Right on Dr. Williams! I plan to answer only one question no matter if I get the "short" form or the long. "How many people are in my home"? I recommend that all people who feel as I do that government intrusion into our lives must be stopped. Do the same. "They can shoot us but they can't eat us"! My brother used to say when we were kids and doing something kids thought would bring reprisals! If enough people give only the information that OUR Constitution mandates, maybe they will get the message. But I doubt it!

Thanks, Mr. Williams, giving EXACTLY what is required by the Constitution on this subject of "CENSUS", and your agreement, Mr.Wegmann, should "sober" the people who are intimidated by the "Census Taker".

I ran one off about six months back, I don't why he was here so early, but I gave him a speech on what was required on the "Census" according to the Constitution and that's that. He left on some kind of, I think it was an "electric motor scooter" and I hope I will not see him again. I noticed he started writing "letters to the editor" on Americanism. Maybe, he "got the message". At least, I hope so.

For God & Country

Ruth Ann Wilson

If they as for race and you are willing to answer, check the other box and pencil in HUMAN, that's what I do aside from the federally required field.

John Q Citizen

It's the message thats important, not the messanger.

Every census form I received up too this year I filled in 3, for myself, wife and daughter. This year I will fill in 2 as my daughter has her own home. I was also thinking of checking off "other" for race and filling in "Martian."

United States Code, Title 13 (Census), Chapter 7 (Offenses and Penalties), SubChapter II,(paraphrased)

If you're over 18 and refuse to answer all or part of the Census, you can be fined up to $100.

If you give false answers, you're subject to a fine of up to $500.

If you offer suggestions or information with the "intent to cause inaccurate enumeration of population," you are subject to a fine of up to $1,000, up to a year in prison, or both.

_________________________________________________

$100 "Federal Reserve Note" 'fine' is worth it.

If that is the worse they can do, I will answer only what I want.

Dr. Williams,

Brilliant and on target as usual. The only reason that any question other that "How many reside at this address" is asked is for the pencil pushers in Washington and the special interest groups to beg for more money.

I just wish that you, Dr. Williams, Tom Sowell and a few other really intelligent people were interpreting the laws passed in Washington. I think there would be far less "Red Tape" and more benefit for the country.

Cut spending ---- they only need to know address and number living in household.

"If you offer suggestions or information with the "intent to cause inaccurate enumeration of population"

All that means is telling the gov't how many people live at your address, not how many toilets you have, not how many cars you have and certainly not how many times you've been married.

"the pencil pushers in Washington and the special interest groups to beg for more money"

Just watch the commercial about knowing how many children are in your school district.

All the town has to do is look at the enrollment to figure that out.

We need some nameless, faceless bureaucrat in Washington to tell us that?

I went round and round with the American Community Survey a few years ago. When the 4th caller to my house threatened myself and my now ex-wife with prison, I grabbed the phone and asked for her supervisor, who called me back. Later that night, I expressed to this female that all I was going to provide her with was number of people at my address. She asked if I would answer some questions over the phone. To humor her, and myself, I agreed, mainly because I was watching American Idol. After disclosing number of people residing in my house and the address, I responded "I don't know" to every other question. On some questions, I put her told her to hold so I could watch an Idol contestant sing and get reviewed. She got to listen to my comments as well. Best 45 minutes of my married life.

Census is required by the Constitution. My suggestion is to read same.

I use a big fat sharpie brand marker and write the number 5 on the census forms when they mail them out to me. Then when they send one of their "Census takers" out to my home to make me answer the rest of the questions, I hold the door open enough for them to see my hand and hear my voice. I hold out 5 fingers and just say "FIVE! That's ALL you need to know!" Then close the door.

I am totally amazed at the ignorance here about the US Constitution and the US Census. Professor Williams shows that the US Constitution gives Congress the lawful authority to ask all the questions it wants answered. Yet, he proposes to defy the US Constitution in saying that only the number of people is the only proper question.

Anyone can go to www.2010census.gov to see the 10 questions and the history behind them.

The US Census is about the only duty the Constitution mandates as a duty of the citizens to the Government.

Professor Williams also doesn't mention the 72 years that under title 13 information given to the US Census is kept confidential. The latest Census data that has been made public is 1930. The 2010 Census data will not be made public until 2082.

I enjoy listening to Professor Williams when he sits in for Mr. Limbaugh. But here he has many things wrong and needs tutoring on the US Constitution and the US Census to get a passing grade in this class. And so do many posters here.

I am a retired Army National Guardsman that has served in Iraq. I am currently working with the US Census. And I am NOT ACORN! I am just a citizen trying to do a Constitutionally mandated duty.

Bill

Dr. Williams is correct and you, Bill and John, are wrong. A link is provided below to the relevant Article of the Constitution.

You confuse the "need" of government to "know" what it says it needs to know with the authorized right, repeat, authorized right to know.

It the right to know only one thing according to the Constitution, which is the basis of all law in the land: the number of persons residing for the purpose of apportioning Representatives to Congress.

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec2.html

or here (it says the same thing): http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei

I with you Dr. Williams! Only one question answered by my household also.

On thinking further I realize how difficult it would be for the federal government to do all the things it wants to do without a detailed census. Perhaps it needs to realize it has no authority to do any of the things it wants to do and habitually does do that require more questions than this one: "how many reside in your house?"

Few things the States can do can be done better by a central government. That is why there are so few enumerated powers given that government by the Constitution. The sovereignty of the States have been usurped time and again by a federal government that simply doesn't know its own business.

The Constitution, which is a formula for how government is constituted, begins with this Article which apportions representatives by population. The President is not first: the framers had no intention of making America an elected monarchy. The Court is not first: the framers had no intention of making America a juridical oligarchy. Not the one or the few but the many: a Congress of representatives made up of fairly represented constituencies. It is for this purpose alone the census is mandated.

Thank you, Dr. Williams. The more I think of this seemingly trivial subject, the more vital it becomes.

If we are ignorant, John? Bill? please enlighten us with a link to the Constitution that shows otherwise.

I have been reading your columns for many years and you are always right! Several months ago I told my entire family to answer "4 American citizens live here, thank you and have a nice day".

Bill, I think you're confusing the US Census with the American Community Survey.

http://www.prb.org/Articles/2009/differences.aspx

One in every 4 homes get the ACS "census" per year and by 10 years every household will have received one.

ACS:

http://www.census.gov/acs/www/Downloads/ACSQandA_ENG.pdf

2010 US Census:

http://2010.census.gov/2010census/how/interactive-form.php

The Census Bureau had completely disconnected itself from ACORN because of all the controversy. (But... they are reestablishing themselves under new names in several states.)

I did the 2000 Census in my county and due to the rural area I covered it was often very scarey but I learned one thing from that phase of my life which is just as applicable today as it was 10 years ago.

You can go down road 'A' today and it will be one way, go tomorrow and it may be different so what is the point in a mandatory counting of heads?

When this law was written some 100 or so years ago we weren't a mobile society like we are today. You can live on a property today and be gone tomorrow or you can not live there when the census person comes around but be there tomorrow after he or she is gone...So, what's the point? Why spend the gazillions of tax dollars just to count heads, what purpose does it serve?

I truly am glad America has had its first black president (Not that color should have anything to do with anything). It says alot about how far we've come. But why, oh why couldn't it have been Walter Williams? Every article I've read by this guy has been nothing short of excellent and well defended.

Perhaps one might focus on the fact that the Consistution calls for enumeratn of "persons". The enumeration is not of "citzens". If one counts illegal aliens- as is the intent of the Administration- the effect in redistricting is to create more cngressional representation om regions with more illegals and lessened represention in areas of the country where there are less proportionately. Illegals cannot vote (?)As result a citizens vote counts for more in a redistricted district with lots of illegals than in a redistricted district with few as the standard for redistricting is to have districts with equal numbers of "persons". As illegals most often live in association with "legals" the effect is to give de facto representation to illegals as well as increased funding to districts with large illegal populations.

Professor Williams is correct that, by its terms, the Enumeration Clause of the Constitution does not explicitly authorize the federal government to require individuals to answer questions beyond those required for enumeration and allocation of Representatives. I could wish that he were also correct in his position that, therefore, the federal government’s, to wit, Congress’, requiring citizens, under 13 U.S. C. §221(a), to answer other questions, was unconstitutional because beyond the language of the Enumeration Clause, but, unfortunately, it is well settled by the courts that this is not the intent of the Constitution, as construed by the Supreme Court, nor the extent or outer limits of the federal government’s authority, under Acts of Congress, to gather additional information.

The leading case on this is Rickenbacker v. U. S., 303 F.2d 462 (2nd Cir. 1962)a challenge by a leading conservative activist based upon essentially the same arguments raised by Prof. Williams, which are essentially grounded upon the Constitution. The U. S. Court of Appeals, in rejecting the arguments that only questions by the Federal Government directly related to enumeration and allocation of Members of Congress were permissible, and the arguments that only questions directly related to the enumerated powers of Congress were permissible, cited earlier case law back to 1901, long before the 1937 “switch in time that saved nine” when the Supreme Court, for all practical purposes, rejected the clear text and original intent of a federal government of enumerated and limited functions and powers in order to uphold the Constitutionality of the Social Security Act and other “New Deal” legislation.

The Supreme Court then effectively rendered that entire fundamental issue largely irrelevant when, in Wickard v. Filburn, which it last reaffirmed in the conservative Justices’ opinion upholding the supremacy of the federal marijuana laws over California’s medical marijuana law, extending federal Commerce Clause legislative jurisdiction to anything Congress found “affected” interstate commerce, including raising wheat and feeding it to your own cow on a family farm. Even the conservative Judge Robert Bork has written that, despite two cases, Lopez, creating a federal 500 foot gun-free zone around any public school, and another case dealing with Congress having made family violence a federal crime, there probably is practically nothing that Congress may not do under this now well settled interpretation.

The Rickenbacker opinion, the last on this issue, dealt specifically with questions on a federal housing survey about indoor plumbing and the like. Federal housing laws had been upheld for years by 1962. Race and slave status would have been essential parts of the enumeration process and allocation of Congressional seats pursuant to the original Constitutional “three-fifths compromise” until the Emancipation Proclamation and Fourteenth Amendment. I would love to see Tiger Woods’ and President Obama’s, among others’, answers to the race question, but individual answers are not disclosed. .

This case came down while I was in law school. It was well covered in National Review. Later, I had occasion to discuss it with a friend who had worked on the staff of the Senate Judiciary Committee and was up on Constitutional history, who told me that, to his surprise, like mine, research had shown that Congress had been tacking such additional questions, under its view of its other authority, onto the basic enumeration questions, from the early censuses when the views of the Federalist founders, and congruent views of anti-federalists including Jefferson, would have been very much in mind and respected.

I plan on answering on those questions pertinent to the congressional seating needed. Hopefully I won't be thrown in jail. I can remember my parents asking what the number of toilets in a home was needed for and the answer they received was "it's the law". That was in the 1940s. The government is just getting nosier and nosier.

Long or short form, I am answering only that I live here. I am saving $$$, which is hard to do on a fixed retirement income, in case they fine me. I think more and more ticked off Tea Party Patriots like me will be answering only the bare minimum this census.

I plan to respond as I have in the past, I will provide the number of people residing at my household, period. I have done this on past census forms (both long and short). Unless, the government can show me a Constitutional requirement, that is all they get. Thank you Dr. Williams, you are my hero!

As I read the Constitution, the Census Clause requires an enumeration of the U.S. population every decade year. While it requires nothing but a "head-count", nothing in it prohibits that process from being expanded by legislation to other questions which congress thought it important to ask. The first extension of the Census beyond simple enumeration occurred, I believe, in 1840.

Over time other, the Census has expanded to try to get solid information that would provide a credible summary of important characteristics of the U.S. population: economic, social, religious, etc.

The many add-ons serve a number of important purposes for the U.S. government, and it saves taxpayer dollars to have the information generated alongside the enumeration process rather than having separate population studies being made by

the various departments of government.

they probably want to know how much room you have in your home for illegals

I intend to give the number of persons living in my home. The other questions go far beyond the scope of the constitution in terms of enumerating the population.

Following is my take.

"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."

Does not say "...with such questions as they shall by law require".

Comprehension of the last 9 words in the above sentence: They may cause the enumeration to happen in any way they wish - through ACORN, postal mail, internet or by census takers on foot.

One cannot be required to answer anything that could place himself in jeopardy and in this case would include fines. Even a truthful and correct answer can be interpreted by others to be untruthful or incorrect and subject a person to adverse consequences. Government has no authority to compel and overt act outside it limited powers. Enumeration is simply a count and certainly does not include prying into personal matters. The purpose of the census was for determining representation in this representative republic and also to determine the amounts of taxes that states had to send to the feds based upon the enumeration. So I will allow myself to be counted as an American. They will not be permitted to count me as an Ango-Saxon, protestant, heterosexual, conservative, with one toilet and no illegals living in my home. If they start to harrass me, I will just have to get a bigger dog and train him to recognize ACORN.

And for all you progressives supporting ACORN and SEIU: yes, they were involved with census fraud in the past and will likely do it again in effort to get illegals counted to beef up the progressives in the redistricting. The big difference is that now we are watching and people are finally seeing the progressive agenda for what it is. They are changeing their name, but are still going strong like Freddie Kreuger.

I have always respected your views and agree with you 99.9 % of the time. After Googling the question "laws of the census according to US constitution" your article is the only one I saw that told me the answer I was looking for... THE TRUTH. I did answer last decade only the number of people and names in my household and was bombarded by census workers to answer their other questions. I did not. This year I will not answer the door.

Obviouisly Bill and John are latching onto that part of Article I Section 2 which reads; "in such manner as they shall by law direct." In recent days I've heard many of the defenders of the current nature of the Census questions, with it's probing into race, date of birth, type of home, whether or not the home is rented or has a mortgage, telephone number, etc., latch onto the same phrase as the justification for the Federal Government poking it's nose into our personal lives. Once again however, the Statists are putting more meaning into words that just are not there..., trusting that we won't notice and will meekly submit to their directives.

The word "Manner" is defined thus - "a way or method in which something is done or happens; mode or fashion of procedure." Any clear thinking person understands this as the sole meaning of that phrasing. By law, Congress may direct that the Census be taken by actual physical headcount (i.e. door to door), by mail, by report of the states, or whatever other "manner" they deem sufficient. What the Constitution does NOT say is "in such Manner and Extent of Information as they see fit and shall by law direct." But this is certainly what our current government and it's defenders would have us believe. So gentlemen, do not think us so stupid as to fall for your obfuscating, word-stretch methodology. We have read the Constitution, and are well acquainted with what is there, and what is not.

Regarding arjay's post - Please be so kind as to point out which legislation it is that was passed, and when, that compels United States citizens to provide answers to these ever increasingly probing personal questions into our private lives under penalty of fine and/or imprisonment. And are you suggesting that it is right and proper that the Federal Government apportions taxpayer money according to race, age, gender, and homeownership status? Yes, I've looked into the 2010 Census website justifications for these questions and they point out how important it all is for funding of hospitals, job work centers, senior centers, education, and so on, and so on. Problem is... NONE of these things are constituionally enumerated powers of the Federal Government. They are things the Fed has no business in. These are concerns of the states and the people. Now if the various states wish to conduct their own Census or Community Surveys, by consent of the people within those states, to determine the need and requirements for these concerns... then by all means do so. And if some citizen of Massachusetts objects to the nosiness of his state government, he can move to New Hampshire or Vermont (otherwise called 'voting with your feet'). But where do we go if we find the intrusions of the Federal Government into our personal lives and individual liberty too much to bear? Canada???

But of course if you are a Progressive Statist - one who believes in an all powerful centralized federal government - then hospitals, education, and job work centers are things that would you certainly wish to concern yourself with and control. In this instance, the information sought is understandably critical to those ends. Gerald Ford aptly put it when he said, "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take from you everything you have."

So, Bill... how uncomfortable will it make you, if in the future 2020 Census one of the requirements in the questionaire is to provide how many and what type of guns are in your home? Or what religion you ascribe to? What your political affiliations are? Or any other question the Federal Government see fit to ask and require? Oh I'm sure the wordsmiths of the Left will come up with some purely innocent and seemingly justifiable reason to put us all at ease. Personally however, I find it all quite chilling. And I'm fairly certain the founders would too.

iluvit makes an excellent suggestion. Fall back on the Bill of Rights. But then again, when has the current crop of statists residing in the seat of our government EVER let something so archaic and inane (in their view) as the United States Constitution stand in the way of the needs of the government? Or progress, as they would put it.

"As a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights. Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions." ~ James Madison, 1792

I thought all that was required by the constitution was a count of the residence. Are names required also?

T Jefferson, I believe that technically you are correct. The Constitution requires only an enumeration of people living in a household. And I found it interesting that the format of the 2010 Census form places this question first and separates it in it's own printed box from the rest of the questions. It seems almost a subconscious acknowledgment to the primacy of THAT question as the sole constitutional requirement for the Census.

Personally, in addition to fulfilling the requirement of giving the number of persons living in my household, I am willing to volunteer the information regarding my name and my age (and age only, NOT date of birth), as well as those of my other family members. But that is all. And I volunteer that information only because I can see some usefulness in being able to verify that the numbers given are not simply manufactured to "puff up" the population of a given city and state in order to gain advantage in representation in Congress over another state. Plus, I have personally found the name and age data to be of particular use to me in researching my ancestry through the Census records (indicating that name and age have been traditional going back 200+ years) and would afford that same tool to my descendants. But no, even that is not required and is your choice in my humble opinion.

Now the Census worker, who will invariably call or come by to cajole (and perhaps threaten) you into completing the full ten questions on the form, will use the argument that the information you provide will be protected and your privacy perfectly guarded under Title 13, United States Code, Sections 9 and 214. My question in reply to said Census worker will be; "And just what assurances and guarantees can you reasonbly give me, that a government which habitually disregards the Constitution of the United States will respect the aforementioned Title and Sections any more faithfully?"

As a slap at the hubris of the government in demanding such unnecessary and unconstitutional information from it's citizenry, I did also answer the question regarding "race" - I checked "other" and wrote in "American." And that is all they need to know.

Thank you, thank you, Dr. Williams for clarifying what information we have to provide on the census according to the constitution. That is all I will provide. You were a great help.

Recently, I found the 2010 Census form hanging on my door. As I began filling it out, I came across a dilemma. The U.S. government wants to know if my children are adopted or not and it wants to know what our races are. Being adopted myself, I had to put “Other” and “Don’t Know Adopted” for my race and “Other” and “Don’t Know” for my kids’ races.

Can you imagine not knowing your ethnicity, your race? Now imagine walking into a vital records office and asking the clerk for your original birth certificate only to be told “No, you can’t have it, it’s sealed.”

How about being presented with a “family history form” to fill out at every single doctor’s office visit and having to put “N/A Adopted” where life saving information should be?

Imagine being asked what your nationality is and having to respond with “I don’t know”.

It is time that the archaic practice of sealing and altering birth certificates of adopted persons stops.

Adoption is a 5 billion dollar, unregulated industry that profits from the sale and redistribution of children. It turns children into chattel who are re-labeled and sold as “blank slates”.

Genealogy, a modern-day fascination, cannot be enjoyed by adopted persons with sealed identities. Family trees are exclusive to the non-adopted persons in our society.

If adoption is truly to return to what is best for a child, then the rights of children to their biological identities should NEVER be violated. Every single judge that finalizes an adoption and orders a child’s birth certificate to be sealed should be ashamed of him/herself.

I challenge all readers: Ask the adopted persons that you know if their original birth certificates are sealed.

Only giving the number in my household. I'm a Federal Agent and understand this Census is unconstitutional. If they show me their badge, I will show them mine and ask them to leave on their own or leave wearing my hand irons.

Wow, you guys really have no idea what the Census is about. Or the questions on it.

I'm working right now as a census taker. It's a job (better than taking a handout) and I am doing the best I can to pay my bills. It's a tough job-scary sometimes for a woman. A lot of times I'm in bad neighborhoods, knocking on people's doors, hoping I don't get mugged. I'm always kind to people, yet every night I get the rude/self-righteous people who make me feel bad. I'm very socially conscious and am big on human rights...and I would not take this job if I believed it was invasive and used in an malicious way. People are so paranoid. The reason we ask the ages of household members is, if there are many kids in a neighborhood but only 1 school, the state can justify more funding for schools...If there are many elderly individuals, the state knows that community needs more care facilities for the elderly. The reason we get a phone number when we have to go to your house is so the census office can verify we were actually at your house (and didn't just make up the answers). It's quality control. And I've been in the actual census office. The census office calls maybe 1 in every 50 of the phone numbers given on the forms (after the census taker has come to your house)...When the office calls your number, all they ask is if a census worker came to your home. They also verify the answers given. That's it. And no where is your phone number recorded in any database. In fact, I also worked at the office entering all the data from the census forms. The only info entered in the database is the house count, whether the house is rented/owned, etc...The phone number is not entered anywhere.

So, PLEASE people, respect and are kind to your local census employees. It's a tough job, very thankless and very misunderstood. And to Kerdy..A census taker is a federal worker, who has a legal right to be on your property. If you fill out your form (required under the Constitution), the census worker will not have to come to your home! And the census worker will "leave wearing my hand irons"? Please, power tripper. You would have NO right whatsoever to falsely imprison a census taker. In fact, you'd be the one ending up in hand irons.

So, come on, people...Show some basic respect. It does not make you more "American" to disrespect and be unkind to a census taker. This information is used for legitimate purposes. And if you mail in your forms, no one has to come to your house. And believe me...we don't want to be at the houses of rude/ignorant people just as much as you don't want us there.

Well here it is, the middle of August and as we near the final phase of the census, I'm still knocking on doors, getting my daily ration of abuse. Bottom line is simple, if we all can just pick and chose what laws we want to follow then what do we have? Anarchy. We have to have some trust in the system otherwise whats the use of voting this November. This November will give us a chance to correct some of the mistakes we made two years ago.

I'm a Tea Party Patriot and 912er. I received the survey and do not plan to answer any questions. In fact, I hope they try to charge me with an offense. I'll hit the newspapers and TV so fast it'll make their heads spin... they started calling last night. I fly a "Do Not Tread On Me" (Gadsden) flag in my front yard. If they pay a visit, they'll see from the start they're in for a hard time!!!

Ok, can someone say when a village is trying to reach a population goal to become classified as a city, and they are falling short in population. They send census workers to your home for a count again. Is it legal to ask for the names of the people who live there?

I like your fantastic web site. Just what I was searching for!

Best regards