I'm required by law...

[shea]

If that was the case, we'd still have slavery and 3/5 of a person. We'd be pretty backwards if the US remained only as the Constitution was written.

 

Thanks for your input Mrs. Mungo, appreciate your research and articulation.

 

 

So then, you don't agree with Mrs. Mungo about precedence?

 

Thanks for your input Mrs. Mungo, appreciate your research and articulation.

 

I see this quite a bit in threads, the constant repetition of these types of comments, and it just seems to be used as a thinly veiled insult to people who disagree, implying that they are not articulate or do not have anything meaningful to say. I am reminded why I rarely participate in these types of threads.

 

Back to lurkdom for me.

Edited April 26, 2011 by suenc

[Mrs Mungo]

I disagree. It is still being debated today. Or every ten years, it seems.:001_smile:

 

I am curious about something. According to your own criteria,

 

"Two things make up the law of our land one of them is precedence"

 

 

wouldn't the 1790 census, with the population count only, be the precedent setting one?

 

Any legal experts on the board that can shed some light on this?

 

The 1790 census included name and race, two of the things protested in this thread. It was not a headcount only (according to those who say you should write a number on the form and nothing else).

 

And precedence is established over the course of time, not in one instance.

 

eta: I see these threads as iron sharpening iron. Lots of people have asked good questions and made good points.

[nmoira]

 

And precedence is established over the course of time, not in one instance.

And precedence refers to decisions handed down by a court of law or other judicial body. Laws passed by Congress or regulations derived under them are not legal precedence.

[nmoira]

Thanks for your input Mrs. Mungo, appreciate your research and articulation.

 

I see this quite a bit in threads, the constant repetition of these types of comments, and it just seems to be used as a thinly veiled insult to people who disagree, implying that they are not articulate or do not have anything meaningful to say.

That is your perception, but appreciation isn't a zero sum game.

 

I appreciate the value Mrs. Mungo adds to a conversation, even when I disagree with her. I appreciate her seemingly infinite patience, her ability to discuss things in a respectful and relatively dispassionate manner, and her willingness to source her assertions and do research.

[Mrs Mungo]

And precedence refers to decisions handed down by a court of law or other judicial body. Laws passed by Congress or regulations derived under them are not legal precedence.

 

Right. This too. Good point, thanks. :)

 

That is your perception, but appreciation isn't a zero sum game.

 

I appreciate the value Mrs. Mungo adds to a conversation, even when I disagree with her. I appreciate her seemingly infinite patience, her ability to discuss things in a respectful and relatively dispassionate manner, and her willingness to source her assertions and do research.

 

Honestly, there are a lot of people here who make me work really hard to win those slender debate points even though the so often disagree with me, overall. I appreciate that fact, truly.

 

And I often lose my patience, I just edit and walk away for a while. :tongue_smilie:

[MSNative]

You mean another Civil War?

 

I am growing really tired of these implications of impending violence. Should we all REALLY be stockpiling weapons??

 

I don't want to live in the world some people want to create.

 

Slight aside, but since people seem to be skirting this issue, I hope it's ok to address it.

 

Why would secession automatically mean violence? The way I see it, there are currently two main forces in the US. One group wants to steer the country in one direction, the other wants to steer it in the opposite direction. Any time one side wins, the other side is upset and believes that there will be impending long term problems. Why couldn't a state or group of states decide that want to try it on their own? Could they not dissolve the relationship - sort of like a no-fault divorce? Yes, there would be a lot of messiness - currency issues, issues of law, etc. just like there are in divorces. But couldn't all of these be resolved while maintaining an EU or NATO-like relationship with the US (visa waiver, free travel, tariff free trade, military allies)? I guess I don't see why secession would have to lead to violence. Seems to me that it could be done in a non-violent, though admittedly very messy way.

 

Not advocating secession, just curious why it would have to cause violence.

[Mrs Mungo]

Not advocating secession, just curious why it would have to cause violence.

 

Is that what happened the last time? Has that ever happened in the history of man?

[Marylou]

Awesome. Now just include your full name, birthdate, address and race. You have to or else you'll be harrassed and fined. I promise only us welltrainedminders will know ;)

 

My name is Dm Mosher, and my Social Security number is 123-45-6789.

 

(Sorry, just trying to be funny :001_smile:)

[MSNative]

Is that what happened the last time? Has that ever happened in the history of man?

 

No, it didn't happen last time. But the confederate states were also not allowed to secede for various reasons that we don't need to debate again. However, couldn't things be different if states were allowed peacefully to leave the union? Also, there is no huge moral issue now. I mean, we can get heated about the census, health care, etc., but none of those issues are on par with slavery.

 

 

 

ETA - poor forum management on my part. Shouldn't have posted right before I have to go to work. Look forward to any responses.

Edited April 26, 2011 by MSNative

[mommaduck]

After all the census threads last year, this thread still made it to 22pages?! We need more men in kilts...where are they??

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

Slight aside, but since people seem to be skirting this issue, I hope it's ok to address it.

 

Why would secession automatically mean violence? The way I see it, there are currently two main forces in the US. One group wants to steer the country in one direction, the other wants to steer it in the opposite direction. Any time one side wins, the other side is upset and believes that there will be impending long term problems. Why couldn't a state or group of states decide that want to try it on their own? Could they not dissolve the relationship - sort of like a no-fault divorce? Yes, there would be a lot of messiness - currency issues, issues of law, etc. just like there are in divorces. But couldn't all of these be resolved while maintaining an EU or NATO-like relationship with the US (visa waiver, free travel, tariff free trade, military allies)? I guess I don't see why secession would have to lead to violence. Seems to me that it could be done in a non-violent, though admittedly very messy way.

 

Not advocating secession, just curious why it would have to cause violence.

 

Honestly, I don't think that if a minority of states wanted to secede (and I do think it would be a minority) that they should expect to be treated as allies and such automatically at all. I say wall them off and no free travel to US proper and cut off all benefits and defenses and let them do for themselves without any help at all:D No violence, just no help or perks at all. I think a lot of people do not realize all of the perks that they get from the federal government and are in for a surprise IMHO.

 

Oh, and if people are unhappy then vote:D

Edited April 26, 2011 by priscilla
spelling

[Tutor]

OP, did you receive a census form in 2010 in addition to this most recent survey form?

[Jamee]

The 1790 census included name and race, two of the things protested in this thread. It was not a headcount only (according to those who say you should write a number on the form and nothing else).

 

And precedence is established over the course of time, not in one instance.

 

eta: I see these threads as iron sharpening iron. Lots of people have asked good questions and made good points.

 

:iagree:this. Yes, I do agree with Mrs Mungo on this subject.

[MSNative]

Honestly, I don't think that if a minority of states wanted to secede (and I do think it would be a minority) that they should expect to be treated as allies and such automatically at all. I say wall them off and no free travel to US proper and cut off all benefits and defenses and let them do for themselves without any help at all:D No violence, just no help or perks at all. I think a lot of people do not realize all of the perks that they get from the federal government and are in for a surprise IMHO.

 

Oh, and if people are unhappy then vote:D

 

Interesting. So you would want to punish the states that left. That is a point to ponder. We certainly saw that after the Civil War so I think you def. have a feeling that others share. I guess when I have heard it discussed, it was more of a mutual decision. These states want x, these want y. The Y people in the X states are holding the X's back and vice versa. Let's split and wish each other the best.

 

As far as perks and help, I think that many who support secession would be happy to give up the perks in order to not have all of the costs associated with the fed. govt. It would certainly be interesting to consider which states might secede and what the economic impact would be on both sides. However, you are right that it would be a huge deal to split. I think some people have not thought through all of the details that it would entail. It isn't impossible to deal with all of it but it wouldn't be as simple as some people seem to think it would be.

 

Many people vote but their side doesn't win. We are a country divided right now. I'd sure like it if we could focus on what glues us together and what we have in common, but it seems as though politicians and the media are determined to magnify our differences. And as the government plays an ever larger role in the economy, the impact of "your side" winning or losing becomes ever more important.

 

OP - to bring it back to your point - the census is legal and we do have an obligation to fill out the forms they send or pay the fine. I believe the long form is a case in which the gov't has overstepped. I would def. support a campaign to encourage people to contact their elected officials to get them to change it.

 

Since I've already taken us way out into the woods, where are those pics of Dr. Who in a kilt? I'd def. be up for a reposting of those. :)

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

Interesting. So you would want to punish the states that left. That is a point to ponder. We certainly saw that after the Civil War so I think you def. have a feeling that others share. I guess when I have heard it discussed, it was more of a mutual decision. These states want x, these want y. The Y people in the X states are holding the X's back and vice versa. Let's split and wish each other the best.

 

 

I would not necessarily want to punish them per se but I definitely would not want to make it easy as well by allowing any of the perks. We are united states IMO and in it for better or worse. Even though someone's guy did not win that does not mean that this is not fair. Again I say vote and convince others of your side. No one ever gets everything they want in a diverse society IMO.

 

I agree that it would be nice to see more people get along. I am sick of the extreme mud slinging and villification from the extreme right for the most part IMO. MY dh and I have liberal and conservative ideals as well as loved ones. It saddens me that the art of true respectful debate has been lost by many politicians and has been replaced by name calling such as baby killers and death panels:( It is shocking IMO since I believe that most Americans love this country.

[Mrs Mungo]

Interesting. So you would want to punish the states that left. That is a point to ponder. We certainly saw that after the Civil War so I think you def. have a feeling that others share. I guess when I have heard it discussed, it was more of a mutual decision.

 

I have never heard it discussed in those terms, ever.

 

These states want x, these want y. The Y people in the X states are holding the X's back and vice versa. Let's split and wish each other the best.

 

As far as perks and help, I think that many who support secession would be happy to give up the perks in order to not have all of the costs associated with the fed. govt.

 

Even if it could be done like a divorce (which it couldn't, let's be clear), there would be a lot of issues. That makes a divorce a pretty good analogy. When you divorce you each get half the property and half the debt. They couldn't walk away without taking their part of the national debt. Money was spent in those (theoretical) states for roads, dams, lakes, schools, universities, hospitals, water treatment plants, airports, military bases, bridges, medicaid, disaster relief, pell grants, head start, WIC, food stamps, mental health services and on and on and on. They'd have to take their part of it. They'd have to be ready to take on the financial responsibility for maintaining all of that infrastructure.

 

How do you think that could happen?

 

Many people vote but their side doesn't win. We are a country divided right now. I'd sure like it if we could focus on what glues us together and what we have in common, but it seems as though politicians and the media are determined to magnify our differences. And as the government plays an ever larger role in the economy, the impact of "your side" winning or losing becomes ever more important.

 

I don't think our ideals are as divided as some people like to think. I have a good friend who believes himself to be an extreme conservative. I think this is cute. He only thinks that because he's from NYC and doesn't know any real extreme conservatives. But, the media plays it up like all conservatives think A and all liberals think X. It's just not the case.

[chicagoshannon]

It seems there is a disagreement about what "in such manner as they shall by law direct" actually means.

 

Article 1, Section 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."

 

The actual Enumeration (count, specifically for the purpose of taxation and representation(for the House of Representatives) )shall be made.......in such manner as they shall by Law direct.

 

I take this to mean HOW the count is to be conducted. They shall make laws directing the manner in which the count is conducted. Considering the census for 1790 and the census for 1800 only counted the population, this interpretation makes sense to me. If it meant they could ask any questions they wanted they wouldn't have needed to "amend" anything because it would have been "obvious" that this was allowed.

 

http://www.census.gov/history/www/through_the_decades/overview/1810.html

 

 

The bold is EXACTLY what it means. It means they can go door to door or make you take a pilgrimage to count you if they want. It does NOT mean they can ask you how many bathrooms you have or how many vacations you take each year.

[gardening momma]

It seems there is a disagreement about what "in such manner as they shall by law direct" actually means.

 

Article 1, Section 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."

 

...

 

I take this to mean HOW the count is to be conducted. They shall make laws directing the manner in which the count is conducted. Considering the census for 1790 and the census for 1800 only counted the population, this interpretation makes sense to me. If it meant they could ask any questions they wanted they wouldn't have needed to "amend" anything because it would have been "obvious" that this was allowed.

 

The bold is EXACTLY what it means. It means they can go door to door or make you take a pilgrimage to count you if they want. It does NOT mean they can ask you how many bathrooms you have or how many vacations you take each year.

This is an interpretation. Which is fine if you have the authority to back it up. There is a different interpretation, which is what the laws are based on. If you want to change the law, then do it. Otherwise, it's just a citizen's interpretation, not backed up by law.

[Heidi]

This is an interpretation. Which is fine if you have the authority to back it up. There is a different interpretation, which is what the laws are based on. If you want to change the law, then do it. Otherwise, it's just a citizen's interpretation, not backed up by law.

 

You are right that we are obliged to obey the law, whether we agree with it or not, and that we should work to have it changed if we disagree with it.

 

I am grateful that, at least, according to the law, they give us the option of being harrassed and possibly fined if our conscience refuses to allow us to fill out the ACS when we believe it to be a gross violation of privacy and of the Constitution. It could be worse. We could be jailed or shot.

 

I just want to say thank you to all who presented the "facts" gathered from the .gov websites that PROVE that we are just a bunch of crazies for using our own minds in determining for ourselves what is right and wrong. And a big thanks to all those that have joined their voices with the Census Bureau in harrassing those of us that refuse to willingly give up their privacy to a corrupt government.

 

This has been a great thread. Really. Lets keep it going, shall we?

[nmoira]

I just want to say thank you to all who presented the "facts" gathered from the .gov websites that PROVE that we are just a bunch of crazies for using our own minds in determining for ourselves what is right and wrong.

Is this a willful misrepresentation or are you confused as to what's being discussed in this thread? Most of the nitty-gritty discussion has centered around the constitutionality of the census, including most of your own posts. And how does a "fact" differ from a fact? I don't quite get what you're implying there. Am I to believe that you are a victim because some people disagree with you and you haven't been able to produce the requisite facts to back up your assertions?

 

And a big thanks to all those that have joined their voices with the Census Bureau in harrassing those of us that refuse to willingly give up their privacy to a corrupt government.

Uh huh.

[TravelingChris]

Thanks Mrs. Miungo for your posts. Just checked in tonight and realized there was this discussion. I have never received the ACS. I would have trouble with parts of it- not because I refuse to fill it out but because my dh leaves to work at different times and sometimes he is out of town. IN fact, he is often out of town and when he is home,. half the time he leaves at on time and half the time at another time. Of course, then there are those other days when he isn't out of town but has to show up in another part of this town and that takes a different amount of commuting time.

[Mrs Mungo]

Why waste my time?

 

Thanks, nmoria.

Edited April 27, 2011 by Mrs Mungo

[Mrs Mungo]

Thanks Mrs. Miungo for your posts. Just checked in tonight and realized there was this discussion. I have never received the ACS. I would have trouble with parts of it- not because I refuse to fill it out but because my dh leaves to work at different times and sometimes he is out of town. IN fact, he is often out of town and when he is home,. half the time he leaves at on time and half the time at another time. Of course, then there are those other days when he isn't out of town but has to show up in another part of this town and that takes a different amount of commuting time.

 

What time is his worst/busiest commute? I would choose that one. :)

[Mrs Mungo]

oh, never mind. Bother.

Edited April 27, 2011 by Mrs Mungo

[kalanamak]

 

How do you think that could happen?

 

 

 

 

Lots of lawyers. Gosh, anything human is *possible*. I don't say probably, but possible.

[Mrs Mungo]

Lots of lawyers. Gosh, anything human is *possible*. I don't say probably, but possible.

 

I guess if you are trying to improve the economy for lawyers. ;)

[MSNative]

Lots of lawyers. Gosh, anything human is *possible*. I don't say probably, but possible.

 

I am no secession expert or promoter. However, in GA there are some unincorporated areas that incorporated and became more independent from the huge county gov't. There were lots of similar issues addressed, though clearly on a smaller scale (police, fire, communal property, etc). I guess having lived through that and seeing how it has worked as made me understand that it can happen successfully without violence on a small scale. Is it perfect? Nope. Would it be exponentially harder on the larger scale of the country? Absolutely. Again, I'm not trying to argue for secession, just wondering if it necessarily had to equal violence.

 

"I am sick of the extreme mud slinging and villification from the extreme right for the most part" - Pris

 

Sorry, I don't know how to multi-quote. :) I wish it were just one side doing the mud slinging. It's nasty on both sides. I think people just feel it more from the "other side", kwim?

 

"I don't think our ideals are as divided as some people like to think. I have a good friend who believes himself to be an extreme conservative. I think this is cute. He only thinks that because he's from NYC and doesn't know any real extreme conservatives. But, the media plays it up like all conservatives think A and all liberals think X. It's just not the case." - Mrs. Mungo

 

I agree. I think that if we all wrote down our goals and desires for this country, our lists would be fairly similar. Both sides have different paths to get to those goals, but the goals are very close. I think we would have a different tone and atmosphere in this country if we were able to simply debate the path toward the shared goal.

 

I also hate the term "extreme." It seems to be used to describe anyone who disagrees with the person using the word.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

I have never heard it discussed in those terms, ever.

 

 

 

Even if it could be done like a divorce (which it couldn't, let's be clear), there would be a lot of issues. That makes a divorce a pretty good analogy. When you divorce you each get half the property and half the debt. They couldn't walk away without taking their part of the national debt. Money was spent in those (theoretical) states for roads, dams, lakes, schools, universities, hospitals, water treatment plants, airports, military bases, bridges, medicaid, disaster relief, pell grants, head start, WIC, food stamps, mental health services and on and on and on. They'd have to take their part of it. They'd have to be ready to take on the financial responsibility for maintaining all of that infrastructure.

 

How do you think that could happen?

 

 

 

I don't think our ideals are as divided as some people like to think. I have a good friend who believes himself to be an extreme conservative. I think this is cute. He only thinks that because he's from NYC and doesn't know any real extreme conservatives. But, the media plays it up like all conservatives think A and all liberals think X. It's just not the case.

 

:iagree::iagree: Then all of the federal jobs and army bases and contractors located in states who secede would have to be moved. Also, no federal postal services, no medicaid or medicare or social security funding as well. I suppose they can get back what they paid but beneficiaries usually use more than they pay so the states who secede will have to figure out how to make up for the differences with a smaller pool of tax payers. I suspect a lot who advocate for secession would not want all of these perks to go away:D

[Mrs Mungo]

I am no secession expert or promoter. However, in GA there are some unincorporated areas that incorporated and became more independent from the huge county gov't. There were lots of similar issues addressed, though clearly on a smaller scale (police, fire, communal property, etc). I guess having lived through that and seeing how it has worked as made me understand that it can happen successfully without violence on a small scale.

 

Several years ago we bought a house that was originally in the county and was eventually incorporated. People were mad, mad, mad. I didn't much care either way except we wound up paying more taxes and receiving fewer services.

 

Is it perfect? Nope. Would it be exponentially harder on the larger scale of the country? Absolutely. Again, I'm not trying to argue for secession, just wondering if it necessarily had to equal violence.

I'm just a realist. I look at history to tell us what has happened. Just because something is possible in a lovely daydream doesn't mean it is likely. What is likely is history repeating itself. Because it does. Over and over.

 

Sorry, I don't know how to multi-quote. :) I wish it were just one side doing the mud slinging. It's nasty on both sides. I think people just feel it more from the "other side", kwim?

Hm, I disagree for some pretty specific reasons, but I'm not going to list them here as there has already been some nastiness from that quarter.

 

I also hate the term "extreme." It seems to be used to describe anyone who disagrees with the person using the word.

Let me be more specific. When I say extreme I am talking about hating other people, threatening violence, suggesting assassination, etc. I have only seen that in my circles from one side over the past several years and it's getting worse. It has nothing to do with whom I disagree and everything to do with how people choose to disagree.

[Barry Goldwater]

Hm, I disagree for some pretty specific reasons, but I'm not going to list them here as there has already been some nastiness from that quarter.

 

 

:lol: Mrs. Mungo, you make me laugh too! Thanks for the returned favor.:lol:

[MischiefManaged]

So you are calling our FF Marxists? or Socialists?

 

No-- I'm calling them fallible human politicians.

 

They put one thing in a simple manner in a document and then ACTED on it in a more intrusive way -- their ACTIONS [which are documented fact] belied the simplicity of the agreement with the nation. As has been noted, there has been disagreement on that ever since. And go figger-- the majority rules. :)

 

I do agree w/ Mrs. Mungo that discussion boards are like iron sharpening iron.

 

and quite frankly, I'm not going to specifically enumerate the level of violence because as has been put forth, most of you that want to deny it aren't really interested in hearing from 'that quarter' anyway. ;) That would be fodder for another thread.

 

I do find it interesting that priscilla would not want to help out a neighbor nation when we spend so much in foreign aid to people that aren't even 'neighbors' per se [and even offer citizenship benefits to people who break our immigration laws, unlike many other countries]. Priscilla-- are you then in favor of ending all foreign aid? and just building a wall around the US?

[MischiefManaged]

:iagree::iagree: Then all of the federal jobs and army bases and contractors located in states who secede would have to be moved. Also, no federal postal services, no medicaid or medicare or social security funding as well. I suppose they can get back what they paid but beneficiaries usually use more than they pay so the states who secede will have to figure out how to make up for the differences with a smaller pool of tax payers. I suspect a lot who advocate for secession would not want all of these perks to go away:D

 

actually, the more serious people who have thought about this longer than most of us have already put together some pretty well-structured plans. The technology and information we have today [infrastructure/ internet/transportation] make it much easier than a hundred years ago. They are out there for the googling. ;)

[MischiefManaged]

Let me be more specific. When I say extreme I am talking about hating other people, threatening violence, suggesting assassination, etc. I have only seen that in my circles from one side over the past several years and it's getting worse.

 

then you aren't looking very hard.

 

I would suggest more people research the violent attacks in America that have taken place, and who was behind them. There's enough from all camps to make just about everyone angry.

[lionfamily1999]

Let me be more specific. When I say extreme I am talking about hating other people, threatening violence, suggesting assassination, etc. I have only seen that in my circles from one side over the past several years and it's getting worse. It has nothing to do with whom I disagree and everything to do with how people choose to disagree.

The side changes depending on who's in office.

 

I heard some really hateful disturbing things flying in the other direction when Bush was in.