🚀 go-pugleaf

Ward Griffiths writes:

> The original purpose of the national census each decade, as established
> in the original U.S.  Constitution, was nothing more than counting
> noses.  The primary reasons for the nose-counting were to determine how
> many congress-critters each state would supply to the house of
> representatives, and how much taxes each state would pay to the federal
> government.

I think you've got the details wrong here [but the overall point is
correct].  The Constitution is quite clear, and the sense is exactly
backwards from what you say: the "original purpose" is to establish the
apportionment and the tax base.  period.  It is not the "primary
reason", it is the *ONLY* reason.  There is NO authority for a 'nose
count', per se,  or any other arbitrary statistics gathering.

> I am not sure of the legal basis for the newer nosy versions of the 
> census, but I must assume that with the current policy of treating 
> regulations inflicted by government departments as having the power 
> of law, that someone at the bureau simply decided "Hey!  Why don't we 
> insist they give us all these nifty personal details about their lives!".

Again, simply going back to the constitution clarifies this some: it
sames [Art I sec 2 #3]  "The actual enumeration shall be made ... in
such manner as they [Congress] shall by law direct".  And the law now
says that you are legally obligated to answer all of those @#$%@#$
questions.

Is the law constitutional?  That's a trickier question, but I suspect
that the SC would rule that it IS.  The actual legal tradition varies
from court to court, but in general in matters of procedure the SC
defers to the other branches to determine for themselves how to do
their jobs.  In this case, the argument would go that "We [Congress]
are empowered to determine how the census ought to be conducted, and
since it must be by law, that implies the consent of the Executive.
And that's what we've done"  Barring any really gross overstepping of
their authority or other impropriety, I think that the SC, in general,
buys this kind of reasoning.

One problem is that the gov't has gotten involved in all sorts of
things which while arguable beyond its intended purview are nonetheless
fait accompli.  Many of these [e.g., welfare programs,
anti-discriminatory programs, other aid programs, projections for the
costs of Social Security, etc, etc] all really require that for the
gov't to be able to administer its programs in a rational way it really
MUST have more of this intrusive information.  [e.g., it is real hard
to police discriminatory practices if you are denied any way of
determining what is going on; or it is real hard to administer an 'aid'
program of any sort if you're denied knowing which parts of the country
are in need and which aren't].

I'll just point out that some would argue that this quandry is prima
facie evidence that the gov't is involved in things it ought not be
messing with, and so instead of further sullying the waters with its
further intrusions, perhaps it ought to rethink the basic programs and
find a way to better stay within its intended bounds.

Bernie