Walter Williams on the Census

Yes! Fail to answer the census!

Here in Dallas the school district and city government are doing everything they can to get people to say they are here, if they are.

If enough people in other states refuse to answer, we can take away more representatives for Texas!

You have a right to remain silent. The government has a right not to build that road to your door -- it'll be easier for you to remain silent that way.

I wish they wouldn't build those roads. Then people would finally see that they don't need Government for roads, we can do road privately.

This is hilarious.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2009/12/cen...

While the poster might resonate positively some because of the link to the original Christmas story, it could backfire too. After all, the reason Joseph and Mary traveled to Bethlehem, where Jesus was eventually born, according to the story in the book of Luke, was to be taxed by the Roman emperor, Caesar Augustus, the tax-and-spend big government of the time.

I disagree here, which is rare for me on this blog. The wording of the Constitution is: "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."

I believe that Congress has determined how it's to be conducted (through the Commerce Department) , and the penalties for failing to complete it.

What am I missing?

The previous sentence, which spells out exactly what the "actual Enumeration" consists of: the counting of free people. The sentence you quote doesn't provide authority for collecting socio-economic data by census takers, even if Congress directs so by law. That's something that is not part of the "actual Enumeration," even if it's done by the same people at the same time, and the "actual Enumeration" is all the relevant paragraph of the Constitution authorizes.

Intent.

Can you convince yourself that the founders in writing the constitution and that piece had any intent to have the settlers and colonial's outhouses, and how many holes they had, to be counted along with the actual people?

I would suggest that you read the word "manner" as to being the method, personal face to face head count, written note left at local post office, note submitted by carrier pigeon, guesstimate made by the local tavern owner, etc. etc., not as being applied to intrusive personal questions about income, toilets, entertainment, etc. etc.

Yes, the “living, breathing” constitutional interpretation of “actual enumeration” includes “counting of ye flushinge toilettes, as to number in houfe.”

Also, isn’t Rahm running this Census (not Commerce)? Or did that fall thru?

Are you saying it is being Rahmed up our asymmetry?

In theory, yes.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/09/gop-...

I haven't followed it, so not sure where it went.

I like the idea of refusing to answer the questions but I simply couldn't afford to pay the 100 bucks a question...what should I do???

I generally agree with Randy on things, but on this one, no.

I can't afford a $100 a question either, but I am not worried about it, because I know it isn't going to happen to this household.

If we all just roll over for government, as represented by the census, then how is government ever going to be rolled over? Do we imagine that without confrontation government is just going to shrink itself back down to constitutional limits?

Think. They claim a fine will be imposed, but no possibility of jail time. That tells you that they know that they can't make it a criminal offense, so they try and make it a civil offense. They claim fines and claim that a debt is laid on you. That's fine, let them claim it. Just ignore it. What are they going to do about it?

Well they try to get a lien and levy against you, but for that to be valid they have to have a court appearance to get a judgment and a judges signature. A lien is not a levy, and a levy can't happen without a ruling from a court and the proper documents signed by the ruling judge.

Do they really want to take aggressive defenders of rights to court where they can openly challenge the constitutionality of their current application of the census? I don't think so. Any serious person should be able to study and beat that one pro se, if you just have the balls to stand up for what is right.

"Do we imagine that without confrontation government is just going to shrink itself back down to constitutional limits?"

I admire your disobedience. If everyone had unceasingly had your attitude from 1776 on, the freedom and prosperity today would be unimaginable.

But you talk of laws and courts as if that represents a significant impediment to the government getting its way. Sure, laws sometimes do still provide a speed bump between your rights and the insatiable state. But it's always a coin toss whether even the CotUS, let alone any law or court, will provide any noticeable challenge to the Monopoly getting what it wants.

The government will never "shrink itself back down to constitutional limits", or significantly shrink at all. The levy of CotUS was breached long ago, and we're all waist deep in water. Wishing water could flow uphill will not make it happen.

But your sacrificial defiance is certainly inspirational. I hope people will remember it when they migrate to higher ground.

Please provide the total possible meanings of the word confrontation, and then tell me you considered every single one of them and know exactly which one, or several of, I intended when I wrote the word.

Did not Gen Washington and the revolutionary forces confront the forces of King George?

In between talking back and killing there is a wide range of possibilities, where does my use fall?

Now why would you consider my actions as any kind of sacrificial defiance? What do you imagine I am sacrificing and for whom? Does it not occur to you that I do it purely out of principled self interest?

I believe in natural law, so I have no objection to you sticking your neck in the noose as a voluntary act. I also have no objection to you sticking your neck in the noose in response to coercion and the fear it engenders.

I am telling you and others that there is another way and after 20 years I am still here, and enjoying more liberty than you.

You choose your path, but I suggest that you don't choose it out of ignorance.

"Now why would you consider my actions as any kind of sacrificial defiance?"

Not in any altruistic sense. Just in the sense that the result will be your own material destruction. I know you are principled. But the Leviathan is unintimidated, and will simply steam roll right over you without so much as swatting. The equivalent of an 18th century King George today would be something like the governor Nebraska.

But I admit there is much of which I am ignorant. Sounds like you have some personal experience that could help fill that vessel. Maybe over time you'll persuade me that my life and liberties are not just the generous gift of my benevolent well-armed masters. But as for now, I agree with Randy--getting lost in the crowd affords the best shot at a free life.

Well you ignored my question about confrontation, so I'll accept that as acquiescence to my point.

Now what I want you to take a moment and consider is the remarkable paradox, or idea, that there are many in the legal system, attorneys and judges, who in their own twisted way are loyal to the law; and, who, when finding themselves locked in by law, will act in accordance with that law.

Now to fore stay an ill considered response, notice I used the word many, not all. It can truthfully be a crap shoot, but I will take the crap shoot risk over the certainty of the road the government has us on. Anything I can do to pass a collar and yoke to my children that is lighter than the one I inherited, I will do. My children are being taught what I know and what I have done, and I make it clear to them to not use it, to not step into risk, until they are ready to do so and do so voluntarily; or, to use the knowledge to repel any random arbitrary fickle finger of government abuse.

Our problem is to be able to take them to the point where it is obvious they are locked in by their own law. It can be done.

"Well you ignored my question about confrontation, so I'll accept that as acquiescence to my point."

Or, instead of keeping me puzzling about the important discrimination you have in mind, you can just tell me.

"My children are being taught what I know and what I have done"

You are a mystery man. Maybe one day when you think I'm ready, you'll let me know too. But with my own ignorance of what you know and have done, I suspect that the Borg is bigger than the sum of its secretly defiant parts.

You've now also ignored my point about there being many in the legal system that do have that sense of principle about the binding of law, a point crucial to "being ready".

When you are ready is not mine to determine, it is yours and so far I see no indication that has occurred

So far there has only been one here who has actually been intellectually curious and sufficiently motivated by the idea of freedom and liberty to actually ask in a manner of sincerity. I gave him all I know and accurate truthful information of what I have done and where I am. His decisions are his own, and I told him the same thing I tell anyone, you look, you learn, you study, and if convinced and ready to act that is your decision, but don't rush it until you're sure its what you want. My advice was unnecessary as he is intelligent enough on his own to have concluded that, but I still felt compelled out of conscience to say it.

My life has some complications as a result of my actions, but they are minor in comparison to the liberty gained. And, I still have more road to travel before I am where I want to be.

Not to insult you VV, but over time you've struck me as more interested in sniping in defense of your view rather than remotely considering anything other than your dreams and fatalism. I am not remotely interested in throwing up my hands and crying "it is hopeless, nothing is possible but to hide and hope they don't notice me".

If you're convinced that anarchy is superior to my proposals, and to be desired, then have the courage of your convictions and proselytize for it and fight for it, step out, risk, you'll find my convictions close enough to yours that we won't be fighting each other.

"You've now also ignored my point..."

Must I respond to every point to prove that I'm not ignoring you, dear Vidyohs?


"so far I see no indication that has occurred"

Well, you are keeper of the holy metric. All I can do march on and hope one day Brother Vid will out of the blue tap me on the shoulder and say, "You are ready, my brother". Or, you can just tell me now.


"remotely considering anything other than your dreams and fatalism"

What does this mean? Did you intend to type "of fatalism"? If so, I hope your perspective is broad enough to at least see that refers only to a dream of fatalism for the root and core of everything that destroys my values. I have not, as some have, concluded that life in the real world requires that some minimal sacrifice of innocents be justified.



"throwing up my hands and crying "it is hopeless, nothing is possible but to hide and hope they don't notice me"."

This charge you graciously dismiss for me, by your later sentence:


"have the courage of your convictions and proselytize for it and fight for it"

Well you'll just have to forgive me, or not, for my loss of patience with playing the ring around the rosy game with you.

For several threads now you have consistently taken every crucial word to understanding that I have written and deliberately, it seems, misapplied them, mistranslated them, and sniped at my thoughts as if I had said what you decided.

I write possible and you translate that to can, and then snipe at the idea of placing misguided faith in whatever. You've never bothered to actually ask me if I think anything permanently binding can be written as a plan, you evidently assume that the word possible translates to can.

As to fatalism, every response from you has been, "it can't be done", "don't try it they'll smash you", "it'll never happen", it's impossible", "no way" on and on ad nauseam, and if that isn't fatalism, if it doesn't amount to throwing up one's hands and crying, "it is hopeless, nothing is possible but to hide and hope they don't notice me.", then I seriously need remedial reading and vocabulary.

As to my references to the law, you are in the answering and assumptive mode. Once you reach the wondering and questioning mode, come back and talk to me. I can offer you information no one else here can, or at least is willing to offer.

It is sad when two people, supposedly on the same side, have to beat each other to death over how to spell freedom. (Now that is rhetorical, using the absurd to make a point, it is not a declaration that you and I have actually been discussing how to spell freedom)

"deliberately, it seems, misapplied them, mistranslated them, and sniped"

You're forgiven. I'm sure I'll continue to enjoy reading your future posts to others.

I suppose that eventually somebody has to step up, take a stand, take the risk, etc., but I have too many people who depend on me right now for it to be me. Nor can I recommend to someone else something that I'm not willing to do myself.

So what if everyone acted this way? Well, pretty much everyone does, which is why the political class is able to rule, why they always have ruled, and why they always will rule. We live in fortunate times to even be allowed to complain about it (a situation that will probably not last more than another generation). I figure they let us complain as long as we keep working and paying - and if we ever really want to hurt them, we'll quit working.

I get the same response from my older brother. He knows most of what I know about our relation to government, particularly the IRS, because I have taught him. I have showed him the documentation I have, he knows full well that he was coerced into applying for a SSN. He rants and raves against government all the time but goes meekly to the slaughter because he has no courage of convictions.

To me he says just what you did, "I have too much to lose."; as if his breath of air is sweeter than mine, his home more precious to him than mine to me, his wife and love grander than mine, he has no children so no claim but ignores the fact that I do have loving children, and to keep "what he has" he will debase himself and scuttle on his knees in front of his masters.

Does anyone reading these words imagine that the collar and yoke they wear is going to somehow become lighter on the necks of their children, when the evidence is that your masters are attaching more and more chains to that yoke on a daily basis, and there is no indication they are close to being finished yet?

They play you like violins, they sell you fear and obedience with all the skill learned from Madison Avenue (they are one and the same people, after all), and only a tiny handful in this nation ever look at it and say "I ain't buying that sales job."

An ex-IRS commissioner testified in front of congress using these words, "If the public ever finds out that we operate 100% on bluff then it will be over."

It is the age old question, at what point does one stand up on their hind legs and proclaim themselves free?

And, if you take offense at these words, there was nothing personal about my intent, but I have no apology. They need to be said and you happened to be the trigger.

No offense taken. I understand perfectly.

So, at what point will I be willing to defy them openly? Answer; at the point where the probability of success is good - that is, after the crash. An example would be the Russian Revolution. The Communists had a plan, which they were able to implement at a point in time when the political class was weak. The only problem was that it wasn't a good plan. The question becomes; Do the Libertarians have a good plan? Because the opportunity is, I think, rapidly approaching.

"at the point where the probability of success is good - that is, after the crash."

Ouch, Gen Washington just rolled over in his grave, as his spirit remembered Valley Forge.

The American Revolution is a case in point of waiting for an opportunity. Britain was in poor shape financially after the French and Indian wars (there was a reason that King George wanted to raise taxes on the colonists). So they tried to fight the war on the cheap (e.g., reliance on mercenary troops), and lost. Had the British not been weak, Washington would have hanged at Valley Forge.

The key is to educate people ahead of time to the dangers of any kind of societal planning, and to the possibility that a successful society can emerge simply from the voluntary interactions of individual men.

I fear the first mistake, is that well-intentioned men would come together to deliberately "create a new nation".

Re; Create a new nation.

That is the pattern. The thing is, if we don't they will. There will come a point of conflict, they already have a plan, and that plan is totalitarianism.

So, our Plan;

1. Hold a Constitutional convention. Openly and Publicly. The purpose is not to overthrow the United States of America, but to be ready when the United States of America collapses under the weight of its debts.

2. Get it ratified. This will create the structure which can then be implemented when the collapse occurs.

3. Raise an army, and wait. No need to push. The collapse may not happen. But if it does, there can be no illusions. The transition will not be entirely peaceful. Again, the totalitarians already have a plan, and they too are waiting for an opportunity. In fact, there is evidence that they are actively attempting to create an opportunity.

"This will create the structure which can then be implemented when the collapse occurs."

...and rapidly develop into the same beast we have today. Unless, that is, you think you can do a better job than Washington, Jefferson, Madison, et. al.

How about this plan...

Teach people how enough of both individual and common goals, including defense, can be achieved without empowering a monopoly army, or forcing agreement from their neighbors.

If the American totalitarians want a Bolshevik-style takeover, then they will have to get the cooperation of servicemen and generals who are even less Bolshevik-friendly than the Russian army that turned against the Bosheviks and for Yeltsin.

Sure it won't be pretty as the desperate keepers of the state attempt to transform its violent hegemony from the boot to the bullet. But control by the state requires the momentum of cooperation. Losing its strangle hold is synonymous with losing that cooperation. And as its influence slips away, people will find that life can go on by doing, for the most part, what they have been doing. As those small state-wannabe mafia organizations form and try to twist arms, the second Amendment tradition will prove to be a savior.

"Unless, that is, you think you can do a better job than Washington, Jefferson, Madison, et. al."

Not "better" per se, just fix the things they didn't foresee. E.g., eliminate the welfare clause, make clear that the purpose of the Commerce Clause is to prohibit trade restrictions, not justify them, create a new house whose members are voted in by those who pay taxes (each vote multiplied by the amount of taxes paid), require an 80% majority for any legislation, etc.

Teaching is good, and necessary for any plan to work, but the plan and structure are essential. If these are not in place when the opportunity presents, there will be no time to create it. Those who have a plan and a structure will win by default.

Answer the questions. The only hope of privacy we have now is to get lost in the normal. Not answering the questions makes you stand out.

Words of wisdom, Randy. Words. Of. Wisdom.

On a legal show, it would have been nice for Judge Napolitano to explain the reasoning behind the lower courts' decisions that it was constitutional. Do you know what those arguments were, Don?

BTW, it looks like the U.S. Census Bureau has gotten rid of the long form due in significant part to the unwillingness of lots of Americans to participate in it.

*American Community Survey

No, actually quite the opposite. They've been talking about phasing it out for quite a while now and replacing it with the ACS, because the ACS has been so successful. It's really a great development - long-form data, but annually rather than decennially.

And of course the reason why the ACS is not voluntary is due to the rather poor response rates associated with it when it was voluntary. People do not want to reveal the level of personal detail of their lives to faceless bureaucrats who claim that the "data" is safe from other branches of government, etc.

Not everyone is as paranoid as you. They just don't want to bother.

And of course that doesn't even get into the realm of unintended consequences is this sort of brain dead stupidity. What is one of the major unintended consequence of using a single sequence of numbers for everyone in the American population? That sequence of numbers known as your SSN. Hmm, could it be massive levels of identity theft? Hmm, the "wise leaders" in the government just didn't think that through when they set up that system.

I'm curious, given the level of data security problems we see on a daily basis how exactly is my position "paranoid?"

Which question on the ACS concern you exactly? Who the hell hacks ACS data?

Questions about name, address, and race could be a concern: Confirmed: The U.S. Census Bureau Gave Up Names of Japanese-Americans in WW II.

Anderson and Seltzer discovered in 2000 that the Census Bureau released block-by-block data during WW II that alerted officials to neighborhoods in California, Arizona, Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, Idaho and Arkansas where Japanese-Americans were living. "We had suggestive but not very conclusive evidence that they had also provided microdata for surveillance," Anderson says.

What I find interesting is just how often the state abuses these power we grant them and yet we have people who continually argue that it will never happen again, you can just trust us now, because you know, those bad old people, well, they were just an aberration.

Sure, this is well known. The Census was also, if I recall recall correctly, involved in COINTELPRO.

That would be news to me. My cursory web search didn't find anything to support it.

Nice discussion of this and related issues at CATO: http://www.cato.org/event.php?eventid=6959

A book forum discussing Shane Harris's new book "The Watchers: The Rise of America's Surveillance State."

That sounds more of a "Trust them, they are the Government" than any legitimate argument. I know you can do better.

I probably could - I didn't realize until this afternoon that I would actually have to defend something as banal as the census. Give it a little time and I'm sure I'll come up with something better :)

Seriously, though, I can't imagine what mommsen is worried about on the ACS form in terms of data security. I'm not sure what counter-argument is really required.

You find yourself defending a whole host of things that are criticized by the Don and Russ and the majority of us here who read them.

To everyone else: is anyone here shocked that DK is defending the federal government on this topic (or any others)?

I, for one, am shocked, shocked to hear that Daniel is defending the government.

No, not really.

Anyway, let's see what you have to say in favor of the ACS and the Census generally (beyond what it constitutionally mandates). Why are these things just so awesome?

I've heard, though, that the Nazis used French Census questions about toilets to determine whether they would have to stop at a McDonalds to use the restroom or whether the Panzer division could pull over at a local farmhouse.

Oh yes, always revert to the troll.

My apologies - I didn't realize this was a joke-free-zone.

I thought it was pretty funny!

Watch out D. Kuehn don't fall into the Troll's Remorse!

Looks like a troll to me. An effort to elicit a negative emotional response. I'm not easily hooked.

Are you seriously asking that? They provide important economic and social data. Don't ask me to defend the toilets question. I could care less about that and don't see why it's on there. But anecdotal, goofy questions don't invalidate the whole thing. Cut that one for all I care - it's completely beside the point.

After all, the administration of FDR are the people who openly mocked in court the religious beliefs and ethnic background of he Schechter brothers.

Since the long form came into being in 1940, I would imagine that the toilet question and the numerous questions like it - since it reminds me so much of what the Ford Company's "Sociology Department" did - was to see if immigrants were becoming true "Americans" and other noxious notions. So there is a lot of racist and ethnocentric baggage that has been carried forward to today.

There's nothing wrong with Henry Ford's fascism because he did it privately

Fascism without a gun is like a dog without teeth. Ugly, but hardly intimidating.

Can you give me ten examples of the questions which think are not goofy?

Yes, I can. But I won't. I finished a very hard mid-term mid-day, spent the afternoon talking with you, and soon I'm going to go drink to recover from both the mid-term and talking with you.

Important economic and social data that the government has some power to know for what reason exactly?

Provide for the general welfare - a legitimate Constitutional function, and one that has been exercised with additional questions on the Census since 1790.

"Provide for the general welfare" ~ Daniel Kuehn

What in the #$%& !!!! You better check that wording, Daniel. No where in the constitution are the words "provide for the" and the words "general welfare" EVER strung together.

Ummm... how about article one, section 8 - enumerated powers of Congress? Don't tell me you're refering to the conjunction in the sentence.

Generally, in the English language, "provide for the common defense and the general welfare" is usually interpreted as "provide for the common defense and provide for the general welfare". It's understood. That's the whole point of conjunctions - so that you don't have to repeat the verb.

Nice discussion of this and related issues at CATO: http://www.cato.org/event.php?eventid=6959

A book forum discussing Shane Harris's new book "The Watchers: The Rise of America's Surveillance State."

The clause as it is interpreted today is based on a very outmoded understanding of constitutional interpretation; one which was conveniently dredged up from the work of Justice Story as a means to placate the administration of FDR.

I stand corrected and owe you an apology of sorts. I never realized that those words were in the same sentence. In my defense, though, I believe the founders were a whole lot more clear in the preamble -- clearly the general welfare was not to be provided but rather promoted. Promotion is a much more indirect and passive verb that seeks to be achieved through providing, establishing, ensuring the core things in an effort to secure the blessings of liberty - an actual legitimate function that too many people wish to subvert...a function that is under attack by the very same people that you frequently defend.

Nice discussion of this and related issues at CATO: http://www.cato.org/event.php?eventid=6959

A book forum discussing Shane Harris's new book "The Watchers: The Rise of America's Surveillance State."

Given that the narrow reading of the "General Welfare" clause is a limit on government actions, and not a green light, that's a thin reed to hang your argument on from my POV.

BTW, it is interesting, in light of our earlier conversation, that this narrow view was overturned based largely on Justice Story's defense of Hamilton's view of that clause as it that was described in "The Federalist Papers." The majority view as best as we can tell at the time of the Constitution's ratification was the narrow view.

In other words, it depends on how one views the "General Welfare" clause; I take the the view of the ratifiers - the sovereign - that it is a limit on the taxing and spending power of the government.

The counter argument is it's none of the government business. I'm curious to know what you might think isn't the governments business to know? Would number of sexual partners be too much? What STDs you might have had? Sexual Orientation?
I'm not trying to be an ass, I'm actually curious to know what you think might be too much info?

I think all of the above are fine to ask. They are being asked on government surveys and it's important to ask. And it's constitutional to ask - providing this sort of data for research is providing for the general welfare.

I don't see why any of those you listed need to be on the Census or ACS. I also don't think people should be fined or punished for refusing to answer anything except the most necessary information (ie - enummeration type information). But I don't see what's so objectionable about asking this stuff on the Census.

Wow, so pretty much anything the government wants to know is okay as long as it's for "data" purposes then?

Well as I said, nobody should have to answer. And no, not anything - but there are a variety of economic and social data that it makes sense to collect - that they already do collect. Is that really so controversial?

Unless of course you are arguing that privacy is a thing of the past that we should no longer concern ourselves with.

I'm curious. Why do I need to worry about anything with regards to data security? To me it is reasonable enough that I do not wish to reveal this sort of personal information to the government, any more than I would want to reveal it to a credit card company.

Anyway, almost all of these questions can be used for all sorts of purposes - from the commercial to the nefarious - by data miners.

OK, but I was just responding to your initial point about security:

"People do not want to reveal the level of personal detail of their lives to faceless bureaucrats who claim that the "data" is safe from other branches of government, etc."

Or put more succinctly, it is bit like having to defend the notion that water is wet.

Well, it is rather easy to imagine this material being used in all sorts of ways that an individual would not condone; so I'm not quite sure why I would even need to defend that point. The government does all manner of evil shit with information on a daily basis; I don't see any need to help them in that cause.

All of the questions. Really, it is none of the state's business how many flush toilets I have. Or if a deaf person lives in my home. Or whether anyone in my home has difficulty dressing. Or if I carpool. It connotes a sort of governmental paternalism I find fundamentally offensive and is ethically repulsive to me.

Other elements of the government? After all, the FBI has tried to access these records in the past, and they were barred from doing so by the courts. That doesn't mean they won't try to do so in a less than legal fashion; various elements of the government violate all manner of privacy laws already; why they would stop with the Census I have no idea. And why would the Census tell anyone if they did do that? The hue and cry would undermine the Census' future budget prospects after all.

One of the things I find rather interesting is that anonymous speech is constitutional; however the state can force you to speak about the most intimate details of your life in a form it sends to you.

Since the reportage on the subject specifically states that in fact the long form became a hassle to deal with because of non-compliance I'll go with that.

Also, I recall a barrage of stories like this from 2000: http://www.seattlepi.com/local/cens27.shtml

Prior to WWII France kept detailed records on its population. This is in part how the Nazis knew who and where to look for populations they wanted to exterminate.

In the U.S. it's illegal for the Bureau of the Census to keep detailed information on people. So they don't. It's an aggravation to law enforcement agencies, and would be an aggravation to Nazis, but that's the way right to privacy works.

Au revoir Shosanna!

Interesting factoid. Not a reason not to have an extended Census.

It's also worth noting that they've had more detailed questions than "how many people live here" on the census since 1790. Then in 1800 and 1810 it got pretty basic again, but in 1820 and afterwards there were the kinds of questions that Williams decries. It rings a little hollow to say it's inconsistent with the Constitution when the founders countenanced the same thing. As is often the case - this is a "more Catholic than the Pope" sort of situation... and a very strange one at that.

Actually, it is a perfectly good reason to avoid questions about race, ethnicity, etc. Governments are the sole purveyors of genocide after all.

"It rings a little hollow to say it's inconsistent with the Constitution when the founders countenanced the same thing."

It doesn't matter what the "founders" thought; the architects of the Constitution were the people who, through their elected representatives, ratified the Constitution. The opinions of Madison or Benjamin Franklin are no more important than of a cooper on that account.

It does matter - it's just not the only thing that matters.

Actually, it doesn't. The only proper way to understand the Constitution is through the generally accepted notion of what the terms, etc. meant at the time, and not through the particular thoughts of one or two or even fifteen people. BTW, since you seem to privilege their opinion so much, this is exactly what Washington, Madison, Jefferson, Adams, etc. argued themselves soon after the Constitution's ratification when they discussed what sort of person would make an appropriate Supreme Court justice; that this had to be their opinion on the matter.

You really just enjoy disagreeing with people don't you? That's what I'm saying - I'm not saying you can understand the constitution based on the thoughts of one or two or fifteen people. I'm just saying there are some people who's opinion is definitely worth drawing on, and who - as contemporaries, authors, debaters who engaged in the ratification debates, etc. - could also help to understand "the generally accepted notion of what the terms meant at the time". I'm AGREEING with you on that, although I know you desperately want me not to.

"You really just enjoy disagreeing with people don't you?"

Before I sign off, I must respond to this query by you. I have made 697 comments on this blog. You have made - according to that "Top Commentators gadget - 2845. There was a time, if I recall correctly, when you were only a five or six hundred comments ahead of me. Now I have observed that you largely argue against most people have to say on this blog - be it Don or Russ or the commentators.

Methinks that Daniel doth projects too much.

The only way to understand what the Constitution says is to read the words and then look at the generally understood meaning of those words. That is it. That is all. You don't divine its meaning by reading the Federalist Papers (partly because they were only published in a small geographic region) or Madison's journal on the Constitutional Convention (because it was not published during the ratification). If one were to actually privilege any information it would be from the state conventions themselves, and not from those assembled at Philadelphia. The sovereign were the people acting through the state conventions, not the folks who simply wrote the document.

You don't divine its meaning by reading the Federalist Papers (partly because they were only published in a small geographic region) or Madison's journal on the Constitutional Convention (because it was not published during the ratification).

You'd start with the Federalist Papers, though, knowing that though originally published in New York, they were published broadly during the discussions in all 13 colonies. You'd study these essays because they were written by Madison, Hamilton and Jay -- Madison and Hamilton, George Washington's hand-picked conspirators to get the convention; Jay, an ally for a while, though representing an entirely different view on the Constitution. A wise scholar would also take a look at the Antifederalist Papers -- but the Federalist Papers is a very good place to start.

You'd read Madison's journal because it was a contemporary account from the man who would come to be known as the Father of the Constitution. You'd read it because it carries a lot of information about his views, and about the views of others at the time.

Were one serious about studying the Constitution, one would not dismiss some of the greatest sources of information about its intent with hand-waving.

You keep saying things that I agree with, but the tone seems to suggest that you think I don't or at least that you know I do but want to try and convince me that I don't.

Well, what you have stated evolved fairly dramatically over time from my standpoint.

this is a response to the thread below: You've argued two things - that it doesn't matter (which I disagreed with) and that it's not priveleged (which I agree with). How in the world does their understanding of it's meaning not provide us with insight into the generally understood notions? These two aren't distinct, mommsen. You have to derive "generally understood notions" from somewhere - it can't just be whatever mommsen1625 wants it to be - and the founders are a good place to consider in deriving it. You don't privelege the founders, but they certainly matter. Think about what you're writing, mommsen. Stop just disagreeing for its own sake and think for a second about the logic of what you're writing.

You know, a fairly good example of what I am getting at is "The Federalist Papers," which for much of the 20th century was the holy writ by which one reads the Constitution. I distinctly remember how much weight it was given when I was undergrad in seminars on American Revolution and the early republic. Then in graduate school I learned much to my shock that the thing was little read at the time because it was not published outside of a very narrow geographic locale. Then I learned about all the states which, when ratifying the document, sent back pages and pages of commentary on the Constitution, making all manner of comments on its meaning, proposals for changes, etc. From this perspective what the "Founders" thought is just is not important.

OK, I'll try this one last time. What I'm trying to tell you is that I AGREE WITH YOU on not treating the Federalist Papers as holy writ. I agree with you on the importance of the ratifying conventions. I agree with you on looking into the literature of the day. I'm personally a fan of Scalia's technique of using contemporary dictionaries. I agree with all of that. What I can't comprehend is why you bluster at the very idea of considering the founders in addition to all that other stuff. The public at the time certainly associated the Constitution with the federalists and with the federalist leaders. It's not the only thing to look to, but you haven't really explained why it's a bad thing to look to in addition to all the other stuff. Nobody said the founders were holy writ in this discussion. Maybe in your high school, before your undergraduate seminar. But nobody here.

Well, if nothing else convinces you, as simply a practical matter they have been given far too much emphasis as it is.

"The public at the time certainly associated the Constitution with the federalists and with the federalist leaders."

Hmm, to my knowledge, those terms were not used by people at the time outside some very narrow circles. Only a decade or two later did the term federalist become generally associated with advocates for Constitution as it had originally been written (minus the Bill of Rights in other words).

Geez - more non sequitor factoid springing to show how much you know!

Give it a rest, Mommsen. I never claimed they used the word itself. "Monarchist" was probably more common than federalist. So?

It isn't a non-sequitur factoid. Look, a group of people tried to hoist the name Federalist to their cause to describe themselves; that's not how they were described at the time though. See how this works now? It goes directly to my point.

What in the world does when they got the name have to do with what we are talking about? Why did you even bring it up? I don't care if the name didn't stick until some historian ascribed it to them in 1876. How does that matter?

Ahh, ok. Just well, never mind. *whistles*

I know it is rather difficult for you to understand, but is possible to have a different, quite rational, opinion than your own.

It is almost impossible NOT to.

"I know it is rather difficult for you to understand"

That's something that you know? Really? Be careful about assuming too much about what you know.

Well, apparently someone else agrees with me.

"You've argued two things - that it doesn't matter (which I disagreed with) and that it's not priveleged (which I agree with)."

Actually, I've argued one thing using different terminology.

"How in the world does their understanding of it's meaning not provide us with insight into the generally understood notions?"

Because they weren't the ratifiers, that's how. They merely wrote the text.

"...and the founders are a good place to consider in deriving it."

Actually, they are the absolutely worst and last place to look. There is far better evidence of such in the myriad written materials of the time at both the state conventions, by ordinary citizens, etc. Indeed, who was the population reading and quoting the most at the time is a good way to discern the meaning of the text as it was generally understood - far better than the mere writers of it. We have answers to questions like this that provide far better insight into the matter. And the answer is Montesquieu.

"Think about what you're writing, mommsen."

I have thought about it. Quite a bit, and long before I ever encountered you.

You're really not grasping that I'm agreeing that we shouldn't just look at the founders, are you?

As I stated before, it isn't that we shouldn't just not look at them, we should ignore them.

I don't know why I let you keep dragging me in, but I'll make this quick. No - what I stated was clear from the get-go. The only thing that has "evolved" is perhaps your grasp of the fact that I never said the founders' views should be "priveleged". I never said that was what we should rely on to interpret the constitution. I never said any of the things you took it upon yourself to refute. Perhaps your grasp of that has evolved over the course of the conversation, but I don't see anything in anything I've said that changes anything in the very first comment of mine.

This is exactly what you wrote on the matter:

"It rings a little hollow to say it's inconsistent with the Constitution when the founders countenanced the same thing."

Then you wrote this:

"It does matter - it's just not the only thing that matters."

Right...
What's your point? When did I ever say that what the founders thought was the only thing that mattered? You're grasping at straws - just stop. All I said was that it rings hollow.

If you actually wanted to make the sort of argument that I have made - that the opinions of the "Founders" are unimportant in constitutional interpretation - you would have made that initially. That's not the argument you made. Look, you are perfectly free to disagree with me on this matter, but we have fundamentally different notions regarding it as far as I can tell.

Aha - then maybe there is a difference. You've been arguing that the founders shouldn't be priveleged - not that they are unimportant. The one time you said that "it doesn't matter what the founders thought", I directly disputed that statement. You never made the claim since then.

No, I've been arguing that their opinion does not matter. They merely wrote the text; that is all that they did. The opinion which matters is that of the sovereign, and the sovereign are the people. The only way to understand that opinion is to understand the generally understood notions of the words used in the text. This is closest to the "original meaning" theory of constitutional interpretation.

see above

Well it will be challenged here.

But, I asked this rhetorical question ten years ago, WTF is the government spending millions of dollars mailing a letter to tell us to expect a letter?

It is a perfect example of the gross stupidity found working in the government, gross stupidity that lets no opportunity to squander the peoples' money.

But, I asked this rhetorical question ten years ago, WTF is the government spending millions of dollars mailing a letter to tell us to expect a letter?

It's an old fundraising trick. Send a letter saying the real letter is coming, and it increases the response to the real letter, usually by 25% to more than 50%.

So it saves money. It's counterintuitive, unless you see the test results.

Ask Richard Viguerie.