For the 2010 Census: Name and Address Only

[Wry Catcher]

For those interested, here are the blank forms.

Ancestry.com - Census Forms

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

That I purposefully didn't cite? It's the very first post of this thread so I obviously did a poor job of hiding my source.

Will you be addressing the points made or will you continue to resort to your usual deflections?

 

[paperview]

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

From the article:

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.

That I purposefully didn't cite? It's the very first post of this thread so I obviously did a poor job of hiding my source.

Will you be addressing the points made or will you continue to resort to your usual deflections?

I did not click on your link in the OP. It was stupid, so I didn't know from whence it came.

I also know you cite Lew Rockwell like Benny Hinn cites the bible.

I don't need to read an idiot Lew Rockwellian who claims a false Constitutional premise, especially when the very first census counted race - back when most all the Founders were all walking around. In addition, I am debating with you, not the Rockwellian.

I cited the 1820 Census, which included even more questions including
"How many persons engaged in agriculture, commercial or manufacture" and naturalization questions.

That's more than an enumeration.

Ya think this might have been quarreled with by them Lofty Founders ( I say that respectfully.)

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

That I purposefully didn't cite? It's the very first post of this thread so I obviously did a poor job of hiding my source.

Will you be addressing the points made or will you continue to resort to your usual deflections?

I did not click on your link in the OP. It was stupid, so I didn't know from whence it came.

I also know you cite Lew Rockwell like Benny Hinn cites the bible.

I don't need to read an idiot Lew Rockwellian who claims a false Constitutional premise, especially when the very first census counted race - back when most all the Founders were all walking around. In addition, I am debating with you, not the Rockwellian.

I cited the 1820 Census, which included even more questions including
"How many persons engaged in agriculture, commercial or manufacture" and naturalization questions.

That's more than an enumeration.

Ya think this might have been quarreled with by them Lofty Founders ( I say that respectfully.)

It "counted the race" in the sense that it asked how many free white people as opposed to how many slaves, considering that slaves were counted differently than free white people were in respect to Congressional apportionment. You can cite whatever census you like, but, as I already pointed out, violating the Constitution in the past does not validate violating the Constitution in the present or future.

Also, what does the source matter? All I'm seeing is you deflecting away from addressing the points made by attacking the website they're on.

 

[paperview]

That I purposefully didn't cite? It's the very first post of this thread so I obviously did a poor job of hiding my source.

Will you be addressing the points made or will you continue to resort to your usual deflections?

I did not click on your link in the OP. It was stupid, so I didn't know from whence it came.

I also know you cite Lew Rockwell like Benny Hinn cites the bible.

I don't need to read an idiot Lew Rockwellian who claims a false Constitutional premise, especially when the very first census counted race - back when most all the Founders were all walking around. In addition, I am debating with you, not the Rockwellian.

I cited the 1820 Census, which included even more questions including
"How many persons engaged in agriculture, commercial or manufacture" and naturalization questions.

That's more than an enumeration.

Ya think this might have been quarreled with by them Lofty Founders ( I say that respectfully.)

It "counted the race" in the sense that it asked how many free white people as opposed to how many slaves, considering that slaves were counted differently than free white people were in respect to Congressional apportionment. You can cite whatever census you like, but, as I already pointed out, violating the Constitution in the past does not validate violating the Constitution in the present or future.

Also, what does the source matter? All I'm seeing is you deflecting away from addressing the points made by attacking the website they're on.

OK, I'll post an op-ed from a lefty website saying the census as is - is constitutional.

You want to debate that or me?

The only point that it really comes down to is:
If it's been done for most of our history, without an effective SCOTUS challenge, do you really think the question even passes muster?

If you want to change something about how it's done, write your reps. Change the laws.
Congresscritters the ones charged with "in such Manner as they shall by Law direct."

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I did not click on your link in the OP. It was stupid, so I didn't know from whence it came.

I also know you cite Lew Rockwell like Benny Hinn cites the bible.

I don't need to read an idiot Lew Rockwellian who claims a false Constitutional premise, especially when the very first census counted race - back when most all the Founders were all walking around. In addition, I am debating with you, not the Rockwellian.

I cited the 1820 Census, which included even more questions including
"How many persons engaged in agriculture, commercial or manufacture" and naturalization questions.

That's more than an enumeration.

Ya think this might have been quarreled with by them Lofty Founders ( I say that respectfully.)

It "counted the race" in the sense that it asked how many free white people as opposed to how many slaves, considering that slaves were counted differently than free white people were in respect to Congressional apportionment. You can cite whatever census you like, but, as I already pointed out, violating the Constitution in the past does not validate violating the Constitution in the present or future.

Also, what does the source matter? All I'm seeing is you deflecting away from addressing the points made by attacking the website they're on.

OK, I'll post an op-ed from a lefty website saying the census as is - is constitutional.

You want to debate that or me?

The only point that it really comes down to is:
If it's been done for most of our history, without an effective SCOTUS challenge, do you really think the question even passes muster?

If you want to change something about how it's done, write your reps. Change the laws.
Congresscritters the ones charged with "in such Manner as they shall by Law direct."

You're free to post whatever you want, but if I were to respond I would at least back up my points rather than attacking your source.

You're once again posting from the assumption that the Supreme Court is infallible, and I once again reject this assumption.

 

[paperview]

And in 220 years, no one had the nads to make them stop.

"Daddy Make them Stop!!!"

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

And in 220 years, no one had the nads to make them stop.

"Daddy Make them Stop!!!"

So if the government is not stopped from doing something then what they're doing is automatically right?

 

[paperview]

And in 220 years, no one had the nads to make them stop.

"Daddy Make them Stop!!!"

So if the government is not stopped from doing something then what they're doing is automatically right?

At this point right now are there any SCOTUS cases pending challenging the census questions Kevvy?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

And in 220 years, no one had the nads to make them stop.

"Daddy Make them Stop!!!"

So if the government is not stopped from doing something then what they're doing is automatically right?

At this point right now are there any SCOTUS cases pending challenging the census questions Kevvy?

Not that I'm aware of, but that simply reaffirms my question that you conveniently didn't answer. If the government is not forced to stop doing something does that make whatever they're doing right?

 

[paperview]

So if the government is not stopped from doing something then what they're doing is automatically right?

At this point right now are there any SCOTUS cases pending challenging the census questions Kevvy?

Not that I'm aware of, but that simply reaffirms my question that you conveniently didn't answer. If the government is not forced to stop doing something does that make whatever they're doing right?

The only thing it reaffirms is that this whole discussion is one big pile of steaming bullcrap meant only to stir by blowhards who can't even mount a real challenge.

If there was a smidge of a chance in holy hell it would pass a constitutional challenge, it would be front and center right now by said blowhards.

But then again, that's why they call them blowhards.

 

[paperview]

Even the freakin' whacked out birthers have more nads.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

At this point right now are there any SCOTUS cases pending challenging the census questions Kevvy?

Not that I'm aware of, but that simply reaffirms my question that you conveniently didn't answer. If the government is not forced to stop doing something does that make whatever they're doing right?

The only thing it reaffirms is that this whole discussion is one big pile of steaming bullcrap meant only to stir by blowhards who can't even mount a real challenge.

If there was a smidge of a chance in holy hell it would pass a constitutional challenge, it would be front and center right now by said blowhards.

But then again, that's why they call them blowhards.

There's obviously no reason to continue this discussion.

 

[paperview]

Not that I'm aware of, but that simply reaffirms my question that you conveniently didn't answer. If the government is not forced to stop doing something does that make whatever they're doing right?

The only thing it reaffirms is that this whole discussion is one big pile of steaming bullcrap meant only to stir by blowhards who can't even mount a real challenge.

If there was a smidge of a chance in holy hell it would pass a constitutional challenge, it would be front and center right now by said blowhards.

But then again, that's why they call them blowhards.

There's obviously no reason to continue this discussion.

How often do we agree?

There. Now, isn't that nice?