YAH the Census form is here

The 14th amendment does not address this issue and is not about conducting the census. The constitutional mandate is Article 1 Section 2:

In Article 1, Section 2, the Constitution includes the phrase:

[An] 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.

Congress first met in 1789, and the first national census was held in 1790.


http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_cens.html

There was actually some debate about whether, how, and on what timetable a census should have been held. In early 1790, several members of Congress argued against a census prior to the next election. Some in the Congress, who advocated an immediate census, noted that those who did not want one were the people from states which were generally regarded as being over-represented in the Congress based on the initial figures provided for in the Constitution. Others were concerned about the questions to be asked in the census, while others felt that more questions should be asked to get a better picture of the citizenry.

For example, on February 2, 1790, Samuel Livermore of New Hampshire lamented that the proposed question about profession would be hard for his constituents to answer, since some had three or four professions, depending on the season. Connecticut Representative Theodore Sedgwick, on the same day, wondered why the questions were not extended further — "The state of society could be ascertained, perhaps, in some degree, by observing [the] proportions."

The final bill, Statute 2 of March 1, 1790, provided that census marshals and assistants be appointed. The marshals were directed to:

cause the number of the inhabitants within their respective districts to be taken; omitting in such enumeration Indians not taxed, and distinguishing free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, from all others; distinguishing also the sexes and colours of free persons, and the free males of sixteen years and upwards from those under that age.

 

And I can't believe that she had the nerve to call another woman's husband "sweetie".

Let me get this straight: it's OK for you to imply that I'm a jack***, but it's not OK for me to say that it's dumb for somebody not to know who has custody of their own stepson?

 

I'm sorry, Mitch. I've tried to explain this to you already. I'll be happy to talk with you about theology, but I just don't see the point in wasting my time with you on census talk.

The bottom line is, if you think you ought to fill out the questions in question, then do it. Just don't tell us what we should do.

 

You will have a hard time finding a post where I told anyone that they should fill out the census. If you are going to make a legitimate argument about this you will have to do it by using Article 1 Section 2. The 14th Amendment was not created to address the census. It was about counting every person black or white. It was in response to only counting black people as partial persons. You cannot use the 14th for anything other than it was intended.

 

Not that sort of migrant population. How best to explain? Like this maybe. In the late 40's just after the war, and well into the 50's there were NO jobs in Alabama. If you look at census data from 1950 and compare it to the census data of 1960 you will find that large amounts of people moved from south to north during that 10 year period. My mother was among them. Later on, some of those people moved back south, something that is reflected in the data from 1980.

Where do you think the funding comes from?

Because children from those sorts of homes generally need more in the way of goverment funded programs. Now, don't argue with me about whether we should or should not be funding those types of things. That's a topic for another thread. Fact remains that the Fed DOES fund those things and it needs this sort of info to spread the money out.

If you weren't so insulting you might figure out that I have the boy and they share actual legal custody. I keep him, he is off the streets and out of trouble (unlike his siblings) and the census taker can determine which house to count him at. It's one of those God things that one just has to take as they happen.

I know you and I rub each other wrong, but the above was uncalled for.

 

Sorry. Not going to get into it with you. Like I said, if you think you ought to fill it out, then fill it out. Just don't tell us what to do.

 

They don't ask about your mortgage. They ask if you have one. Here's what they ask and why: http://2010.census.gov/2010census/text/text-form.php

What do people fear might happen if the government knows someone has a mortgage?


If anyone here believes their information is that private, pm me your full name and I'll more than likely be able to tell you some stuff about yourself that may surprise you by already being public information.

 

From the federal government, which does not have the Constitutional authority to be involved in such things.

I see. So then, we should answer those questions so that the government knows how much money to pour into programs it has no business being involved in.

Yeah, and I can think of about a dozen things you've said about me and my family, particularly my children, that were uncalled for. Funny how you never seem to think such things are "uncalled for" when you're the one doing them.

 

Exactly. They ask about your mortgage.

You're confusing "private" with inaccessible.

 

I see. It's unreasonable for me to say that someone who doesn't know that the person who has custody of a child claims him, but it's reasonable for you to call me a jack***?

 

Umm, I call everyone sweetie. I wasn't being flirtatious. If you were offended, you could have simply told me and I would have edited.

Stepson. Man! You have got to quit assuming things. My second son is not my stepson, not my biological child and not legally MY child at all. He is simply the child of my heart, that God placed into my life to lead, to guide and to be an example for. I don't HAVE to do any of these things. I could let the kid run wild because if his parents don't want to raise why should I? Well I'll tell you why:

God put him in my path!

I might not be too smart, but when God pushes a child directly to the front of my attention, I believe it is my place to respond, whether or not I know exactly which house to have him counted at.

 

This thread has become donkified.

haaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

I mean...hhheeeee haaaaawwwwww

So anyhow, I kinda like this thread so John, chill out so it doesn't get shut down. We're all adults, no need to be mean, especially a man to a woman.

 

How so?

blah blah blah because it says my message is too short

 

I'm sorry, Gina, but if she's going to attack my family, particularly my children, then she doesn't get to play the "I'm just a poor defenseless woman" card.

She can make whatever idiotic claim she wants to about me, but once she attacks my family, the gloves are coming off.

 

One means you don't have a right to know something. The other means you don't have access to it.

 

Ok just for clarification you cannot find a post where I told anyone to fill out the census.

 

Yeah, yeah, yeah. So you tried to prove in the last thread we butted heads over, unsuccessfully tried to prove, that is. I haven't insulted your wife or your family. I don't believe I insulted you, but if you can quote it, I'll admit it.

Discuss the issues and cut the insults.

I am hardly a defenseless woman, nor have I EVER played that card. Do you make things up as you go?

 

Not in those words, but you did accuse me of breaking the law and stating that I should not break the law by not filling out the census.