Guys, can you tell me (‘cause I wasn’t around then) - was the Constitution presented at public meetings, hearings, etc. and then voted on by the public via a regular election (ala, our November elections that everyone pretty much knows goes on every fall)? Because Eric said: “What I do care about—and demand from my government—is that it operate within the limits of the power that the people have given it via the Constitution”

So, was the Constitution voted on and ‘approved’? Or was it just a whole bunch of rich white landowners in 1787 who thought they had a better idea for how to run a country, and since they were the top dogs (and isolated from any other group of folks who could challenge them by a couple thousand miles of water), what they thought/said was gospel.  So, I kinda have a problem with us, 235 years later, interpreting their words as absolute, when they were written in a world with only wind power and horses, and human slavery was par for the course, and murder was often unpunished by what law may have existed. It’s a whole new world as they say, and modern worlds require modern government, not one stuck in 1787. Please give that a thought.

Paul,

I don’t even know what goat path you’re trying to go down with the “no greater good” and “brink of discussion” thread , so if you have nothing further, then I’ll call it a day and thank you for the great discussion!

John,

You erred is saying the Constitution isn’t a legal document.  That’s all it comes down to.  Congress can only pass laws in pursuit of the powers the Constitution grants it.  For the census, that means doing a head count.  Not 10 pages worth of personal details at a cost of $43 per person counted.

No amount of federal aggrandizement on the part of any branch of government can change the fact that federal powers are limited to the scope of what the Constitution grants it.  ALL OTHER POWERS are reserved to the States or to the People until they amend the Constitution to grant additional powers.

Enjoyed the exchange with you both, but I don’t think any of us are saying anything new, so I’ll close out and wish you the best.

John,

The government telling itself that it can do what it wants to do is no surprise.  I think the case is easily made when you look at the exploding cost of this “linchpin of the federal statistical system.”

Almost $43 to count a single person?  Give me a break.  And with the $43 per person counted cost—we still got almost 1,000 people with criminal records going around to ask people for their personal details.  It’s time to get back to basics and focus on the mandatate of counting the population of the states for representation purposes—which IS the Constitutional mission of the census.

Do I care what the federal bureaucracy says in order to further its own interests?  No.  What I do care about—and demand from my government—is that it operate within the limits of the power that the people have given it via the Constitution.

Eric,

I used the term “true facts’ to distinguish from what you call “facts” that are not true. The information on the Census website (http://2010.census.gov/2010census/why/constitutional.php) contains a true fact: many courts, including the Supreme Court have upheld the constitutionality of the information requested by the Census. The Supreme Court called this information the “linchpin of the federal statistical system … collecting data on the characteristics of individuals, households, and housing units throughout the country.” You can try to disparage and shoot down the messenger, namely the Census Bureau, but you can’t argue with many court decisions that are well documented. The argument that the constitution only permits the Census Bureau to collect information on the number of people in a household has been put to rest by the courts. Case closed.
“Going off” on the shortfalls of the Census Bureau is just changing the subject; it does not change the true facts!

Eric,
BTW, I mentioned the Preamble because some people focus on certain segments and crop others so tightly to their liking they forget the purpose of the Constitution entirely.

Ah, the basic instinct reveals itself…  there’s no “greater good”.  No truer expression of the mindset that pushed us to the brink of depression than that.  We could become a much smaller country too.  The process of lowering expectations for America is already underway.  (for the greater good, right?)

Well, Paul, you’re doing some fine dictating yourself.  In your world, if 50% +1 say we need to all buy GMs for “the greater good”, then the rest of us, the 50% -1, have to happily comply.

I don’t think so…

So we’re down to both sides thinks the other just wants to dictate to the other….. par for the course it seems of late.

Oh gee…the Census department putting together a school paper on if it can do the census.  I do wonder what they’ll come up with!  Luckily John put “true facts” in quotes, because I think even he’s starting to doubt his own story.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but Congress doesn’t just get to do whatever it wants.

I can link too John.  How about this one?
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10132t.pdf p.15

GAO investigated how well the Census Bureau did at verifying that it wasn’t hiring criminals to act as canvassers to go to citizen’s doors to harass them for personal information.

Census bureau hired 162,000 for the Census.

Of those, 35,700 had fingerprints that weren’t even usable for their background check because they weren’t taken properly.  But Census hired them anyway without making them resubmit their fingerprints.

Of the 130,000 people who had usable finger prints, 1,800 workers had a CRIMINAL RECORD.  Census hired them anyway.

But don’t worry, Census then either fired (or further interviewed) 750 of those 1,800 workers.  So on balance they didn’t even bother to follow up with the other 1,050 criminals that they hired.

And John wants to know why people don’t trust the Census or trust the government to run important programs…

For anyone who would like to get the “true facts” regarding the constitutionality of the census questions, I refer them to the following website:
http://2010.census.gov/2010census/why/constitutional.php
Hopefully this will put the question to rest and we can move on to other matters.

Paul,

I think anyone with even an elementary legal understanding knows that a Preamble does not establish law.  But if you didn’t, there’s your freebie for the day.

If you’re going to insist that as long as Congress is voted in by the people everything they do is acceptable, in the “name of the PEOPLE getting something done” then where does that take us?

How about the Indian Removal Act of 1830? 
Fugitive Slave Law of 1850?
Espionage Act of 1917 to allow the govt to rifle through your mail if you didn’t agree with Woodrow Wilson’s WWI?
How about the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in 1964 since Congress was too cowardly to pass a declaration of war?

This isn’t about the Articles of Confederation—so why do you think I want those?  I never said that I did…

I also am not distorting anything—-anybody who can read can find the text of the Constitution and see for themselves what it says.  I didn’t invent “Enumerated Powers” but I’m sure glad it’s there to impose SOME limits on Congress and on people who share your view. 

Though Congress these days tends to follow your approach and just pass something so we can find out later what was in the bill and then find out if it was constitutional or not…

Ignoring the charter establishing government powers in the name of “getting something done” sounds a lot more like anarchy to me than actually following the rule of law.

John,

When you say “by your logic Congress can’t pass any Federal laws,” you are showing how you still don’t understand.

I said Congress has the powers that are GRANTED TO IT by the Constitution.  Digging into people’s lives isn’t really one of them…conducting a census to see how many people each state has for representation in Congress IS one of those powers.

If you turn to Article 1, Section 8, you’ll also see other powers that Congress has (e.g., taxes, raising armies, declaring war, establish currency, approve treaties, etc.)

These are the sorts of things one would expect a national government to do.

Things like imposing federal highway speed limits (c 1970-1990s) and imposing an individual mandate to buy health insurance would be examples of things the federal government does NOT have authority to do.

Instead of devoting their energy going door to door collecting stool samples from American citizens, perhaps census takers such as Mr. Wilson should take a few minutes to read the U.S. Constitution.  The law which Mr. Wilson cites has allowed today’s U.S. Census to metastasize well beyond its Constitutional intent.  Article I, Section 2 indicates the Census is to be used to apportion members of the House of Representatives among the states.  The Founding Fathers never intended the Census be used to ask people about their natural hair color, the predominant sexuality of their pets and all the other nonsense on the long form (or even the “short” form, for that matter).

Eric,
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
liike the Confederacy you distort the Constitution to suit your objective.  Enumerated powers are those upon which the states cannot infringe.  iTS A GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE AND THOSE HOLDING YOUR VIEW USE THE PHONEY ENUMERATED POWERS ARGUMENT TO TRY TO GET PAST IT.
The articles of confederation didn’t work so the Constituion was a way to make a more perfect union.  It means PEOPLE can get something done as long as they don’t infringe upon the Consittutional rights of others.  Hence Judicial Review.

Eric,

By your logic, Congress can’t pass any Federal laws. This would lead to anarchy. We wouldn’t need a Department of Justice since there would be no laws to enforce. Suggest its time for a refresher course in American Government.

John,

You still don’t get it.  The federal government you work for is one of enumerated powers. 

This means simply that if a power isn’t expressly given to it by the Constitution—that same document you said isn’t a legal document—then the government lacks the authority to enact that law.  The power is reserved to the states or to the people.

I appreciate that you can spout off some citations to the US code, but as you probably know deep down, the US code is a collection of laws passed by Congress.  So if Congress lacked the specific authority to enact a law, that would make the US code cite you’re sharing worthless as well.

I didn’t write the Constitution, but I do expect my government and its employees like you to respect the limits on its power.  If you or anyone else doesn’t like what’s written there, there is an amendment process.  So go get some petitions signed.  Ignoring it is flatly unacceptable.

Paul,

The point I’m making is that Congress may enact laws with respect to the powers that the Constitution grants it.  If the people at any point in time decide they want to give Congress more power, it doesn’t take a Civil War, only the effort to follow the amendment process.

I think you’ve only got it half right when you say “There are limits on government in the context of limits on the infringement by people via their government upon the individual rights of other people.”  The Constitution also protects the people from the government (e.g., search/seizure, freedom of religion, speech, association, right to trial, no quartering of troops, etc.)

You say with concern that when one side ignores the Constitution, it started a Civil War because one side wanted its own army and to pursue its own aims.  I don’t understand then how you see the federal government ignoring the Constitution as a positive thing—even if that federal government thinks it is executing the will of the people.

Good example is the health care law.  Any given poll shows at minimum, opposition is as high as 60%.  Missouri for example rejected the mandatory insurance provision by 70% to 30% margin.  How is what the Congress did in passing the health care law respecting the people’s will OR the Constitution?

Eric,
Yes, the people are capable under the Constitution to pursue government initiatives not listed specifically as an enumerated power.  Its what the constitution means when it states that powers not reseverved for the federal government are reserved for the states or the people. 
What is government of the people, by the people, and for the people anyway if the people can’t make choices via their government?  That it seems seperate to some from the people is a basic and common line of demarcation between Republicans and Democrats about government.  Republicans have no vision of government that includes themselves as part of it or government as an extension of the will of the people including themselves. 
There are limits on government in the context of limits on the infringement by people via their government upon the individual rights of other people. 
Also, for the sake of preserving the Republic within the Constitution, there are enumerated powers reserved for Federal pervue to prevent states from working around them.  This is why there is only one national army allowed. 
We had a civil war because one side wanted to ignore the Constitution to pursue its own aims.  They saw the national government as seperate from themselves and thus they established their own country and army in opposition to the United States.

I suggest that anyone who beleives that the Census Bureau has no authority to collect information other than the number of people in a household should read US Code 13, Section 122 which states:
“(a) Whoever, being over eighteen years of age, refuses or willfully neglects, when requested by the Secretary, or by any other authorized officer or employee of the Department of Commerce or bureau or agency thereof acting under the instructions of the Secretary or authorized officer, to answer, to the best of his knowledge, any of the questions on any schedule submitted to him in connection with any census or survey provided for by subchapters I, II, IV, and V of chapter 5 of this title, applying to himself or to the family to which he belongs or is related, or to the farm or farms of which he or his family is the occupant, shall be fined not more than $100. (b) Whoever, when answering questions described in subsection (a) of this section, and under the conditions or circumstances described in such subsection, willfully gives any answer that is false, shall be fined not more than $500. (c) Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, no person shall be compelled to disclose information relative to his religious beliefs or to membership in a religious body.”

The Census Bureau is only prohibited from asking questions regarding religious beliefs or membership in a religious organization. I didn’t make this up so it is unfair to accuse me of arrogrance! If you want to change the law, speak to your congressman.

John Wilson

Eric,
The 10th amendment is only part of the Constitution isn’t it?  How would the review powers of the Supreme Court be negated? 
The Civil War occurred at its base because people became petrified in their allegiance to slavery on the basis of a firm embrace of states rights - in their view.  Among other people it was not in the end possible for the separation human rights and Constitutional rights affirmed in the Bill of Rights. 
I know it is the opinion of some that America is petrified by narrow quotations from the constitution but there is more to it and the Constitution specifies a great deal of duties/limits for Congress including commerce between states.

Paul,

The answer to your question is no.  As the Tenth Amendment makes clear, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Just because Congress is constitutionally elected does not mean that all of its actions are within the limits of its power.  If that were true, we wouldn’t need the courts to determine whether or not Congress has overstepped its authority.

If the people want to vest additional powers in the Congress or federal government, the amendment process is available.

America succeeds when it is true to its ideals.  The Civil War happened because the Constitution did not at one moment establish a just country true to its ideals for all time, it established a country with the potential to be true to its ideals.
If the Constitution establishes a government of the people including institutions that are Constitutionally elected, don’t those bodies like the House of Representatives (the “people’s house”) and Senate (though not originally elected by popular vote) act as the people and thus wield the balance of power not otherwise specifically delegated by the Constitution?
Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address poses the questions best upon a citizenry from the perspective of a country with 7 decades experience after its founding-

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth, upon this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived, and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met here on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of it as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But in a larger sense we can not dedicate - we can not consecrate - we can not hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled, here, have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember, what we say here, but can never forget what they did here.
It is for us, the living, rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they have, thus far, so nobly carried on. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us - that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they here gave the last full measure of devotion - that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain; that this nation shall have a new birth of freedom; and that this government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.