pvolcko wrote: freetown fred wrote:
Grumpy,if your going to say according to the law--let people know where that law is--I agree w/ you 100%,but if there is a law clarifying some of this crap,I'd love to find it & I've looked
US Constitution, Article 1, Section 2:
"Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three years after the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent term of ten years, in such manner as they shall by law direct."
Modified by amendment 14 to include all persons regardless of race. "Indians not taxed" still excluded.
Two schools of thought:
1) It says that they can only enumerate the number of persons. The law can not direct that a person provide any information beyond number of residents in a domicile. They can ask what they like, but they can not compel by law any answers beyond number of persons.
2) "in such a manner as they shall by law direct" allows for a much more expansive census to be conducted and for answers beyond mere enumeration to be compelled by force of law.
#2 is given credence by the supreme court ruling in United States v. Moriarity and a number of other ruling since then, including one in 2000 or 2001 (Morales) that upheld the census questions against a 4th amendment privacy challenge. That said, there has not been, as far as I know, a case where the court was asked or did rule specifically on the penalties for refusal to answer questions on the census.