Michele Bachmann — Wingnut or Constitutional Heroine?
12 Comments Published by John Eidsmoe June 26th, 2009 in LawCongresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-Minn) recently announced that when it comes time to fill out the 2010 U.S. Census forms, “for my family the only question we will be answering is how many people are in our home. We won’t be answering any information beyond that, because the Constitution does not require any information beyond that.”
Shelly Lowe of the U.S. Census Bureau countered that Rep. Bachmann is “misreading” the law, and that the U.S. Code provides penalties for those who refuse to answer the census.
Ms. Lowe, did you not learn in elementary school civics classes that the U.S. Code is not the same as the Constitution? Do you not recall that, ever since Chief Justice John Marshall announced the Supreme Court’s decision in Marbury v. Madison (1804), a statute that is repugnant to the Constitution is null and void? Where, Ms. Lowe, does the Constitution — not a statute, not a federal regulation, not an executive order, but the CONSTITUTION — authorize census-takers to require any more information beyond the number of people in a household?
Constitutional authority for the census is found in Article I § 2, which provides that representation in the House of Representatives and direct taxation shall be based upon the “respective Numbers” of people in each State. It is therefore necessary to determine the number of people in each State, so “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.” Note that this head-count is not even called a census; it is called an “Enumeration,” and its purpose is to ascertain congressional representation and direct taxation. By what stretch of the imagination can this provision be interpreted to authorize anything but a head-count and nothing more?
Rep. Bachmann also noted that the integrity of the census is open to question because ACORN will conduct a large portion of it, and that during World War II President Franklin D. Roosevelt used census records to round up Japanese-Americans and inter them in concentration camps.
A survey of liberal websites reveals that Rep. Bachmann has been excoriated as a nutcase and called every name you can imagine. However, not one has either (1) called into question her claim that FDR used census records to inter the Japanese, or (2) cited any constitutional authority whatsoever for a census that goes beyond a head-count.
To those who say she has placed herself above the law, I answer that she has done the exact opposite: she has placed herself, her fellow congressmen, and the U.S. Census Bureau under the Constitution.
And to those who think Rep. Bachmann is engaging in a political stunt, I answer that you don’t know her. She was my law student and research assistant in law school over 20 years ago, and our families have been close friends ever since. She is and always has been 100% sincere in her belief in limited government under the Constitution.
And so, Michele, I say, God bless you, hang in there, and keep up the good work! The Left would not attack you so viciously if they didn’t consider you a threat.
This is a completely distorted and WRONG, glib explanation of the law. You are wrong. Bachman is wrong. The U.S. Code governs this. Not everything is necessarily a constitutional matter; it is only of controversy if the governing Code or facts somehow fall outside settled Constitutional law, which it DOESN’T.
Bachman is a attention starved publicity hound. Her constituents ought to be worried about whether she does any ACTUAL work for them.
Nuvee, Tell me how does the u.s. code govern this if the Constitution in Art. 1, sec 2 states that it is only for enumeration for apportionment of reps and direct taxation? If the code requires something beyond the stated purpose of enumeration, then we can challenge the intrusive questions like how many toilets I have or when I leave for work. That is NONE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS BUSINESS! BTW, attacking Bachmann personally is not an argument…it is just smearing.
“Left would not attack you so viciously if they didn’t consider you a threat.”
I love that logic. People wouldn’t be pointing out how wrong you are if you weren’t really right! Heh.
“…the integrity of the census is open to question because ACORN will conduct a large portion of it…”
Uh, no they won’t.
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/is_acorn_providing_workers_for_the_2010.html
Being one of over 30,000 partners who are helping to publicize the census doesn’t come anywhere close to “conducting a large portion of it.” Ridiculous.
And, Nuvee is right; the Constitutionality of the current census is also not in question: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jun/25/michele-bachmann/michelle-bachmann-claims-constitution-only-require/.
Seriously, this is hysteria…
@Nuvee and Alex-
The issue here is that you both claim that the U.S. Code supercedes the constitution(the Supreme Law of the land)?? The sole purpose of the census to to get a “head count” in order to correctly adjust the representative’s of a state. That’s it!!!
Why does the govt. need all that other info. If the constitution says all I am required is to provide a “head count” then that is all I will provide.
The audacity of the beaurocrates to think that they are above the constitution…..
Sal says, “The issue here is that you both claim that the U.S. Code supercedes the constitution(the Supreme Law of the land)??”
Huh? No one said that at all. We’re saying the Constitution doesn’t prohibit the way the Census is being carried. There’s no Constitutional issue in the first place. Heck, even the very first census in 1790 asked more questions than a “head count.” Seriously, this is a pretty settled matter; the Supreme Court has upheld collecting more data than just a “head count” multiple times.
Oh, and by the way:
Sal says, “If the constitution says all I am required is to provide a “head count” then that is all I will provide.”
The Constitution says that the census is to be carried out “in such a manner as they shall by law direct.” Now it’s law. So you can go ahead and break that law, which is allowed by the Constitution itself if you want. But you’ll get laughed at for using “unconstitutionality” as an excuse.
Nuvee, Just saying Congresswoman Bachmann and I are WRONG does not make it so, even when you put it in all capital letters.
I’m puzzled by your argument that matters of the U.S. Code are independent of the Constitution. But Article VI § 2 provides that “The Constitution, and Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof … shall be the supreme Law of the Land.” Through the Constitution we, the people created Congress and delegated to Congress certain powers. The Constitution does not even use the term “census;” rather, through Article I § 2 we delegated to Congress the authority to conduct an “enumeration.” Congress therefore has power to conduct this enumeration or head count for the purpose of apportioning representatives in Congress and for direct taxation, but nothing in the Constitution authorizes Congress to require any more information beyond the number of people living in a household.
Also, I’m wondering why you seem so emotional about defending the federal government’s right to force us to divulge private information. And how well do you know Congresswoman Bachmann, that you feel qualified to diagnose her as an “attention starved publicity hound”? As I noted in the post, she was my student and my research assistant, and her family and mine have been good friends for over twenty years. I respect your right to disagree with her views, but when you question her sincerity I will tell you flatly that you are wrong.
Alex, You make a good point when you note that “The Constitution says that the census is to be carried out ‘in such manner as they [Congress] shall by law direct.’” But please note again that the Constitution does not use the word “census;” it uses the term “enumeration.” Congress has discretion to determine the means of conducting the enumeration (mail, telephone, visiting houses, etc.), but Congress has no authority to transform the enumeration into a comprehensive survey that goes beyond anything the term “enumeration” could reasonably be defined to mean.
Действительно и как я раньше не подумал про это
Я знаю сайт с ответами на интересующую Вас тему.
Поздравляю, очень хорошая мысль
Толку от этого мало.
Авторитетный ответ
I plan on following the constitutional requirement and give the number of people residing at my address; nothing more
Dr. from Kentucky
You notice how all the big-government, leftist, socialist, my-country-right-or-wrong people here seem to FORGET conveniently that the Constitution was MADE to LIMIT government? And conveniently IGNORE the FACT that this bureau has already been used to oppress and persecute based on the very information that people are protesting? Race? Hello? Where are the “Profiling” nutcases among those same liberals who claim all the murderers and thieves in prisons are only there because GOVERNMENT has a BIAS?
It’s obvious that the “census” is NOT the simple “enumeration” called for by the Constitution. It is just one more of the supra-governmental buracracies evolving from the same Orwellian morass that has grown out and over the intended severely limited federal government the founders designed, and has spawned all those other liberty-destroying entities.
Horay for one elected official who remembers the document they ALL swore an oath to uphold when taking office.
Alan J. Scholl, MBA
Exec. Dir. American Opinion Foundation
I urge all rightwingers to avoid the census. Live in fear. Make up nonsense, spread it on Fox and through Glenn Beck’s radio show, and continue to be irrelevant to America and to the future of the world. You’ve built yourself a nuthouse with deafening echo, and you’re comfortable there — remain there, please, and let the rest of us live our lives. With health care. With equality before the law. With liberty and justice for all. Thanks.
Federal statutes and codes etc derive their authority from the Constitution, the highest law in the United States. If it is not in the Constitution, then it is left to the states. Some people want to change the Constitution, but it would be better for them to move to China or California.
Article I, sec. 2: “… 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. …”
enumeration: Main Entry: enu·mer·ate
Pronunciation: \i-ˈn(y)ü-mə-ˌrāt\
Function: transitive verb
1 : to ascertain the number of : count
2 : to specify one after another : list
Tell me exactly how this refers to the ‘Census’ being allowed to ask questions related to race, income, etc.?
It allows the ‘enumeration’ to be performed in ‘such manner as they shall by Law direct’ … i.e. you can go door to door, mail, telephone, etc.
And can anyone please tell me that they did NOT use ‘Census’ information to inter Japanese during WWII?
Do you trust that could not be used again in times of war, conflict or civil unrest by EITHER side?