The American Community Survey

Beamhead

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jul 6, 2004
Messages
4,253
Location
gone "Squatchin" :p
If we are going to parse words then define enumeration and the founders intent. Any law they direct only pertains to that not to how many toilets are in my house, what race we are............
The body of the text in article 1 section 2 lays out the House of Representatives which is the only body directly proportional to populace, hence the need for enumeration/head count.
 
Last edited:

Empath

Flashaholic
Joined
Nov 11, 2001
Messages
8,508
Location
Oregon
I hope you don't think I support their reasoning. As far as I'm concerned, they're on the same level as marketing researchers.
 

turbodog

Flashaholic
Joined
Jun 23, 2003
Messages
6,425
Location
central time
According to the census site, they interpret Title 18 sections 3571 and 3559 as amending the fine to be $5000 instead of $100.



I didn't see the same interpretation, but it's an indication of their efforts to posture for a stronger position.

I certainly wouldn't advocate a civil disobedience in dealing with the situation, but I can certainly see where citizen's would feel violated.

As far as directing any violation charges toward any particular individual, since they only address their forms to "Resident", it would seem to be on shaky legal grounds for them. Of course a direct visitation would be another matter.

You're not the owner or a resident.... you're just a guest and nobody else that lives there is available.
 

turbodog

Flashaholic
Joined
Jun 23, 2003
Messages
6,425
Location
central time
Much has been made of past Supreme Court nominations. Some justices liberally interpret the Constitution to avoid the need for an amendment.

One question I would like to see any future nominee asked is "exactly what rights or privileges are legally and Constitutionally granted only to legal citizens other than the right to vote?" I think it would reveal a lot about the mindset of the justice. I'd also like to see some discussion of how government can use data it compels you to disclose.

Except that rights aren't additive.
 

Beamhead

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jul 6, 2004
Messages
4,253
Location
gone "Squatchin" :p
I hope you don't think I support their reasoning.

Not at all.

...and on what authority would they require compulsory response during a visitation? AFAIK, you can slam the door on the Feds and call the cops on them for trespassing (unless they come knocking with a warrant, etc.).

I have heard that in some jurisdictions if you have a "No Soliciting Allowed" sign they can't but by the same token I have heard you can be charged with obstructing/interfering with the duties of a Federal agent/employee. :shrug:
I just stand my ground and only give them the head count in my house.
 
Last edited:

Lightraven

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Sep 2, 2004
Messages
1,170
It does appear that it was all written into law by OUR representatives in Congress. That's the way it goes, day-to-day, and it doesn't make the front page of the news like Britney.

Local law enforcement has no authority over federal officers based on the sovereign principle--federal overrules states, always. The limits to federal officers' authority are the Constitution--specifically the fourth amendment, statutory and case law limits, and finally, agency policies.

They have no need for a warrant unless a search is being conducted. Walking up to a door is never trespassing because anybody can do it--it's considered legal for anybody to walk in a straight line from the street to the front door to make contact with residents--signs and fences do not apply. Veering off into the yard, backyard or some private area could be considered trespassing--or a search, as it relates to government officers. No soliciting signs have no authority over government officers, but the other factors I listed are in effect.
 

h_nu

Enlightened
Joined
Jul 18, 2004
Messages
444
Location
Virginia
Except that rights aren't additive.

I don't want to veer too far off track but perhaps rights should be additive. They are in many other countries. You have your human rights and separately citizens rights, such as the right to own property or work.

We do have the right to sue the government for a redress of grievances. That should include the right to limit the information we provide based on the sloppy care it has demonstrated with personal records in the past.
 

turbodog

Flashaholic
Joined
Jun 23, 2003
Messages
6,425
Location
central time
I don't want to veer too far off track but perhaps rights should be additive. They are in many other countries. You have your human rights and separately citizens rights, such as the right to own property or work.

We do have the right to sue the government for a redress of grievances. That should include the right to limit the information we provide based on the sloppy care it has demonstrated with personal records in the past.

Rights are not additive. If they were, then EACH AND EVERY thing we could do would have be explicitly spelled out. Instead, the gov't just spells out what is illegal and all else is fair game.
 
Top