Ms. Chavez, a very nice, polite lady, from the regional office of the US Census bureau, showed up unannounced in my driveway. After introducing herself, she politely said she was here to help me fill out the American Community Survey questionnaire.
For several months I had been receiving correspondence from the Census Bureau about various ways to fill out the form. It all seemed benign enough, even though I thought some of it a bit too personal. When I read the part about the questionnaire being MANDATORY, under federal law, I immediately threw the form and letters into the trash.
How, and under what authority could the government REQUIRE me to give out personal information, I thought. After all, the fourth amendment to the constitution says:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I even emailed the address given on the letters. They simply said it was REQUIRED.
Finally I began getting letters that actually showed the statute — Title 13, section 221 and Title 18 section 3571 (a) (7).
I looked it up:
-CITE-
13 USC Sec. 221 1/15
-expcite-
title 13 - census
chapter 7 - offenses and penalties
subchapter ii - other persons
-HEAD-
Sec. 221. Refusal or neglect to answer questions; false answers
-STATUTE-
(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.
Somehow, they even implied that section 223 would also apply:
-CITE-
13 USC Sec. 223 1/15
-expcite-
title 13 - census
chapter 7 - offenses and penalties
subchapter ii - other persons
-HEAD-
Sec. 223. Refusal, by owners, proprietors, etc., to assist census
employees
-STATUTE-
Whoever, being the owner, proprietor, manager, superintendent, or
agent of any hotel, apartment house, boarding or lodging house,
tenement, or other building, refuses or willfully neglects, when
requested by the Secretary or by any other officer or employee of
the Department of Commerce or bureau or agency thereof, acting
under the instructions of the Secretary, to furnish the names of
the occupants of such premises, or to give free ingress there to and
egress therefrom to any duly accredited representative of such
Department or bureau or agency thereof, so as to permit the
collection of statistics with respect to any census provided for in
subchapters I and II of chapter 5 of this title, or any survey
authorized by subchapter IV or V of such chapter insofar as such
survey relates to any of the subjects for which censuses are
provided by such subchapters I and II, including, when relevant to
the census or survey being taken or made, the proper and correct
enumeration of all persons having their usual place of abode in
such premises, shall be fined not more than $500.
Although I had no problem with Ms. Chavez entering my property, I don't see how section 223 could apply.
Title 18 deals with sentencing. Here's what section 3571 says:
(a) In General.— A defendant who has been found guilty of an offense may be sentenced to pay a fine.
(b) Fines for Individuals.— Except as provided in subsection (e) of this section, an individual who has been found guilty of an offense may be fined not more than the greatest of—
(1) the amount specified in the law setting forth the offense;
(2) the applicable amount under subsection (d) of this section;
(3) for a felony, not more than $250,000;
(4) for a misdemeanor resulting in death, not more than $250,000;
(5) for a Class A misdemeanor that does not result in death, not more than $100,000;
(6) for a Class B or C misdemeanor that does not result in death, not more than $5,000; or
(7) for an infraction, not more than $5,000.
Apparently my transgression was supposed to fall under (7) of this section.
Although I can't how a MAXIMUM $100 or $500 fine could reach the $5000 mark, the threat the Census Bureau makes is that I could be fined $5000 for not complying with the order to disclose my personal information to our government. The same government that is intercepting my email, requiring the phone company to reveal my phone calls, and probably has at least one bureau that knows everything about me down to my sock size. Now I have to volunteer my personal information or risk being fined. I can understand this type of behaviour from NAZI or Communist governments, but we have a "bill of rights". Or has our POTUS completely suspended that obsolete document?
Here is the frosting on this nasty cake: if you answer the questions wrong the fine goes up five-fold! And I thought college exams were tough. At least there I never got fined for a wrong answer.
I do realize that congress — at least one side of the isle — has been populated with mental midgets for some time, but this legislation goes beyond absurd. It appears to be blatantly unconstitutional. Have the courts ever ruled on this?
The US Constitution clearly calls for a decennial head count in order to work out the math for congressional representation. I have no qualms complying with that. I do object to filling out arbitrary questionnaires for information not required under the constitution. There are no legal limits to the type of questions this bureau can ask, and we face penalties for refusing to answer or answering wrong.
Am I the only one who sees this as a highly objectionable intrusion into our lives?
0 comments