OT - The 2010 Census - Page 2

I cannot believe the paranoia of some people about the government's intentions with regard to the census.

Here is my understanding - from the link below:

"Every household will get a short form with only seven questions about each person who lives there (name, sex, age and date of birth, race, ethnicity, relationship to the head of household and whether the home is owned or rented). It takes about 10 minutes to fill out, says Arnold Jackson, associate director of the decennial Census."

www.usatoday.com/news/nation/census/2008-10-08-Census_N.htm

There will be another survey sent to about 3 million households that asks more questions and - depending on the questions asked - I can see some people having concerns about invasion of privacy. It is a legitimate question whether one is legally required to provide the additional information.

I have far more concerns about the suspension of  habeas corpus which was intended to enable suspected terrorists to be held without trial - including US citizens. Now there is where there is potential for abuse - because it is the government who will decide who they deem to be a "terrorist" or who poses a national security risk. The same goes for the eavesdropping that is permissible without a warrant - again it was ostensibly to track terrorists but it is the goverment that will make the decision as to who is deemed a "terrorist".

keepthefaith,

And what of our Constitutional rights? There is, as yet, no evidence that American citizens were targeted for electronic surveillance, but what if they were? The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution protects us against "unreasonable searches and seizures." Is it unreasonable to tap phone numbers discovered in al-Qaeda databases? Is it unreasonable to listen in on phone calls to or from known al-Qaeda locations?

It is very interesting that  was the liberals who were ramping up paranoia  in the hopes that people fearful of government intrusion would  vote the Big Government party into power.  The fact is that no one actually cares about your recipe exchanges with Aunt Sally, or how you complain about your boss and to whom. Unless your Aunt Sally is a known al-Qaeda operative in Pakistan, no one's even listening.

If Osama bin Laden calls me up from his Baluchistan hideout, however, you can bet I want the Feds taking notes. Moreover, I want them tracking the call to its source and sending every JDAM and MOAB in our inventory.

RPK

I'm for less government.  Government puts a few people in power over all others, and everyone knows that power corrupts.  Government needs to be reduced substantially.  Its unchecked growth is strangling our country.

Where does the Constitution give most of the laws of today any support?  If you research the Constitution, you'll find that most of the laws are unlawful. 

Crys

This was suppose to be set up as weak central government, powerful local government.........what ever happened to that idea?

keep the faith:    And you believe what the government tells you about the census?

Many tv stations have already interviewed people with several versions of the long one... Many people use the bus for transportation and they want to know what time you take your kid to the school bus stop also.  I only hit on  a few of the ridiculous questions..no ones business what and when or where I do anything,    especially the feds.   wise up people
Do some research ...listen to the people who have already seen the questions on the long forms....
 
MANY  an american has sat in jail in foreign countries from questions ask by heads of government when captured or taken in for questioning.. some of the men and women yu think you elected are not running the show here anymore and your opinion and what you want the people,,is not even being considered,,,if you think it is....Im glad for you.... when all the new hike in every tax, gas, electricity, ss tax  ,  bus fares, airplane fares, new taxes on your air you breathe.., then tell me I voted for that..no way....If you own a business here in usa , the new mandates will drive you insane...the new paperwork , the new rules if you do this and that and the fines and  penalties are unbelievable.

keep the faith  has succumbed to those beliefs the eavsedropping govt wants people to believe!  KTF tell all of us what you know about the govt.s desire to kep track on alquida! Are you aware of who the list is!! the list is a group of cia trained operatives world wide! the govt. needs no special law allowing them to listen in on phone calls between those people they already know who they are!  KTF it would be wise for you to read the constitution and the bill of rights, Those documents cannot be legislated away by congress or any state govt!

RPK, I have no problem with the government eavesdropping on phone calls or other communications with those who are are a security risk to the country. The crux of the issue is what safeguards exist to ensure that such powers are not abused. This is the reason that a court-order is required before eavesdropping is permitted.

If we could be certain that our government would exercise such action only in legitimate cases, then the whole thing would be a non-issue but the reason for checks and balances - such as obtaining a warrant - is to ensure that there is no abuse. This has nothing to do with whether a Republican or Democratic Administration is in power - in either event, offering a government unbridled power is an invitation for abuse.

I find it interesting that you who are a fervent Ron Paul supporter does not see the problem with this sort of unfettered governmental action. Ron Paul, after all, is not one of those kumbaya liberals who you so disdain.

keepthefaith,

Those like you who claim that the Legislative or Judicial branches of the Federal government should have control over military decisions are clearly unfamiliar with the Constitutional separation of powers, or how "efficiently" bureaucrats can run a war. The Left likes to pretend terrorism is merely a matter of civilian law enforcement, but this is a war, not an episode of CSI: Terrorism. Treating terrorism as a law enforcement matter, like jaywalking or stealing apples, is what allowed al-Qaeda to plan 9/11 so elaborately and secretly in the first place.

The fact that phone calls with al-Qaeda have been monitored is not news, though the Left seems to think it is. In 2002, the Associated Press reported that the government had "recently uncovered numerous calls from difficult-to-track prepaid cell phones, Internet-based phone service, prepaid phone cards and public pay phones in the United States to known al-Qaeda locations overseas." The story mentioned that the phone calls were "one piece of a growing body of evidence pointing to the presence of suspected members of terrorist sleeper cells operating on U.S. soil, and a growing sophistication on their part to keep their communications secret." The Left's response, three years later, is to attack the Bush administration for not having the proper paperwork on file when they eavesdropped on conversations with terrorists.

In 2002, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review examined the issue of warrantless surveillance. The Court noted that "all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information." Is the President's authority under the Constitution limited by FISA? "We take for granted," the Court stated, "that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power." Since that is precisely what FISA was created to do, doesn't that essentially make FISA itself unconstitutional?

Surely you can point to the evidence that American citizens were targeted for electronic surveillance. The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution protects us against "unreasonable searches and seizures." .......And I did not support Ron Paul


http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/fiscr111802.html

RPK

FYI,


http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo12139.htm


http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12949.htm


I'm here for ya

 YR, if you re-read my posting, I said that I had no problem filling in the short form - which is what all households in the US will be required to complete. I also said that there is probably a legitimate issue as to the legality of compelling the 3 million households who will receive the long form. If I happen to be one of those selected for the long form, I will probably complete it assuming that the questions are not unduly invasive.

I guess at a basic level I just don't subscribe to the conspiracy theories of how the government intends utilizing information provided - perhaps, I am naive about this because you and others are less trusting of the government than I am. I am far more concerned about some of the issues that I have been exchanging views on with RPK.

Re higher taxes, I fully expect that taxes will be raised if comprehensive healthcare is implemented. I am perfectly willing - as are 57% of Americans, according to a recent poll - to pay additional taxes if every American can have healthcare coverage. I am, however, opposed to a single-payor system because I believe that it will ultimately result in rationing of care. I personally have EXCELLENT coverage as does my family but I feel that it is morally indefensible that a country such as the US has 47 million people who don't have health coverage. 

As far as new mandates and regulations that businesses will face, given that the lack regulations and the enforcement of existing regulations just about caused a melt-down of the entire financial system, I am not going to shed any tears on their account. Having worked in corporate environments, I know for a fact that greed often trumps ethics.

Raymond a statement such as "KTF it would be wise for you to read the constitution and the bill of rights"  pretty much precludes having a meaningful discussion. Your appear to be an absolutist whether it comes to religion or politics where everything is black or white. IMO, life is more nuanced whether it be on matters of faith or as it pertains to constitutional interpretations.

RPK, I will respond to your reasoned response in the next day or two. I have been dealing with rather mundane issues which have nonetheless been quite time-consuming!