The decennial census, as employed, is unconstitutional.

CASE 1: Con erroneously attributes my assertion "within the purview of the 10th Amendment." The cornerstone of my entire argument rests on the basis of the United States being a limited government. As the Tenth Amendment states, "The powers not delegated to the United States … are reserved … to the people." The inclusion of the Tenth Amendment was to prevent the federal government from violating those rights which were not specifically enumerated within the Constitution or Bill of Rights. Con correctly points out that privacy is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution. However, he cannot be more wrong that one "cannot claim un-enumerated rights exist" as this was the precise purpose of the Tenth Amendment as well as the theory of limited government. The Framers knew they were unable to enumerate all rights belonging to citizens but could easily delegate a limited set of "few and defined" powers to the government. The fundamental question which needs to be considered is: Does the government have the constitutional authority to do what it is doing? The Constitution provides the answers to this question as it not only established specific powers to the government but, of equal importance, instituted limits to that power. In this case, the enumerated power in question is given in Article I, Section 2. Specifically, the power to count the number of citizens. CLAIM 1: As written and further amended, the Constitution only enumerates the power to count citizens. CASE 2: Con further brings the voter's attention to the Necessary and Proper Clause for further proof that the federal government is able to run roughshod over the Constitution at will. The government's reliance on the Necessary and Proper Clause of Article I, Section 8, is misplaced because that clause grants no independent power but simply "carries into Execution" the powers enumerated elsewhere in that section (1). The Clause first applies to "the foregoing powers," and second to "all other Powers vested by this Constitution." The "foregoing powers" apply to those in Article I, Section 8, Clauses 1-17. The "other Powers vested by this Constitution" are found within the Constitution itself because "[t]he powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people" (2). Furthermore, using the survey data "to help allocate the money for projects such as roads, subsidy programs, placement of unemployment assistance, etc." is also unconstitutional. The building of roads, establishment of subsidy programs, and placement of unemployment assistance are all powers reserved to the people due to the nonexistence within the purview of enumerated powers. (Roads can be debatable.) As the Supreme Court recognized almost 150 years ago, "[n]o graver question was ever considered by this court, nor one which more nearly concerns the rights of the whole," than the government's unconstitutional assertion of power against its own citizens (3). CLAIM 2: The Necessary and Proper Clause grants no additional power. CASE 3: Con quotes the Supreme Court out of context in Wisconsin v. City of New York, saying the Constitution "gives very broad powers to Congress in regard to the census." This case determined that the Census Bureau's decision to cease utilizing a postenumeration survey – essentially a method to determine a "more accurate" population count – was not unconstitutional. The full quote reveals a different story: "In light of the Constitution's broad grant of authority to Congress, that decision need bear only a reasonable relationship to the accomplishment of an actual enumeration of the population, keeping in mind the census' constitutional purpose of apportioning congressional representation." I ask the voter to pay close attention to the final clause of this quote: "keeping in mind the census' constitutional purpose of apportioning congressional representation." The second case is also taken out of context. Quoted fully: "This does not prohibit the gathering of other statistics, if ‘necessary and proper,' for the intelligent exercise of other powers enumerated in the constitution" (4). Again, please note that this expresses the exercise of powers enumerated elsewhere within the Constitution. The contention of groundless questions on the short on long form surveys were ruled on by the Appellate Court and held as constitutional in Morales v. Evans. However, the courts only acknowledged that the current census law authorizes the statistical "gathering [of] supplemental, nonapportionment census information regarding population, unemployment, housing, and other matters." (5) The constitutionality of including in the decennial census questions requiring information for a nonapportionment purpose was not ruled upon. This matter will hopefully be resolved in the near future with a Supreme Court ruling on Morales v. Evans (6). CLAIM 3: The contention of unsubstantiated questions has not been ruled on and would be a matter of first impression should the Supreme Court accept this case. CONCLUSION: "It's always been done that way before" is not a sufficient excuse. It doesn't make it right and ignores the plain language of Article I, Section 2. As attorney Mark Brewer quipped, "It used to be legal to have separate but equal facilities for blacks and whites, but that's not legal anymore. It used to be legal to sexually harass your secretary. It's not legal anymore. The fact that something like the census has been done a certain way for 200 years doesn't mean that it was right." Ultimately this issue is about power. The census results affect where Congress spends money - essentially who gets how much - and that is precisely what is wrong with the census. The Census Bureau tells us they need more information so it can be used in formulating policy and programs for employment, school construction, public housing, future utility needs and more. Trouble is, for those of us who believe the Constitution actually means what it says, the federal government has no business being involved with such programs and policies. By cooperating with the Census Bureau, you are tacitly supporting the assumption that it does. If you believe in a limited government of specific enumerated powers then you should provide only the number of persons in your household. If, however, you believe in a government of implied powers by an infinitely elastic Constitution then you should have your papers ready for the next surprise inspection. SOURCES: (1) M'Culloch v. Maryland (2) Tenth Amendment (3) Ex Parte Milligan (4) US v. Moriarty (5) Commerce Dept. v. U.S. House (6) Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Morales v. Evans