The decennial census, as employed, is unconstitutional.

Pro offered new material in his final round so I am within DDO standards by replying. Pro insists I quoted the cases relating to this issue out of context; I did no such thing. The cases make clear that the Congress has broad powers in regard to the census. The powers of the government are not unlimited though and the "necessary and proper" clause does have limits. I stated those limits as I made clear the actions, or questions in this case, cannot be arbitrary and capricious. So long as the questions relate to a government program they will be allowed. Pro brings forth the new argument that the programs are unconstitutional themselves as they expand the government's power past Constitutional limits. This brings up an age old debate and one Hamilton and Madison had at the onset of the Constitution. This is different debate, but briefly the question was addressed in US v Butler, 56 S. Ct. 312. The Court held that the "general welfare" clause is not limited by the rights listed, but is separate, not unlimited but broader than the specific enumerations. In Butler, the court ruled Congress did indeed overstep its bounds. The "general welfare" clause is not limitless and expansion of the clause to cover expenditures has Constitutional limits. If Pro listed some of the specific programs then this discussion could go further, but he did not. In reality, this is a separate debate and one Pro may wish to respond to so I see no need to further it in this final round. I provided a case where "non appropriation" questions were ruled upon. Moriaraty. The Court has addressed this question and did so in 1901. Pro, in his conclusion, correctly claims the "It's always been done that way before" argument is not valid. I fully agree, but the difference here is that the census has been challenged numerous times throughout its history and every censes has questions past a head count. To date, no court has invalided this arrangement, and it has gone to the courts several times. The 1790 census took place during the lifetimes of the founders and each one has been upheld, the 2010 census will be no different. The "headcount" only has been rejected time and again. Pro must show how the new questions step outside of the previous decisions. He listed some questions, and I addressed them in full. Conclusion; Congress must be allowed wide discretion to fulfill its duties. The survey questions allow for Congress to exercise its powers more efficiently. The survey is "necessary and proper" as it serves a governmental purpose. If no census was taken, I can see nothing preventing Congress from enacted a law for the survey alone. The Constitution gives Congress the ability to make "necessary and proper" arraignments to help promote the general welfare. The census is a perfect opportunity to apply such a survey. The survey cannot be used for redistricting purposes as the cases Pro and I listed make clear, but outside of this, the questions are valid so long as they reflect on government programs. People, fill out the survey and the head count as both help in the administration of government and we can all agree they need all the help they can get.