ludacris at best to think that the census is anything more than financial data to the corresponding civil figures.

(Off topic--I love your AV by the way Tex, very funny. I used to live in Texas.)

reply to post by Kingalbrect79


We have a weather guy on our local NBC affiliate that recently moved here from somewhere else. Matt Englebrecht. Similar to your screen name.

I am concerned that the census is a further iteration of a government that is out of control. I have seen a way we can fix it as "The People". Problem is, apathy will likely squelch any meaningful action.

The people of this country...their idea of a protest is to stand on a sidewalk with signs for a couple of days, then go back to work and forget bout the whole affair.

RE: the avater....i have made a few. it is an evolution. i like the concept, so i don't change it. this one still needs work (the gorilla needs to be redone...to bright and blurry on the edges). but i like it better than the one with the orange sunset. i have taught myself to use Photoshop CS3 on a cavemans level, but don't spend much time messing with it due to the regular grind of life taking up my time.

I made my signature banner, too. Other Pegasus contributors seemed to have liked it and use it now, too.



[edit on 18-4-2010 by bigfatfurrytexan]

Originally posted by inthesticks
reply to post by Sestias

 

I think Protoplasmic Traveler was saying that the Constitution was suspended in 1961 along with that session of Congress. I don't think I agree.

IF you have done the research, you would agree but ..........obviously, you haven't.

Whoops. I meant 1861, the year the Civil War began. By the time I realized my error the "edit" button had disappeared.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Just so i am aware, on what basis do you disagree?

While the Constitution was perhaps never "officially" reinstated (enough to satisfy some purists) it has remained a guiding document in the affairs of the United States. At the conclusion of the Civil War Congress resumed meeting in the way it had done prior to it. The Supreme Court has, and still does, make decisions based on their interpretation of the Constitution; a recent example, the ruling that a corporation has the same rights as an individual.

The fact is there are a lot of things that the Constitution just does not cover. Isn't for them or against them, just doesn't mention them at all. Some examples: the citizenship of Native Americans, the Louisiana Purchase, the illegality of slavery. The rights of women and African Americans to vote was instated through amendments to the Constitution. It would be silly to say, for example, that women shouldn't be allowed to vote, or slavery should continue to exist, because they weren't in the original Constitution. That's what amendments are for.

Therefore, the Supreme Court and other official bodies strive to understand and interpret what is called the "spirit" of the Constitution; if it were limited to exactly what a document drawn up two hundred years ago had originally meant, we'd still have slaves and women and native Americans would be second-class citizens.

I don't see the Constitution as a fixed entity, or inerrant like some say the Bible is. It is a living, growing document that evolves as the country does.


[edit on 18-4-2010 by Sestias]

reply to post by Sestias


The constitution being seemingly the same, and being pursued in the same way, is something that i consider. But there are still some things like the "missing" 13th amendment (which would, in effect, fix what is wrong with the current lobby and campaign finance system).

I am far from a purist. But i do want to see the paper that my ancestors died for be upheld in honor of their life.

We are living in a nation that is "free". Note the quotations. We are free to make decisions. We can work hard and change our situations. It is a good life in comparison to the lives seen in places like central Africa.

So what we have to ask is, do we want "free", or do we want free?

To comprimise may not be a bad thing. I am unsure currently. If it means that the US continues to behave in the manner it has, then i want "free" to go away.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

So what we have to ask is, do we want "free", or do we want free?

There in lies the rub, because the biggest problem is ‘freedom’ is a matter of judgmental laced perspective for many people, whose judgment and perspective is not always ‘free’, and as such would prefer everyone else’s always be ‘free’.

There version of ‘free’ often is arrived at by first attempting to make other’s less free, to arrive at what their version of freedom is.

In other words let’s not be truly free, but let’s define freedom as “blank_____________” and codify it as “blank____________” and let’s instill that the notions and premise of “blank_____________” is what really constitutes “freedom” through mandated, and instilled, and enforced shared perspective where we all have been caused one way or another to believe “blank_______________” is “free”, therefore it is, and anyone who disagrees freely, is a danger to “Our”, Freedoms”.

That’s not freedom, nor anything close to freedom, but truly a combination of brainwashing, borne out of the fears, that if some are too free, then it keeps others from being “free”, only in that later case, “free” to be 100% reliant on the protections that a shared version of “freedom” creates in their own minds, often for people who lacked the initiative and self empowerment to ever be free on their own, or accept the responsibilities of it to begin with.

Currently “free” in the United States is a series of about 600,000 codes, many of them people don’t know until they freely step over that line, and almost no recourse to freely discuss or redress those things with out penalty and vilification. Made all the more difficult because so many have accepted what is in essence slavery, sold to them expertly and painstakingly as “Freedom” by playing upon their collective and individual fears, and desires, to warp their perspectives of what freedom is.

Free is simply unfettered and unrestrained. Free is not being dictated too, and made to conform through codes that simply exist to profit the State Enterprise, and peer pressure by those who have never understood the meaning of the word “free” other than as a series of code’s that they imagine protect them, by restricting others in ways that they imagine if not so restrained would imperil their “freedoms”

It is both crazy and perverse, this current notion of freedom, and in fact, we see many people argue for this by saying, I did what I was told, and I don’t see how it hurt me, because of my training and instilled and shared skewered perspectives, therefore you should too or you are wrong.

That’s not freedom, that’s utter stupidity.

To comprimise may not be a bad thing. I am unsure currently. If it means that the US continues to behave in the manner it has, then i want "free" to go away.

Compromise that lacks consent, true consent of the people, which is often how compromise is affected, and then dictated to us, is not compromise, but alteration, of the values and qualities of freedom, then forced at others through various forms, of threat, intimitation, manipulation and in some cases incentive to then roll into the "new" illusion of what "free" and "Freedom" should be.

Ultimately the more you try to define the word freedom, to include and mean specific things, for specific purposes, the progressively less free you become, and that's what we have seen.

Most of this has not been an attempt to codify freedom, based along wisdom, which is something that should be up to the individual in a truly free society, but to codify freedom, to restrict, simply to manipulate those who aren't ready or desirous to truly be free, but needs a illusionary version, to in essence gaurantee through imagination, that their own inherent dysfunctions will never be threatened by another's actions, even indirectly.

Free is unfettered and unincumbered, and any one who thinks 600,000 codes that regulate truly every facet of their existence is unfettered and unincumbered, has clearly had their thinking capacity and wisdom regulated to the point of negation.

There is an often overused phrase to describe people as "sheeple". While it is silly to see it used to much, there is a truth to it that likely makes opponents of its use uncomfortable as well.

Consider the person who is in a prison for 20 years. The term for what they are is "institutionalized". They become incapable of acting freely, making decisions, and handling the stress of the freedom that they have. Bear in mind, this freedom is not a true freedom, but the pseudofreedom that all US citizens have.

Apply this same concept to a mental patient. I worked in a mental hospital for 5 years as a front line staff (i was a "bouncer" basically on the acute care/admission unit). We had this one guy that had been there 27 years. Every time they tried to discharge him, he would set something on fire. Why? He, too, was institutionalized. The thought of having to make his own decisions and be responsible for himself is more than he can bear, so he ensures continued hospitalizations.

I would propose that most people are "institutionalized" as well. The freedoms we have are all they want, and are happy with the status quo. Things like Health Care Reform and social security take the control away from the individual and put it in the hands of the state.

Now, you and I may see the error in this concept. But surely you also must understand how The People have been institutionalized to the point that they are eager to accept the status quo, and will fight to prevent changing it....


....until there is no longer any hope that they can sustain it.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

I would propose that most people are "institutionalized" as well. The freedoms we have are all they want, and are happy with the status quo. Things like Health Care Reform and social security take the control away from the individual and put it in the hands of the state.

Now, you and I may see the error in this concept. But surely you also must understand how The People have been institutionalized to the point that they are eager to accept the status quo, and will fight to prevent changing it....


....until there is no longer any hope that they can sustain it.

The institution analogy is an apt and rather accurate way.

In fact once a person becomes incarcerated in the Federal Justice System they find there are several levels of security that are applied based on the individual and their crime.

Super Maximum Security being the highest distinction, with several decreasing levels of restriction down to the lowest which is Community Custody, so as far as the Federal Government is concerned being in the Community is a form of custody all by itself!

Community Custody as you might guess are those people who are on House Arrest or Probation, but are allowed out into the community frequently for things like working and shopping.

Our institutions have become so numerous, and so pervasive and some would argue so powerful, that they have, or are truly in the process of turning the communities at large, into a form of an asylum or a prison, where there are plenty of rules, and penalties, to regulate almost everyone and everything.

It is simply a prison without noticeable bars, but nonetheless almost no freer place left to escape too. Instead of shackles and irons, they simply use code after code to regulate every movement, every bite, every breath, every action, every reaction, and on and on.

Yes you are ‘free’ to move around the prison they are creating.

It appears someone has left the real lunatics out of the Asylum!

Interesting and thought provoking post my friend.