By John Stricker
Well, it’s been ten years and the decennial United States Census is upon us all once again. It seems like only a couple of years ago I was asked how many bathrooms were in my house and whether or not I owned, rented, or had a mortgage. I didn’t answer them then and I’m not going to answer them this time.
I believe our nation should follow the Constitution of the United States and its amendments. I believe that with all of my heart. Not only should the government follow it, but so should its citizens. With that in mind, I will partially fill it out and supply the government with the information the Constitution says it should collect every ten years. To find out what that information is all we have to do is open our own copy of the Constitution. (You do have one, right? No? Well you can find one at http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec2 online.)
The part of the Constitution that deals with the census is Article 1, Section 2 and it reads:
“Section 2 – The House
The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.
No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.
(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. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five and Georgia three.
When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies.
The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.”
Now the parts in italics were modified by the 14th Amendment, Section 2 and that reads:
“2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.”
So you need to take out the part in italics and put this amendment in there. The intent of this section is clear, it’s there to set the number of representatives in the house. It specifies, as amended, that it should count every person in each state. That number is to be reduced, however, by the number of non-taxed indians, and then proportionately reduced in a ratio of those ineligible to vote for certain reasons that are over 21 years of age with the total number of males over 21 years of age in that State. A bit complicated, I know, but not really and all we’re really concerned about is what information the Constitution demands to fulfill its mandate.
First, it needs to know a headcount of everyone living in the state. It also needs to know if you’re an Indian (Native-American, if you prefer) that is untaxed. It needs to know your age to determine a number and it needs to know your sex since that number is calculated by the male population.
What it does not need to know is whether or not your home is owned, you pay a mortgage, you rent, how many toilets you have, or anything else.
What can happen if you don’t fill it out? That falls under USC 13 Title 221 and you can look it up any number of places but the penalties are two-fold, should they decide to prosecute you. First, if you refuse or neglect to answer you can be fined $100. That’s it. No jail time, just a fine. Second, if you give false answers, you can be fined $500. Again, that’s it. No Jail time.
The remainder of this is what I do. I am making no recommendation and urging nobody to follow what I do, but I will share with you my feelings on the matter. I follow the Constitution. I provide them with the names of the people living in my house, their sex, and their age (by birthdate). I provide nothing else. If they want to fine me, then they are welcome to do that, but nobody has been fined for failure to fill out their census forms since 1960. (There was another prosecution over the 1970 census, but that conviction was thrown out on appeal.)
I want to point out that it is federal law that you answer these questions but it is not Constitutionally mandated. There are a whole list of laws that aren’t mandated in the Constitution and if you don’t follow them you can be prosecuted, even though you might believe these laws to be unconstitutional. I would also be remiss in my duties if I didn’t point out that the collection of information beyond what is required to fulfill the Constitutional mandates of Article 1, Section 2 have been heard in the US Supreme Court in 2002 and ruled that it was Constitutional in the case of Morales v. Daley.
The Federal Government, in my opinion, is becoming more and more invasive into the private lives of US Citizens. The decision of the Supreme Court is, again in my opinion, fundamentally flawed, but that is the topic for a different article. The US Government is exceeding its mandate in the Constitution on a daily basis and if they wish to fine me $100 for not completely filling out my form then it’s a small price to pay to put a chink in that invasive armor. Let your own conscience be your guide.
By Nick Dial
A common phrase seen and heard used by protesters the last several years is “separation of church and state” This phrase has been used to protest the mention of God in the Pledge of Allegiance, school, curriculum, nativity scenes in public, and even gay marriage. So….does separation of church and state apply to these activities and venues? This is where people must dust off that old history book to find the real intentions behind what “separation of church and state” really means.
When our founding fathers wrote the Constitution there was sound reasoning behind why they made specific reference to religion. The U.S. Colonies had lived under the thumb of King George III for some time and had grown weary of monarchy rule and the arbitrary law that came with it. Religions other than the Church of England had been suppressed for quite some time so much so, that the Puritans settled in the Americas in order to freely practice their religion. This was nothing new to the founding fathers; they knew this history as well as anyone else.
The term “separation of church and state” is not found anywhere in the US Constitution. The phrase was made popular by Thomas Jefferson when he wrote a letter defending the rights of a group of Baptists to practice their faith.
“The Danbury Baptists were a religious minority in Connecticut, and they complained that in their state, the religious liberties they enjoyed were not seen as immutable rights, but as privileges granted by the legislature — as “favors granted.” (U.S. Constitution, 2010).
Since then Jefferson’s words have often been used out of context and, unfortunately, by those who misunderstand the very reasons the First Amendment addresses the issue.
The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states : “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” (Us constitution, 2010).
The key words regarding this issue are the following: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”.
Again, we need to look at history to understand the reasoning behind their position. We know that the Puritans came from the Old World to escape religious persecution so that they could practice their faith freely. Europe’s, and especially England’s, long history of religious oppression was the reason for inclusion of the phrase “make no law respecting an establishment of religion”. Although none of Europe was particularly religiously tolerant, the oppression reached intolerable levels during the rule of King Henry VIII. In the sixteenth century, King Henry had failed to have a son born in order to retain a male heir to the throne. There had already been tension between the authorities in Rome and England for some time. King Henry went to the Pope requesting that his marriage be annulled. He was refused. He had fallen in love with a new woman, Ann Boleyn, and wished to be married to her in place of his current wife. After refusal from the Pope, the king met with his closest advisors and developed a novel idea.
“When he met with failure, Henry did what every other king would do. He fired his closest advisor. This was an important move. His closest advisor on the matter was Cardinal Wolsey, the Lord Chancellor of England. The negotiations with the papal court were largely carried out by Wolsey. When he failed, Henry dismissed and arrested him and replaced him with Thomas Cranmer and Thomas Cromwell. Both these men were sympathetic to the new ideas of Martin Luther. They gave the king some radical advice: if the pope does not grant the annulment, then split the English church off from the Roman church. Rather than the pope, the king would be the spiritual head of the English church. If the King wants an annulment, then the King can grant his own annulment” Protestant England, 2010).
Taking the advice of his advisors King Henry did just that. England broke off from Roman Catholic Church, and the Church of England was formed. King Henry was then declared head of the church and was free to annul any marriage he wished. When the Church of England was created it became the official church of the kingdom and an act against the king was viewed as an act against God. This is the very reason why the founding fathers put safeguards such as the First Amendment in place. They knew from their own history the dangers of a church being part of the government and the abuses permitted under a state religion.
The founding fathers were logical men. The point of the First Amendment was to keep any religion from becoming a state sponsored religion, not the government being supported by those of faith or any reference to faith. If their intent was to keep any reference of God or faith out of government, they would not have made such bold statements about their beliefs in God and God’s role in our granted freedoms.
In the Declaration of Independence they wrote, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”. George Washington himself called for a national day of prayer during the Revolutionary War.
The notion of keeping God or faith out of governmental matters, or public displays of faith was never the intent behind the first amendment. It was there to keep religions from being empowered by government support and turning into a tool of tyranny. Today, due to lack of understanding and revisionist history behind the First Amendment’s purpose, we see people taking things completely out of context to fit their world views. The First Amendment has nothing to do with the concept of God in school, gay marriage, abortion, or any other political issue involving religion. Being an advocate for or against such things and publicly announcing it is fine, that’s what America is all about. Before you rush out with a sign saying such things as “separation of church and state” keep one thing in mind; if you don’t learn the history behind what you are saying and its true meaning, you will accomplish nothing except making yourself look foolish.
References
Protestant england. (2010). Retrieved from
http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/REFORM/ENGLAND.HTM
Us constitution. (2010). Retrieved from
