From: "Tanj" 

Huh?  They do not have any rights not given them by the people.  The
constitution gives the right (and duty) to enumerate for proportionment of
representation.

I realize that there is an argument that the questions are mostly to
establish demographics for proportionment of various kinds of funding, but
that could arguably be done by voluntary answers to the questions backed up
by statistical sampling (which is really going to be necessary anyway, if
you want accuracy).  The asking of questions is perfectly proper, it is the
coercing of answers which is not.

And additionally it should be noted that it is the duty of the
representatives to understand and represent the constituents, not the duty
of the census office.  All the census clause in the constitution was
required to do was enumerate.  You could argue that complicating the forms
actually reduces the reply rate and is counter to the goals of the
constitution.

Regards,
Tanj

"Richard Hong"  wrote in message
news:38ce9204{at}w3.nls.net...
> >> Well, then what _is_ unconstitutional?
>
> Randall,
>
> It's a gray area, but the question boils down to this: is it a violation
of
> some fundamental Constitutional right to ask me whether I have indoor
> plumbing?  I think not; for example, the nature of my housing is
information
> routinely gathered for purposes of assessing property tax.
>
> In order to assert that it is unconstitutional, you have to specify which
> Constitutional right is being abrogated.  Perhaps there is a right being
> abrogated.  But merely citing the section of the Constitution which
> authorizes a census is insufficient to establish that additional questions
> run afoul of the Constitution.
>
> Note that the section describing the penalties refers to refusal to answer
> questions on an authorized "census or survey".  Technically, the
additional
> questions may be regarded as a survey being taken by the Bureau of the
> Census in conjunction with the mandated census.  I may agree that the govt

> is being too invasive, and yet believe that they are within their
> Constitutional rights to pass such a law.
>
> IMO, it's almost akin to my feelings on abortion.  I'm pro-choice, but I'm
> not convinced that Roe v. Wade was rightly decided.  I tend to believe
that
> states have the right to regulate abortion and that the privacy right (as
> applied to abortion) is a fiction - yet I would vote to make abortion
legal.
> In the same way, I believe drugs should be legalized, yet I also believe
> that it is Constitutional for the govt to outlaw them.
>
> Just because I believe that the govt shouldn't be doing something doesn't
> mean that I accept that the Constitution forbids it.
>
> Rich
>
>
>
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5