reply to post by Turnerad
Here is what I don't understand. The U.S. has been conducting a census every ten years since 1790. Sure, you could say a conspiracy has been going on
since then, if you want to argue that then knock yourself out. Anyway, the 2010 census only has about ten questions or so. The least amount of
question in a LONG TIME. The 1950 census had around fifty questions believe it or not.
First off Turnerad, allow me to robustly, and sincerely welcome you as a member and tell you how nice it is to have you finally posting. Secondly,
please accept my humble sympathy and empathy for the troubles and indignities I have no doubt you must suffer through due to your position. However,
sympathy and empathy are merely emotions and sadly the best I can offer in this regard. Beyond feelings, I can endeavor to help you better
understand. Yes, the U.S. has been conducting a census every ten years since 1790, and yes I could argue that a conspiracy has been going on since
then, and since you've invited me to "knock myself out", allow me to do so.
While several in this thread have, through perpetual perplexity pointed out that the Constitution mandates a census taking, it should first be noted
that this mandate was made of Congress, and not of the people. Here is Article I, Section 2 one more time, just to be clear:
Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their
respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and
excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three years after the first meeting of the
Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent term of ten years, in such manner as they shall by law direct.
Before addressing how this Section of the Constitution affects the people directly, what should first be noted, and in direct answer to your question
of conspiracy, is the infamous "three-fifths" Clause. If you need it explained to you that there was undeniably a conspiracy to relegate slaves as
only being "three fifths" of a person, and that the representatives who wrote this section conspired to obsequiously ignore the direct contradiction
that slavery brought to that Constitution, and that this compromise was made to ensure the slave states would ratify this federal Constitution and
join the union, then me explaining it now won't change a thing.
The "three-fifths" compromise is a horrible ink stain on that document, and a mark we must all live with as long as that Constitution still stands.
This unforgivable compromise illustrates effectively all that is wrong with compromise and marks the beginning of "kicking the can down the street"
for posterity to deal with, a practice that not only continues today, but has gotten so out of hand, our posterity faces insurmountable debt because
we refuse to reign in an out of control government. The problem of turning a blind eye to slavery by our Founders is not just that multitudes of
people had their inalienable rights trampled upon, the problem was handled with solutions, and part of that solution was the equally horrid 14th
As a long time lurker, and recently registered member, I am offering you the benefit of the doubt in that I don't need to define for you what a
conspiracy is, and as such, it should not be so hard to see the conspiracy, from the very beginning, regarding the census taking. The fact of the
matter is that the bicameral legislature created by our Founders, was done so for a purpose:
In theory, the House would represent the common people, while the Senate would represent wealthier property owners and serve as a check against the
pressures of public opinion. But those who wanted a more democratic government objected to creating an aristocratic “upper” house. Thomas
Jefferson supposedly asked George Washington why a Senate was necessary. “Why did you pour that coffee into your saucer?” Washington responded.
“To cool it,” Jefferson replied. “Even so,” said Washington, “we pour legislation into the senatorial saucer to cool it.”
Yet, in 1913, the very same year that the Federal Reserve was created, the same year that amazingly crafty piece of legislation known as the 16th
Amendment was written, so was the 17th Amendment written:
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator
shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State
When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill
such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the
vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the
What does the matter of the Senate have to do with the census you might ask? Absolutely nothing except for the fact that our Founders chose
bicameralism as a method of legislation, and it is important to understand why. It was to preserve the republic, and make the process of legislation
even harder. I bring up the 17th Amendment, that same year we the people were handed the 16th Amendment which was famously challenged as
unconstitutional by both Brushaber and Stanton, I have never yet been able to find any legal challenges in a court of law regarding either the 17th
Amendment, nor the Federal Reserve Act. How strange is that?
The 16th Amendment is the only legislation of those three seminal acts that were challenged, to the best of my knowledge, and oddly, the 16th
Amendment was the only one of those three that had sound legal standing. I realize there are many out there that will insist that the 16th Amendment
is unconstitutional, and never properly ratified and blah, blah, blah, but any novice Constitutionalists need not look too hard to see the validity in
First, it should be clear to everybody that Congress all ready had the complete and plenary power of taxation and did not need an Amendment in order
to lay and collect taxes on income. Secondly, an understanding of history and the Pollack ruling makes it even easier to understand why that
Amendment was written, and third; a simple reading of that Amendment makes perfectly clear that no new power of taxation was created, nor was any new
burden placed upon the people. All the 16th Amendment did was allow Congress to flex its own muscles to the courts and made perfectly clear that any
tax laid upon income without apportionment was to be viewed as an indirect tax and not a direct tax.
So, where that Amendment was challenged with erroneous claims and destined to fail, the Federal Reserve Act, dubious in its creation, and it is a
quite valid question to ask if Congress has the authority to delegate its own responsibility of coining and printing moneys to a "quasi-public"
banking institution, and then there is the 17th Amendment. The excuses for this Amendment were to address the very complaints that were the precise
purpose of that Amendment, which was the gridlock it fostered, and even the problem of Representatives not choosing vacated Senate seats in time for
the next session, which clearly slowed down the process of legislation, and given the multitudes of statutes, codes and ordinances on the books today,
what would be so damn wrong with a year without legislation?
Why can I not find any legal challenges to the 17th Amendment and the Federal Reserve Act? What sort of conspiracy was that? What does this have to
do with the census?
My first day in training as a crew leader, it was explained to us that, if the Department of Homeland Security, or even the FBI wanted information
from the Census Bureau that information would NOT be divulged. Take that for what you want. What I can tell you first hand is this much: WE TAKE
EXTRAORDINARY STEPS TO MAKE SURE PII (PERSONALLY IDENTIFIABLE INFORMATION) DOES NOT GET OUT TO THE PUBLIC. I mean they take RIDICULOUS PRECAUTIONS.
One of my enumerators almost got fired for having her husband in her car when she was acting as courier to send enumerator questionnaires to the
office. They were packed in an inter office envelope and in a box.
What could the Census Bureau possibly be asking that such protocols have been put in place? If a census is nothing more than a head count to properly
apportion for The House of Representatives, what possible difference could it make if that information was shared with all of those alphabet agencies
and the creepier Germanic agency known as Homeland Security? What would I or anyone else care if the FBI knew the number of people residing in my
home or theirs? Certainly, in order to ensure proper apportionment, this is all that need be answered, and since the three fifths clause has been
rendered moot, certainly my skin color has no bearing, nor my name, or my political beliefs, religious beliefs and so on. All that should matter is
the number of occupants, so again I ask, why are these very strict protocols about privacy being emphasized so much? Don't you find that even
You've spent much time attempting to assure us that our privacy is protected and that "only about 10 questions are asked" My friend, that seems to
be only about 9 questions too many.
[edit on 21-5-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]