For the 2010 Census: Name and Address Only

[paperview]

Census of 1910:

Census Questions (1910)

 

[paperview]

Questions from the 1950 Census of Population and Housing, Form P-1

Go Back to Enumeration Forms Index
HEADER:
a. State
b. County
c. Incorporated Place or Township
d. E.D.(enumeration district) Number
e. Hotel, large rooming house, institution, military installation, etc. (name, type, line numbers of residents)
-- Line Number
1. Name of street, avenue or road
For Head of Household:
2. House (and apartment) number
3. Serial number of dwelling unit
4. Is this house on a farm (or ranch)?
5. If no in item 4: Is this house on a place of three or more acres?
6. Agriculture Questionnaire Number
For All Persons:
7. Name (last name first):
· What is the name of the head of household?
· What are the names of all other persons who live here?
· List in this order:
- The head
- His wife
- Unmarried sons and daughters and their families (in order of age)
- Married sons and daughters and their families
- Other relatives
- Other persons, such as lodgers, roomers, maids or hired hands who live in, and their relatives
8. Relationship:
Enter relationship of person to head of household, as
Head
Wife
Daughter
Grandson
Mother-in-law
Lodger
Lodger's wife
Maid
Hired hand
Patient, etc.
A. LEAVE BLANK
9. Race:
White (W)
Negro (Neg)
American Indian (Ind)
Japanese (Jap)
Chinese (Chi)
Filipino (Fil)
Other race -- spell out
10. Sex
Male (M)
Female (F)
11. How old was he on his last birthday? (If under one year of age, enter month of birth as April, May, Dec., etc.)
12. Is he now married, widowed, divorced, separated, or never married? (Mar, Wd, D, Sep, Nev)
13. What State (or foreign country) was he born in?
· If born outside Continental United States, enter name of Territory, possession, or foreign country
· Distinguish Canada-French from Canada-other
B. LEAVE BLANK
14. If foreign born:
Is he naturalized? (Yes, No, or AP for born abroad of American parents)
For Persons 14 Years of Age and Over:
15. What was this person doing most of last week: working, keeping house, or something else? (Wk, H, Ot,
or U for unable to work)
16. If H or Ot in Item 15:
Did this person do any work at all last week, not counting work around the house? (Include work for pay,
in own business, profession, on farm, or unpaid family work) (Yes or No)
17. If No in Item 16:
Was this person looking for work? (See special cases below) (Yes or No)
18. If No in Item 17:
Even though he didn't work last week, does he have a job or business? (Yes or No)
19. If Wk in Item 15 or Yes in Item 14:
How many hours did he work last week? (Include unpaid work on family farm or business) (Number of hours)
20. · If employed (Wk in Item 15, or Yes in Item 16 or Item 18), describe job or business held last week.
· If looking for work (Yes in Item 17), describe last job or business.
· For all other persons, leave blank.
20a. Occupation:
What kind of work was he doing?
20b. Industry:
What kind of business or industry was he working in?
20c. Class of Worker:
P Private employer
G Government
O Own business
NP Without Pay on family farm or business
Occupation/Industry/Class of worker examples:
- Nails heels on shoes/Shoe factory/P
- Chemistry Professor/State Univ./G
- Farmer/Farm/O
- Farm helper/Farm/NP
- Armed forces/ /
- Never worked/ /
C. LEAVE BLANK
THE QUESTIONS BELOW ARE FOR PERSONS LISTED ON SAMPLE LINES:
21. Was he living in this same house a year ago? (check box for Yes or No)
If No in Item 21:
22. Was he living on a farm a year ago? (check box for Yes or No)
23. Was he living in this same county a year ago? (check box for Yes or No)
If No in Item 23:
What county and State was he living in a year ago?
24a. County (If county unknown, enter name of place or nearest place)
24b. State or foreign country
D. LEAVE BLANK
25. What country were his father and mother born in? (Enter US or name of Territory, possession, or foreign country)
Father:
Mother:
26. What is the highest grade of school that he has attended? (Enter one grade --see codes below)
27. Did he finish this grade?
(check box for Yes or No)
28. Has he attended school at any time since February 1st?
· For those under 20 years of age check Yes or No.
· For those 20 years of age and over, check 20 or over.
For Persons 14 Years of Age and Over:
29. If looking for work (Yes in Item 17):
How many weeks has he been looking for work? (Number of weeks)
30. Last year, in how many weeks did this person do any work at all, not counting work around the house?
(Number of weeks in 1949 or None)
31. Income received by this person in 1949:
31a. Last year (1949), how much money did he earn working as an employee for wages or salary?
(Enter amount before deductions for taxes, etc.or None)
31b. Last year, how much money did he earn working in his own business, professional practice, or farm?
(Enter net income or None)
31c. Last year, how much money did he receive from interest, dividends, veteran's allowances, pensions, rents,
or other income (aside from earnings)? ($ or None)
F. LEAVE BLANK
32. If this person is a family head (see definition below) -- Income received by his relatives in this household:
32a. Last year (1949), how much money did hs relatives in this household earn working for wages or salary?
(Amount before deductions for taxes, etc. or None)
32b. Last year, how much money did his relatives in this household earn in own business, professional practice,
or farm?
(Net income or None)
32c. Last year, how much money did his relatives in this household receive from interest, dividends, veteran's allowances,
pensions, rents, or other income (aside from earnings):
($ or None)
G. LEAVE BLANK
33. If Male (Ask each question):
Did he ever serve in the U.S. Armed Forces during:
33a. World War II
33b. World War I
33c. Any other time, including present service
QUESTIONS FOR THE PERSON WHOSE NAME FELL ON THE LAST SAMPLE LINE:
34. To enumerator: If worked last year (1 or more weeks in Item 30):
Is there any entry in Items 20a, 20b, or 20c?
If Yes: Skip to Item 36
If No: Make entries in Items 35a, 35b, and 35c.
35a. What kind of work did this person do in his last job?
35b. What kind of business or industry did he work in?
35c. Class of worker (P, G, O, or NP, as in Item 20c).
36. If ever married (Mar, Wd, D, or Sep in Item 12):
Has this person been married more than once? (check box for Yes or No)
37. If Mar: How many years since this person was (last) married?
If Wd: How many hears since this person was widowed?
If D: How many years since this person was divorced?
If Sep: How many years since this person was separated?
(Enter number of years or check Less than 1 year.)
38. If female and ever married (Mar, Wd, D, or Sep in Item 12):
How many children has she ever borne, not counting stillbirths? (Enter number of children or None.)

 

[paperview]

What happened to Kev?

 

[Midnight Marauder]

What happened to Kev?

I think he must have gotten all wee-wee'd up looking at your new avatar!

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

What happened to Kev?

He didn't want to be rude and interrupt you and judyd patting each other's backs.

 

[paperview]

What happened to Kev?

I think he must have gotten all wee-wee'd up looking at your new avatar!

 

[paperview]

What happened to Kev?

He didn't want to be rude and interrupt you and judyd patting each other's backs.

In other words, all that weighty information about historical Census questions must have really thrown you for a loop.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

What happened to Kev?

He didn't want to be rude and interrupt you and judyd patting each other's backs.

In other words, all that weighty information about historical Census questions must have really thrown you for a loop.

Or could it be that I did not feel it necessary to point out once again that the Constitution only allows for a simple head count for the reapportionment of Congressional districts? Now we can certainly point to many periods in history where the Constitution has been ignored, but does that really justify continuing to ignore the Constitution in the future?

 

[Baruch Menachem]

Oh that is a good article.. Thank you for posting it. I am undecided on how to fill my census form out now.

One one hand- There is a point- it is better to just self-govern, and stop letting government have so much info about us.. Besides, they never really ask all the detailed demographic stuff anyways... at least not that I can recall.

On the other hand- it would be kinda nice to have questionnaires in place to where we could even give race, sexual preference, etc, etc, etc.. and even do other survey type things, so that there is no way that the gov't can skew the results. I would like to see this done online, in the future, really.

I also think we should be able to extend our house of representatives.. I am all for smaller government, especially when it comes to weakening the police forces and intelligence departments, but I think that the biggest problem in US enforcing this, is that the reps are having a lot of trouble with keeping the people's freedoms in mind, with such a small congress, relatively speaking. Like, in New York, there is like, what- 3 million people to each representative? How the fuck is that one person supposed to hear that many people?? It is ridiculous. Give us one per million. If 40-50% of the population votes, and only a third to a half of those people are registered to democratic or republican parties, then that leaves each representative with no more than a couple hundred thousand people to listen to. I think that is very workable, and reasonable.

A House of Rep with 435 barely gets things done now. You want it to be even bigger and even more unweldy. OK>

IF they had 700, nothing would get done. Right now, with Pelosi in charge, do you really want them to accomplish anything?
What with the way apportionment works, and the fact that we are nearly at 1 million per representative, they don't hear us very well anyway. Jamming up the works is just a good idea.

Actually, if you have an issue with the census, the idea is not to skip it, but to be counted early and often.

 

[paperview]

He didn't want to be rude and interrupt you and judyd patting each other's backs.

In other words, all that weighty information about historical Census questions must have really thrown you for a loop.

Or could it be that I did not feel it necessary to point out once again that the Constitution only allows for a simple head count for the reapportionment of Congressional districts? Now we can certainly point to many periods in history where the Constitution has been ignored, but does that really justify continuing to ignore the Constitution in the future?

Please post for us if you will Kevin, the relevant parts of the Constitution regarding the Census.

Thanks!

 

[judyd]

He didn't want to be rude and interrupt you and judyd patting each other's backs.

In other words, all that weighty information about historical Census questions must have really thrown you for a loop.

Or could it be that I did not feel it necessary to point out once again that the Constitution only allows for a simple head count for the reapportionment of Congressional districts? Now we can certainly point to many periods in history where the Constitution has been ignored, but does that really justify continuing to ignore the Constitution in the future?

Give it a rest! Jeez, they asked more personal questions in 1780--WHEN THE CONSTITUTION WRITERS WERE STILL AROUND--than the 10 questions they are asking in 2010.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

In other words, all that weighty information about historical Census questions must have really thrown you for a loop.

Or could it be that I did not feel it necessary to point out once again that the Constitution only allows for a simple head count for the reapportionment of Congressional districts? Now we can certainly point to many periods in history where the Constitution has been ignored, but does that really justify continuing to ignore the Constitution in the future?

Please post for us if you will Kevin, the relevant parts of the Constitution regarding the Census.

Thanks!

"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. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three." - Article 1, Section 2

 

[paperview]

In other words, all that weighty information about historical Census questions must have really thrown you for a loop.

Or could it be that I did not feel it necessary to point out once again that the Constitution only allows for a simple head count for the reapportionment of Congressional districts? Now we can certainly point to many periods in history where the Constitution has been ignored, but does that really justify continuing to ignore the Constitution in the future?

Give it a rest! Jeez, they asked more personal questions in 1780--WHEN THE CONSTITUTION WRITERS WERE STILL AROUND--than the 10 questions they are asking in 2010.

Not 1780.

We were still fight the rev war at that time and the Constitution had yet to be written.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

In other words, all that weighty information about historical Census questions must have really thrown you for a loop.

Or could it be that I did not feel it necessary to point out once again that the Constitution only allows for a simple head count for the reapportionment of Congressional districts? Now we can certainly point to many periods in history where the Constitution has been ignored, but does that really justify continuing to ignore the Constitution in the future?

Give it a rest! Jeez, they asked more personal questions in 1780--WHEN THE CONSTITUTION WRITERS WERE STILL AROUND--than the 10 questions they are asking in 2010.

Obviously you meant 1790, and no they certainly were not more personal.

 

[paperview]

Or could it be that I did not feel it necessary to point out once again that the Constitution only allows for a simple head count for the reapportionment of Congressional districts? Now we can certainly point to many periods in history where the Constitution has been ignored, but does that really justify continuing to ignore the Constitution in the future?

Please post for us if you will Kevin, the relevant parts of the Constitution regarding the Census.

Thanks!

"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. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three." - Article 1, Section 2

Very good. Now pay attention to the part in bolded in red.

It's also the same phrase I cited when I traipsed into this thread.

What part of that phrase do you not understand?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Please post for us if you will Kevin, the relevant parts of the Constitution regarding the Census.

Thanks!

"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. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three." - Article 1, Section 2

Very good. Now pay attention to the part in bolded in red.

It's also the same phrase I cited when I traipsed into this thread.

What part of that phrase do you not understand?

I believe I understand it quite well, and it is my opinion that it is you who are suffering the misunderstanding.

From the article:

"But," the statists will sputter, "the Constitution says that this counting may be done ‘in such Manner as they [Congress] shall by Law direct,’ and that allows us to get further information from and about you." This language merely goes to the mechanics of the counting (who will do it; when it is to be done; how, when results are to be reported; and so forth); it does not enlarge what may be counted. Constitutionally the only permitted enumeration is the number of people in the United States. Why? Because that count is the determinant for apportionment and therefore the only pertinent information needed. Not race, not ethnicity, not personal relationships, not housing tenure."

 

[paperview]

Or could it be that I did not feel it necessary to point out once again that the Constitution only allows for a simple head count for the reapportionment of Congressional districts? Now we can certainly point to many periods in history where the Constitution has been ignored, but does that really justify continuing to ignore the Constitution in the future?

Give it a rest! Jeez, they asked more personal questions in 1780--WHEN THE CONSTITUTION WRITERS WERE STILL AROUND--than the 10 questions they are asking in 2010.

Obviously you meant 1790, and no they certainly were not more personal.

They asked more and more questions as the decades went on.

You think in the 200 years or so, it might have, you know, been struck down.

Or sumpthin'.

 

[Wry Catcher]

In other words, all that weighty information about historical Census questions must have really thrown you for a loop.

Or could it be that I did not feel it necessary to point out once again that the Constitution only allows for a simple head count for the reapportionment of Congressional districts? Now we can certainly point to many periods in history where the Constitution has been ignored, but does that really justify continuing to ignore the Constitution in the future?

Give it a rest! Jeez, they asked more personal questions in 1780--WHEN THE CONSTITUTION WRITERS WERE STILL AROUND--than the 10 questions they are asking in 2010.

There were nine (9) questions asked on the 1790 census.
http://c.mfcreative.com/pdf/trees/charts/1790.pdf
Question on number of white males over 16, and under 16 and # of slaves.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Give it a rest! Jeez, they asked more personal questions in 1780--WHEN THE CONSTITUTION WRITERS WERE STILL AROUND--than the 10 questions they are asking in 2010.

Obviously you meant 1790, and no they certainly were not more personal.

They asked more and more questions as the decades went on.

You think in the 200 years or so, it might have, you know, been struck down.

Or sumpthin'.

This argument rests on the assumption that the Supreme Court is infallible and only does what the Constitution allows for. That if there was something wrong they would know. I, obviously, do not accept this notion.

 

[paperview]

"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. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three." - Article 1, Section 2

Very good. Now pay attention to the part in bolded in red.

It's also the same phrase I cited when I traipsed into this thread.

What part of that phrase do you not understand?

I believe I understand it quite well, and it is my opinion that it is you who are suffering the misunderstanding.

From the article:

"But," the statists will sputter, "the Constitution says that this counting may be done ‘in such Manner as they [Congress] shall by Law direct,’ and that allows us to get further information from and about you." This language merely goes to the mechanics of the counting (who will do it; when it is to be done; how, when results are to be reported; and so forth); it does not enlarge what may be counted. Constitutionally the only permitted enumeration is the number of people in the United States. Why? Because that count is the determinant for apportionment and therefore the only pertinent information needed. Not race, not ethnicity, not personal relationships, not housing tenure."

Hilarious. I made a personal bet with myself, the part you quoted (which you (purposely?) did not cite as to who was the author) - was going to be from Lew Rockwell. Took me 5 seconds to look it up.

I won the bet.