Census Time Heightens Privacy Concerns

jfreund said:
According to the 5th Amendment, they should not be required to give information that could incriminate them, so they have a Constitutional argument in support of not answering census questions. Interestingly, it is a defense that a U.S. citizen does not have.
Click to expand...

The downside is them not providing information, of which that information dictates funding and the like for services based upon population counts, is that their children/etc will still use schools, hospitals and the like, but we don't get any money for them.
 
That's just the thing. I think the ideas in the constution is trodden over by any and all free wheeling justices (think Warren Court as the most eggregious example). I'm not against the bill of rights, or any other legal amendment to the Constitution (with the exception of expanding voting rights IMO...if you can't pass a basic test similar to what a naturalized citizen has to pass, you shouldn't be allowed to vote...and actually the Founding Fathers had a similar statute, except it was a property holder. If you didn't own property, you were "just passing through" in their minds and shouldn't get a vote...not a bad idea). I'm a big fan of less government and a strict constuctionist view. The health care debacle is another eggregious example of the govt. overstepping their bounds. I'm not brainwashed by the media. I have a legitimate opinion from actually reading and looking at issues.

dot_Zen said:
According to the Constitution? The decennial census was not included in the Constitution until 1790; 3 years after the creation of the “original” Constitution. Several congresses and courts since that time have firmly stated that the census CAN include statistical information—which include race, demographics, etc. Furthermore, your line of argument would null and void 27 amendments added after the “original” Constitution was ratified; including, but not limited to, The Bill of Rights. So, think long and hard about who is standing on which slippery slope.

I can’t help but get the feeling you either think you are a constitutionalist or have been brain washed by media propaganda. Whichever is the case, you should probably spend more time reading and learning (or relearning as it were) about US history and not the interpretation of US revisionist-history as narrated by so-and-so.

As for the 2010 census, if not for the laughter provided by all the hysterics and conspiracy theorist I would be sad that after 200 years we mock our one honest way for equal representation. As other’s have stated, so long as you’re a registered US citizen with a Social Security number and a Driver’s License then “Big Brother” already has all your information and more.
Click to expand...
 
While I know that its in the immediate best interests of my locality to fill out the Census, I do not like giving the government more information about myself than necessary. While I don't believe that they have any malicious intentions in mind for my information, I do not like the precedent that is set whenever the government wants more and more information. IMHO if some random person asked me the same questions I would tell them to piss off, why should I treat the government any different?
 
kirbyrj said:
That's just the thing. I think the ideas in the constution is trodden over by any and all free wheeling justices (think Warren Court as the most eggregious example). I'm not against the bill of rights, or any other legal amendment to the Constitution (with the exception of expanding voting rights IMO...if you can't pass a basic test similar to what a naturalized citizen has to pass, you shouldn't be allowed to vote...and actually the Founding Fathers had a similar statute, except it was a property holder. If you didn't own property, you were "just passing through" in their minds and shouldn't get a vote...not a bad idea). I'm a big fan of less government and a strict constuctionist view. The health care debacle is another eggregious example of the govt. overstepping their bounds. I'm not brainwashed by the media. I have a legitimate opinion from actually reading and looking at issues.
Click to expand...

So you only get to vote if you happen to be rich enough to own property? Ya that isn't rigged
 
kirbyrj said:
That wasn't my idea...that's our pals from 1776.
Click to expand...

Well most of them owned and raped slaves. Lets not just take everything they said and did as gospel k?

The idea of only letting those privileged enough to own property or your idea of only letting people privileged enough to get an education that allows them to pass a test is a terrible idea.
 
xveganx said:
Well most of them owned and raped slaves. Lets not just take everything they said and did as gospel k?

The idea of only letting those privileged enough to own property or your idea of only letting people privileged enough to get an education that allows them to pass a test is a terrible idea.
Click to expand...

Why? Everyone who went to high school (a free public service) should be able to pass a basic test to see if they understand about one's right to vote. I contend that groups like ACORN "stuffing" the ballot box with people who are paid to vote does more harm to the country than asking for citizens to understand basic information about their own country. This has nothing to do with someone being more privileged than anyone else. This is about having an informed voting populace.
 
No wonder California is always bankrupt every year. 40% illegal immigrants from mexico and china that don't fill out their census. That's a lot of federal funding that state can get. It's economically cheaper to deport than support.
 
kirbyrj said:
Why? Everyone who went to high school (a free public service) should be able to pass a basic test to see if they understand about one's right to vote. I contend that groups like ACORN "stuffing" the ballot box with people who are paid to vote does more harm to the country than asking for citizens to understand basic information about their own country. This has nothing to do with someone being more privileged than anyone else. This is about having an informed voting populace.
Click to expand...

If you're going to make claims about stolen elections, you should provide substantiated proof.
 
kirbyrj said:
That's just the thing. I think the ideas in the constution is trodden over by any and all free wheeling justices (think Warren Court as the most eggregious example). I'm not against the bill of rights, or any other legal amendment to the Constitution (with the exception of expanding voting rights IMO...if you can't pass a basic test similar to what a naturalized citizen has to pass, you shouldn't be allowed to vote...and actually the Founding Fathers had a similar statute, except it was a property holder. If you didn't own property, you were "just passing through" in their minds and shouldn't get a vote...not a bad idea). I'm a big fan of less government and a strict constuctionist view. The health care debacle is another eggregious example of the govt. overstepping their bounds. I'm not brainwashed by the media. I have a legitimate opinion from actually reading and looking at issues.
Click to expand...

"Strict Constitutionalists Have Dumb Opinions: Exhibit (A)."

Our constitution is not and should not be the final say in how our democracy progresses. It was purposefully designed as a living document. One thing the founders got right above all else is they recognized their viewpoints were not above reproach. They understood that times would change and because of that the guidelines under which our society operates would in some circumstances need to adjust accordingly.

Also, seriously advocating for a requirement of property ownership for voting rights is one of the most extremely, EXTREMELY terrible ideas I have ever heard. I'm almost shocked someone could be so stupid. You do realize that would disenfranchise hundreds of millions of people?
 
Hamish Campbell said:
"Strict Constitutionalists Have Dumb Opinions: Exhibit (A)."

Our constitution is not and should not be the final say in how our democracy progresses. It was purposefully designed as a living document. One thing the founders got right above all else is they recognized their viewpoints were not above reproach. They understood that times would change and because of that the guidelines under which our society operates would in some circumstances need to adjust accordingly.

Also, seriously advocating for a requirement of property ownership for voting rights is one of the most extremely, EXTREMELY terrible ideas I have ever heard. I'm almost shocked someone could be so stupid. You do realize that would disenfranchise hundreds of millions of people?
Click to expand...

I will point out that the property ownership restriction was not universal. It varied from state to state. By 1776 a few states had gotten rid of it. Enfranchisement of ALL white men, regardless of property ownership, happened rapidly.

By Andrew Jackson's presidency it was gone in all states except South Carolina IIRC.
 
Chombo said:
While I know that its in the immediate best interests of my locality to fill out the Census, I do not like giving the government more information about myself than necessary. While I don't believe that they have any malicious intentions in mind for my information, I do not like the precedent that is set whenever the government wants more and more information. IMHO if some random person asked me the same questions I would tell them to piss off, why should I treat the government any different?
Click to expand...

Well, for lots of reasons. 1, they regulate the money you use everyday to buy your PC equipment. Without the government, there would be no system setup to handle trade because there would be no universal "dollar", we would be back to the barter system (not saying good/bad).

2. They provide social services to help your quality of life. Police. Firemen. Schools, to name a few.

3. The government can not act in the best interests of its people, if the government doesn't know what the people need/want.


So there's 3 very big reasons why you should treat the government a little differently than some stranger on the street.
 
I got my census in the mail, I put down 1 living residents me. There is always room for improving.
 
Hamish Campbell said:
"Strict Constitutionalists Have Dumb Opinions: Exhibit (A)."

Our constitution is not and should not be the final say in how our democracy progresses. It was purposefully designed as a living document. One thing the founders got right above all else is they recognized their viewpoints were not above reproach. They understood that times would change and because of that the guidelines under which our society operates would in some circumstances need to adjust accordingly.

Also, seriously advocating for a requirement of property ownership for voting rights is one of the most extremely, EXTREMELY terrible ideas I have ever heard. I'm almost shocked someone could be so stupid. You do realize that would disenfranchise hundreds of millions of people?
Click to expand...

Dumb opinion? I don't think your opinion is dumb. I just disagree with it. Thanks for insulting me BTW :rolleyes:.

The point was not that you should own property to be able to vote IF YOU READ WHAT I ACTUALLY SAID. Only that there should be a requirement to vote LIKE what was originally proposed as "property ownership." In our society, it would be a knowledgeable population. Quite frankly, it is insulting that my vote counts the same as some inner city homeless person rounded up by ACORN or some other ultra-liberal organization to vote for specific candidates with a specific agenda.
 
I liken it to a driver's license. You don't automatically get one, but you have to take a test to get one. Voting should be the same way. Take a test and prove that you're worthy of your vote.
 
kirbyrj said:
I liken it to a driver's license. You don't automatically get one, but you have to take a test to get one. Voting should be the same way. Take a test and prove that you're worthy of your vote.
Click to expand...

Yes please, there simply are not enough ways to diddle with the voting process, we need more.
 
kirbyrj said:
it is insulting that my vote counts the same as some inner city homeless person rounded up by ACORN or some other ultra-liberal organization to vote for specific candidates with a specific agenda.
Click to expand...

It's no different from people that vote for whoever the person on the radio or in the pulpit tells them to.

People that vote without thinking are the issue regardless of which end of the spectrum they fall in.
 
darkpaw said:
It's no different from people that vote for whoever the person on the radio or in the pulpit tells them to.

People that vote without thinking are the issue regardless of which end of the spectrum they fall in.
Click to expand...

Hence you have a simple test to "qualify" people to vote. I'm not against people who disagree with my political, religious (or non-religious), or taste preferences. I would think a well-informed populace would be a good thing and something that everyone would want.
 
kirbyrj said:
Hence you have a simple test to "qualify" people to vote. I'm not against people who disagree with my political, religious (or non-religious), or taste preferences. I would think a well-informed populace would be a good thing and something that everyone would want.
Click to expand...

People being informed is one thing, but it has nothing to do with whether or not they should be allowed to vote. I don't care if you're deaf, dumb, or blind to all the issues; US citizens have a UNIVERSAL right to cast a vote for whomever they choose.

Do you not understand why forcing citizens to meet some arbitrary qualification (no matter how basic) before allowing them to exercise their most fundamental of rights is a terrible idea? You're literally arguing for the means to oppress and disenfranchise those people who are in most need of equal representation. Further, it's absolutely disgusting that you feel insulted because some "inner city homeless person" has an equal say in their representative democracy. Why don't you just come out and say what we all know you mean.
 
Hamish Campbell said:
People being informed is one thing, but it has nothing to do with whether or not they should be allowed to vote. I don't care if you're deaf, dumb, or blind to all the issues; US citizens have a UNIVERSAL right to cast a vote for whomever they choose.

Do you not understand why forcing citizens to meet some arbitrary qualification (no matter how basic) before allowing them to exercise their most fundamental of rights is a terrible idea? You're literally arguing for the means to oppress and disenfranchise those people who are in most need of equal representation. Further, it's absolutely disgusting that you feel insulted because some "inner city homeless person" has an equal say in their representative democracy. Why don't you just come out and say what we all know you mean.
Click to expand...

What? That I'm a better citizen because I understand what my vote counts for instead of voting for a candidate that I'm paid to vote for? You think you're a more educated and better steward of liberty than I am (and you're wrong IMO). We all have opinions of people placing them better or worse than our position. I don't see why you are so disgusted. What's wrong with believing that working hard should reward you and if you don't work hard, you shouldn't be rewarded? Being angry that generations of Americans after you and I are going to have to pay off a tremendous amount of national debt which has essentially doubled under G.W. Bush and Obama? Kennedy said, "Ask not what you're country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." What we have is populace with a mindset that it's the country's responsibility to care for them.

The evolution of the Constitution as a "living document" is just an excuse to promote any and every government intrusion into the lives of Americans.

No offense, but I'm not going to convince you and you're not going to convince me, so...

/thread
 
kirbyrj said:
What? That I'm a better citizen because I understand what my vote counts for instead of voting for a candidate that I'm paid to vote for? You think you're a more educated and better steward of liberty than I am (and you're wrong IMO). We all have opinions of people placing them better or worse than our position. I don't see why you are so disgusted. What's wrong with believing that working hard should reward you and if you don't work hard, you shouldn't be rewarded? Being angry that generations of Americans after you and I are going to have to pay off a tremendous amount of national debt which has essentially doubled under G.W. Bush and Obama? Kennedy said, "Ask not what you're country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." What we have is populace with a mindset that it's the country's responsibility to care for them.

The evolution of the Constitution as a "living document" is just an excuse to promote any and every government intrusion into the lives of Americans.

No offense, but I'm not going to convince you and you're not going to convince me, so...

/thread
Click to expand...

You view the right to vote as a reward. It's not.
 
kirbyrj said:
I liken it to a driver's license. You don't automatically get one, but you have to take a test to get one. Voting should be the same way. Take a test and prove that you're worthy of your vote.
Click to expand...

Who administers the test? How do you ensure that someone as biased as you are doesn't write the test? What are you testing for - literacy? intelligence? knowledge of political issues? Watch out for that last one, which is what you seem to want to mean. It's a doozy, because then you're testing for correct knowledge of political issues - which means if they don't agree with you, they shouldn't have the right to vote.

The problem with tests to determine the worthiness of the voter is that they always, without exception, end up being manipulated to limit voting rights based on wealth or race.
 
Dreaz said:
Well, for lots of reasons. 1, they regulate the money you use everyday to buy your PC equipment. Without the government, there would be no system setup to handle trade because there would be no universal "dollar", we would be back to the barter system (not saying good/bad).

2. They provide social services to help your quality of life. Police. Firemen. Schools, to name a few.

3. The government can not act in the best interests of its people, if the government doesn't know what the people need/want.


So there's 3 very big reasons why you should treat the government a little differently than some stranger on the street.
Click to expand...

1) How does knowing what my age, gender, race and address impact the monetary policy of the federal reserve?

2) The Federal government does not provide Police, Fireman or schools. Thats all from your local income tax, sales tax and property taxes. In some rare cases additional funding is provided by the Feds but usually as a one of example because some congress person got it tacked on as an amendment to some appropriations bill. Or some wastefull program like No Child Left Behind.

3) No where on the census does it ask what I need and want. If it had a place where I could prioritize what I want/needed on the census then that would be great.
 
The census literally took me a few min. to fill out. I was surprised how easy and quick it was.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top