Think your job is rough

[JT]

imported post

eye95 wrote:

1. You have no need to insult me.

Wow.Telling you that you don't read well when your responses ignoreboth the content and point of my statementsis an insult? Okay. Your right about one thing though. This was unproductive.You didn't convince me and I received more of the same from a representative of the census bureau. Unlike you however I won't dismiss you out of hand on the basisone disagreement.

 

[IndianaBoy79]

imported post

eye95 wrote:

I love "I never said"s.

I never said that you said that the Census Bureau is going to enforce anything.

Your turn.

The data is the data. It can't be used to enforce laws. It can be used to set standards. But, if you think they can't come up with relative percentages of the population in order to set those standards without the Census...anyway...

The Census is simply the best way to get the most precise data. And, if they are going to collect the data, wouldn't you like it to be as precise as possible? I would. Precise data is better for getting at the truth.

If you believe that some so-called "equal opportunity" laws are unconstitutional and anti-Liberty (I do), then attack the laws, not a constitutional and lawful data collection effort.

You're right, that is funny. I just inferred that's what you were saying based on your reply to me. I think we are again arguing over the specific meaning of words and sentence structure here. Not necessary. I agree with you that the law is the law. I just won't be following it so long as the information is going to be used for other unconstitutional laws (by any one or any agency). We need to attack those laws first and foremost.

In answer to if I would rather the data collected be accurate or not; No, if I'm weary that information is going to be used in some wrong way, I'd rather them have the most incorrect information available so as to thwart the unlawful uses of such information.

 

[eye95]

imported post

Wrong data will surely be used in a wrong way. Precise and accurate data can be used (by intellectually honest folks, like you and me) in a right way.

Of course the Goebbels of the world can use any data for any purpose.

As a mathematician, I fundamentally see the value in and strive to get precise and accurate data.

 

[erichonda30]

imported post

this thread

 

[Thoreau]

imported post

eye95 wrote:

Thoreau wrote:

eye95 wrote:

Well, considering that this decennial census is asking the fewest questions in decades and that these particular questions have been asked for decades, ample opportunity has existed to declare them unconstitutional.

If you refuse to answer, you are breaking the law. Feel free to exercise your conscience. However, not answering is still breaking the law that is de facto (if not de jure) constitutional.

Relativity to prior census events is irrelevant. That the 'well he did it, so why can't I' theory. It doesn't hold water. As for the ample opportunity portion, there's been ample opportunity for the government to eliminate all wasteful spending, pork, corruption, etc. Just because it hasn't happened doesn't mean it isn't needed.

The point of my post is that they have been asking these questions for decades, therefore there have been decades of opportunity for courts to rule them unconstitutional. Since no court has, clearly no serious legal authority thinks that they are.

In no way did my post attempt to justify the questions simply because they had been asked before.

Now that you've read and responded to the first portion of my post, go ahead and try the second half.

Edit: To add, now that the ACS has pretty much proven itself to be a part of the census, you might as well attempt to justify those questions as well. Or ignore it as if that isn't reality. Your choice. Or do you think that the constitution gives the Census authority to DEMAND that I answer when asked what my HOA payment is every month or what time I leave for work in the morning?

 

[eye95]

imported post

OK. You asked for a reply. I deliberately avoided replying because I thought it was unnecessary and because it is hard to respond kindly.

That point is silly. (You aren't. The point is.) There is a difference between a law that you think is unconstitutional going unchallenged decade after decade and politicians doing what they do. The fact that the law is unchallenged is an indication that legal scholars agree that it is constitutional, lawmakers acting like bozos notwithstanding.

Again, I thought your point refuted itself. I only respond because you requested I do.

 

[Phssthpok]

imported post

eye95 wrote:

OK. You asked for a reply. I deliberately avoided replying because I thought it was unnecessary and because it is hard to respond kindly.

That point is silly. (You aren't. The point is.) There is a difference between a law that you think is unconstitutional going unchallenged decade after decade and politicians doing what they do. The fact that the law is unchallenged is an indication that legal scholars agree that it is constitutional, lawmakers acting like bozos notwithstanding.

Again, I thought your point refuted itself. I only respond because you requested I do.

To paraphrase an exchange from the recent Chicago/McDonald hearing held by SCOTUS:

[font="Verdana, Ariel, Helvetica, Sans-Serif"][/font]

Sotomayor: "What -- in which ways has ordered liberty been badly affected?"

Gura: "Justice Sotomayor, [the United] States may have grown accustomed to violating the rights of American citizens, but that does not bootstrap those violations into something that is constitutional."

Brackets and emphasis mine.

 

[eye95]

imported post

I think speed limits unconstitutionally abridge my freedom to associate by restricting my ability to travel to the people I want to associate with.

The above is a silly argument. Yeah, I'll find a few people to go along with it. It's still silly. The courts will ignore it, much as they ignore arguments that the Census is unconstitutional.

The Census is constitutionally mandated. The Constitution give Congress authority to legislate the manner in which it will be conducted. The constitutionality of the Census as it is conducted (and has been for decades) is going relatively unchallenged because most legal scholars seem to agree that it is obviously constitutional.

That is just a tad different than the kinds of fights over rights you see in the courts today.

 

[IndianaBoy79]

imported post

eye95 wrote:

I think speed limits unconstitutionally abridge my freedom to associate by restricting my ability to travel to the people I want to associate with.

The above is a silly argument. Yeah, I'll find a few people to go along with it. It's still silly. The courts will ignore it, much as they ignore arguments that the Census is unconstitutional.

The Census is constitutionally mandated. The Constitution give Congress authority to legislate the manner in which it will be conducted. The constitutionality of the Census as it is conducted (and has been for decades) is going relatively unchallenged because most legal scholars seem to agree that it is obviously constitutional.

That is just a tad different than the kinds of fights over rights you see in the courts today.

I think we're about 50/50 when it comes to agreeing and disagreeing on things. Just because a majority of America, it's legal scholars, lawmakers, and courts believe something to be constitutional or just doesn't make it so. Roe VS. Wade decided the right for a person to do what they want with their body. (If anyone here actually reads the case, you'll find it has less to do with abortion and more to do with who owns and controls your body.) Why can't I ingest meth if I want to? You may think the idea is silly, and while I agree doing meth is wrong and stupid, I still would fight for a persons right to partake. Most won't agree with me, but those people are only concerned with the rights THEY want to exercise. They have no problem trying to restrict someone else's so long as it fits their own morality. Slavery was upheld by our courts for years before it was finally struck down. Even in some of our lifetimes, it was legal to segregate schools or make black folks drink from a different water fountain. LOT'S of people wanted to keep the status quo. It doesn't make it right or constitutional.

 

[eye95]

imported post

IndianaBoy79 wrote:

eye95 wrote:

I think speed limits unconstitutionally abridge my freedom to associate by restricting my ability to travel to the people I want to associate with.

The above is a silly argument. Yeah, I'll find a few people to go along with it. It's still silly. The courts will ignore it, much as they ignore arguments that the Census is unconstitutional.

The Census is constitutionally mandated. The Constitution give Congress authority to legislate the manner in which it will be conducted. The constitutionality of the Census as it is conducted (and has been for decades) is going relatively unchallenged because most legal scholars seem to agree that it is obviously constitutional.

That is just a tad different than the kinds of fights over rights you see in the courts today.

I think we're about 50/50 when it comes to agreeing and disagreeing on things. Just because a majority of America, it's legal scholars, lawmakers, and courts believe something to be constitutional or just doesn't make it so. Roe VS. Wade decided the right for a person to do what they want with their body. (If anyone here actually reads the case, you'll find it has less to do with abortion and more to do with who owns and controls your body.) Why can't I ingest meth if I want to? You may think the idea is silly, and while I agree doing meth is wrong and stupid, I still would fight for a persons right to partake. Most won't agree with me, but those people are only concerned with the rights THEY want to exercise. They have no problem trying to restrict someone else's so long as it fits their own morality. Slavery was upheld by our courts for years before it was finally struck down. Even in some of our lifetimes, it was legal to segregate schools or make black folks drink from a different water fountain. LOT'S of people wanted to keep the status quo. It doesn't make it right or constitutional.

Constitutional scholars still fight over Roe v. Wade. They still fight over the lawfulness of stops and searches during stops. They still fight over gun laws.

They aren't fighting over the Census. There seems to be a consensus on the Census.

Of course, you can keep fighting that battle. You're probably not going to get that $100 fine (because the Census Bureau selects its battles wisely). I would just suggest that folks here choose their battles wisely.

Fighting over something like the Census just would make observers roll their eyes, increasing the chance of folks rolling their eyes at open carry advocacy. We ought to choose our battles carefully in order that we are not perceived as folks who will declare anything we don't like unconstitutional.

 

[IndianaBoy79]

imported post

eye95 wrote:

Fighting over something like the Census just would make observers roll their eyes, increasing the chance of folks rolling their eyes at open carry advocacy. We ought to choose our battles carefully in order that we are not perceived as folks who will declare anything we don't like unconstitutional.

I'm a libertarian. I get that response to most laws I'm against. I guess I'm more O.K. with people rolling their eyes at me than I am with abuse of government. All people CAN do is roll their eyes; the government has an arsenal of tools to use against me. The point made was that laws can be wrong before or after a court hears a case, and it doesn't matter how many people agree or disagree with a law, it can still be wrong. The "silliness", or lack thereof, of a law isn't determined by how many people agree with it or if constitutional scholars are still debating it.

I don't know any constitutional scholars still debating Roe Vs. Wade. I hear a lot of debate over abortion, but I don't meet many people who have read the case and have any understanding of it. I am pro-life, and after reading the case, I think it's one of the best decisions the court has ever made. Of course, I think the abortion issue goes beyond what a person can do with their own body, and could be decided against while leaving R.v.W still in tact.

That said, I haven't tried to take my battles to court yet. Not because they're silly ideas though; it's a question of how much can be accomplished, and you are right in saying we need to choose those battles carefully.

 

[PT111]

imported post

eye95 wrote:

PT111 wrote:

eye95 wrote:

ecocks wrote:

Any gerrymandering will occur in the computer manipulation of the collected data. "Co-opting" individual census worker to this end is far, farbeyond the competence of even an ACORN-trained street supervisor.

Good point.

Co-opting census workers would be the most inefficient way of gerrymandering!

Gerrymandering is going to happen. It always does. It will happen in a way that favors the party doing the districting. BTW, doesn't districting happen at the State level?

If you are from Alabama or anywhere in the South you should know that all districting here happens at the Federal level. Every voting district or school district has to have Federal approval before it can be implemented. The last time our local shool board tried to rezone all of the schools they submitted 3 different plans before the Justice Department would finally approve one that met the guidelines established by the NAACP. This is just the way that the US Government continues to punish the South for the Civil War. By the time the NAACP finally gave their blessing to a rezoning plan for the schools the balance had changed so much that we almost had to start over.

Approval is not the same as doing. The feds look to make sure "protected classes" do not have their voting strength diluted through gerrymandering. The feds do not do the districting. States are allowed to gerrymander all they want to dilute Republican or Democrat voting strength. The party in power in that State will decide which party's vote gets diluted.

That is the biggest bunch of#$%@^& I have ever heard about gerrymandering. You evidently are a plant from Acorn to even say something like that. The gerrymandering including the 40 mile long stretch the width of I-20 to be sure to include Jim Clyburn's house was not to dilute anything other than the district that had been in place for 75 years. You are right the fed's don't do the districting, they just give orders on how the districts are to be made up according to race then sit back and say no until you finally get one they like.

 

[Doug Huffman]

imported post

He's a useful tool of the state.

 

[eye95]

imported post

PT111 wrote:

eye95 wrote:

PT111 wrote:

eye95 wrote:

ecocks wrote:

Any gerrymandering will occur in the computer manipulation of the collected data. "Co-opting" individual census worker to this end is far, farbeyond the competence of even an ACORN-trained street supervisor.

Good point.

Co-opting census workers would be the most inefficient way of gerrymandering!

Gerrymandering is going to happen. It always does. It will happen in a way that favors the party doing the districting. BTW, doesn't districting happen at the State level?

If you are from Alabama or anywhere in the South you should know that all districting here happens at the Federal level. Every voting district or school district has to have Federal approval before it can be implemented. The last time our local shool board tried to rezone all of the schools they submitted 3 different plans before the Justice Department would finally approve one that met the guidelines established by the NAACP. This is just the way that the US Government continues to punish the South for the Civil War. By the time the NAACP finally gave their blessing to a rezoning plan for the schools the balance had changed so much that we almost had to start over.

Approval is not the same as doing. The feds look to make sure "protected classes" do not have their voting strength diluted through gerrymandering. The feds do not do the districting. States are allowed to gerrymander all they want to dilute Republican or Democrat voting strength. The party in power in that State will decide which party's vote gets diluted.

That is the biggest bunch of#$%@^& I have ever heard about gerrymandering. You evidently are a plant from Acorn to even say something like that. The gerrymandering including the 40 mile long stretch the width of I-20 to be sure to include Jim Clyburn's house was not to dilute anything other than the district that had been in place for 75 years. You are right the fed's don't do the districting, they just give orders on how the districts are to be made up according to race then sit back and say no until you finally get one they like.

Redistricting is done by the States. Here is information from the Alabama website to prove that.

Article IX, Sections 197 through 200, Constitution of Alabama, 1901, requires the Alabama Legislature to redistrict the State during the first session after official completion of each decennial census of the United States. Such redistricting is mandated in order that legislative districts may be adjusted to reflect population shifts within Alabama. The number of Senate Districts (35) and House Districts (105) constituting the Alabama Legislature is established by Article IV, Section 50, Constitution of Alabama. The number of Members of the United States House of Representatives is established by Article I, Section 2, Constitution of the United States, as amended by Amendment 14, and by Acts of Congress. Each state is granted two Senators, as stipulated in Article I, Section 3, Constitution of the United States, and are elected as set forth in said Article as amended by Amendment 17. Following the 2000 Census, and receipt of the final data (by April 1, 2001), the congressional, legislative and state school board redistricting plans were drafted and subsequently taken up by the Legislature. Because Alabama is under the provisions of the Voting Rights Act, all such plans were subject to approval by employees of the United States Justice Department, prior to April 5, 2002.

Now, take your juvenile insults and go away. I have lost all respect for anything you have to say.

Moving on.

 

[PT111]

imported post

Redistricting is done by the States. Here is information from the Alabama website to prove that.

Article IX, Sections 197 through 200, Constitution of Alabama, 1901, requires the Alabama Legislature to redistrict the State during the first session after official completion of each decennial census of the United States. Such redistricting is mandated in order that legislative districts may be adjusted to reflect population shifts within Alabama. The number of Senate Districts (35) and House Districts (105) constituting the Alabama Legislature is established by Article IV, Section 50, Constitution of Alabama. The number of Members of the United States House of Representatives is established by Article I, Section 2, Constitution of the United States, as amended by Amendment 14, and by Acts of Congress. Each state is granted two Senators, as stipulated in Article I, Section 3, Constitution of the United States, and are elected as set forth in said Article as amended by Amendment 17. Following the 2000 Census, and receipt of the final data (by April 1, 2001), the congressional, legislative and state school board redistricting plans were drafted and subsequently taken up by the Legislature. Because Alabama is under the provisions of the Voting Rights Act, all such plans were subject to approval by employees of the United States Justice Department, prior to April 5, 2002.

Now, take your juvenile insults and go away. I have lost all respect for anything you have to say.

Moving on.

And you still claim that the state does the redistricting.

 

[PT111]

imported post

This has nothing to do with OC but neither does this entire thread but it seems that the people of NY don't get to have fair elections either.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/16/hispanic-apparent-winner-unusual-ny-election/?test=latestnews

In short a Federal judge ruled that since there wasn't much chance of a Hispanic being one of the top six in an election that allowed voters to vote for up to six different cantidates, to increase the odds of a Hispanic winning then people could vote for one person six times if they wanted to.