The decennial census, as employed, is unconstitutional.

I recommend using a 4 round format when offering an introduction. Just tell Con to write, "I accept". This way will allow for two solid rounds and a conclusion for both sides. I wasn't being cross. This is a great topic. Pro offered three points. Point 1: Pro states the lack of details after enumeration puts any questions asking more than enumeration questions within the purview of the 10th Amendment. If this is truly the case then the right of privacy is outside the scope of the Constitution also as it is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution either. One cannot claim an un-enumerated right exists and is violated by citing a clause requiring enumeration. I fully agree that the right of privacy is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution but I also see that the remaining questions in the form are not prohibited by lack of inclusion also. Both the right to privacy and the additional questions fall in line with the Constitution. In support I ask voters to review the "necessary and proper" clause of the US Constitution. Article 1, section 8, clause 18. Allowing Congress to "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. " The US government uses the data to help allocate the money for projects such as roads, subsidy programs, placement of unemployment assistance, etc. All fall under powers allocated to Congress. The additional questions are used for a purpose, and are not arbitrary and capricious. Point 2: Pro continues to employ the help of the 10th Amendment, but much like the right to privacy the census questions do fall under enumeration in the Constitution as the Constitution gives very broad powers to Congress in regard to the census. See Wisconsin v. City of New York, et al 517 U. S. 1. This matter has made the court docket and has done so since the inception of the census. The first census did more than just a head count. In 1901 The Court held in reference to Art 1, sec2, cl 3, "This does not prohibit the gathering of other statistics, if "necessary and proper. " Morearity 106 F 886. I grant the right to privacy was fully delineated in 1901, but such concerns were raised during the 2000 census and were all rejected under the 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendments. Morales v. Daley. So long as the questions go toward a governmental purpose, they can be asked. Pro offered examples. 1. Ability to speak English – this question is asked to help designate language learning centers in communities who need them most. Placing a Spanish/English center in Oneida, Tennessee would be a waste, but one in San Antonio would be better. 2. Level of Education – GED programs, work for college credits, funding for schools, etc. 3. Term of residence – statistical data related to commerce, effects of lay offs, company shut downs, and how they affect the economy. 4. Travel to work – commerce and necessary road systems, state funding for daycare services, needed levels of local traffic enforcement related to accidents to help improve travel at certain times of the day. 5. Running water – Health reasons and the allocation of state services concerning sewage and the proper placement of water treatment plants. None of these questions are groundless. Pro's only chance is to show the questions serve no Governmental need, and so far the courts have upheld every census in history. Point 3: I, and the courts, fully concede the census was used in an illegal manner in the past. We cannot let the past administration's illegal actions prevent us from running the country efficiently. The US Congress recognizes how data can be misused so they codified the Censes and put protections in place preventing such actions. Pro need not be concerned over criminal prosecution as the Census Bureau is prohibited from distributing specific information to other agencies, including the FBI. No 5th Amendment violation can be had as the obtained information would be "fruit of the poisonous tree" and could not be used in court. A rookie lawyer would have such a case thrown out and administrative action would be taken for all those involved. Because the evidence cannot be used for prosecution no 5th amendments rights are violated. In conclusion, fill out your census form. If one does not then action can be taken. Michelle Bachmann was irresponsible in telling constituents to refuse to provide the data. I do not recommend violating a federal law, one we have had since the beginning of this country. Every census has asked more than the number of people in a household. The 2010 census is no different.