By David A. Black, Sr.
The 2010 Census is officially under way. The ad campaign, costing millions of dollars, for television, cable, and radio ads, and thousands of billboards, paid for by your hard-earned tax money, tells us all to stand and be counted.
Get their fair share of what? I had my fair share until the Government confiscated it through taxation, now they want to pretend to give a portion of it back.
According to a letter from the U.S. Census Bureau, “Results from the 2010 Census will be used to help each community get its fair share of government funds for highways, schools, health offices, and many other programs you and your neighbors need.”
In all fairness, the members of the House and Senate are just doing their job. The Constitution instructs Congress to collect a direct, heavy, progressive tax from every person in the country. Then, they are to withhold a sizeable amount of the Gross National Product for financing the cost of running the Government. Finally, Congress is to disperse the proportionately small amount of remaining money back to the people, disguised as ‘Investing in America’. Any such investing in the ‘public good’ shall be at the sole discretion of Congress, based on the projected return value of those investments, as realized in the results of polls and elections.
Based on the questions contained in the 2010 Census Questionnaire, two out of ten deals with ethnicity, Congress seems quite concerned about ensuring proper funding of ethnic groups. Rest assured then, so long as you are of the proper, favored ethnicity, Congress is doing their job and looking out for your best financial interest, in relation to ‘Public Investing’.
Pardon my sarcasm. Actually, unlike most members of the House and Senate, I’ve read the Constitution. Article 1, Section 2, later modified by Section 2, of the 14th amendment, calls for representation to be “apportioned among the several States”. The same paragraph, later superseded by the 16th amendment, calls for the “apportionment of direct Taxes” as well; and thereby calls for a Census to have been performed within three years of the first Meeting of Congress, and every ten years thereafter.
Therefore, according to the Constitution, the Census was intended to be used only for the purpose of apportioning representation in the House, and apportioning direct Taxation among the several States. There is no mention of using the Census as a means to justify congressional spending.
Think about it. For the purpose of “apportioned representation” based on the total populations of the several States, does not call for Congress to have any idea of the ethnicity of the populace; they do not need any demographic data as a means to cater to any particular groups.
This means that Congress does not need to know who owns the house I live in, what the genders of any residence are, the actual age of residents, or if a resident has a secondary residence.
Instead, Congress is using the Census to get the American People to endorse the Socialistic practice of ‘redistributing wealth’. They took away Constitutional apportionment of direct taxation with the 16th amendment, and perverted the use of the Census.
Now, we have a scenario where the government taxes the groups determined by the Census, to be the “haves”, to provide benefits to groups determined as the “have not’s”. This is known simply as Socialism.
For the record, there are only five questions the Census could ask under the authority of the Constitution.
- Verify your address.
- How many people live at your address?
- How many people, living at your address, are of legal voting age?
- How many people, living at your address, are American Indians?
- What is your status of residency in the United States? (Circle one) Natural Born Citizen Naturalized Citizen Legal Resident Other
As to the cost of the Census, the entire questionnaire, as authorized under the Constitution, would fit on a post card, the cheapest form of U.S. Mail correspondence and would be easily administered by, and reported through, local governments.
It is at this point, I must ask the obvious question; if we, The People, are going to allow the elected members of Government to pervert the intentions of our Founders and the meaning of our Constitution, to what they want it to say, rather than what it actually says, why should we have a Constitution?
Are we truly a nation of Free and Independent People? Or, are we, The People going to allow the endorsement of Socialism, and idly watch it take root and grow into an uncontrollable despotic dictatorship?