Principled patriots who seek to support and defend the Constitution often point their ire in the direction of the elected officials who represent them—those who have taken an oath promising that they themselves will be faithful defenders of the document. While this is expected and entirely appropriate, one wonders how often such patriots seek to apply the same rigorous standard to themselves.
In truth, it is hard for a single individual to effectively support and defend the Constitution. Our collective actions, whether through activism, the ballot box, or educational efforts, can and do meet this standard. But what can one single person do in holding himself accountable to the same standard he applies to politicians?
One opportunity to do so presents itself at least once each decade, when the federal government conducts the United States Census. Authorized by the Constitution, the census was mandated as stipulated in Article I 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 purpose of this enumeration is made clear by the preceding language which describes the apportionment of direct taxes and representation in Congress. In order to ensure that the nation’s representation would remain accurate, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention included this provision. The first census occurred just one year after the Constitution was ratified, in 1790, under the direction of Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson. Only for that and the succeeding census did the government strictly adhere to its constitutional authority; in later decades, questions were asked about manufacturing, social issues, mental health, employment, income information, and other unauthorized inquiries into the lives of individual Americans.
Describing this scope creep, the Census Bureau’s own website explains:
The first censuses in 1790 and 1800 were “simple” counts of population that fulfilled the U.S. Constitution’s requirement. While later enumerations met this constitutional mandate, they also gathered greater detail about the nation’s inhabitants. As a result, the census has grown from a “head count” to a tool enabling us to better understand the nation’s inhabitants, their pursuits and activities, and needs.
Note how the Census Bureau sees its role: they view all the additional questions outside of the Constitution’s mandate not as overstepping their authority, but fulfilling a mandated obligation, and going a step further to provide helpful information about the nation’s inhabitants. This would be like the President changing his term of office from four years to thirty, and defending the action by noting that he has “met this constitutional mandate” of four years, and simply added on twenty-six years to the end. “As a result”, he might say, “the office of president has grown from an always-changing ‘elected position’ to a more stable one enabling us to better focus on the nation’s inhabitants, their pursuits and activities, and needs.” I need not explain the absurdity of both of these examples.
In our federal laws, the only authority conferred to the government is that which is explicitly noted. In this case, reference is made to the “actual enumeration”—a simple counting of individuals for a specific purpose, and nothing more. In Federalist 58, Madison explained concisely what the purpose and intent of the census was, as mandated by the Constitution:
Within every successive term of ten years a census of inhabitants is to be repeated. The unequivocal objects of these regulations are, first, to readjust, from time to time, the apportionment of representatives to the number of inhabitants, under the single exception that each State shall have one representative at least; secondly, to augment the number of representatives at the same periods, under the sole limitation that the whole number shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand inhabitants.
Nowhere is it mentioned that the census was ever to be a “tool enabling us to better understand the nation’s inhabitants, their pursuits and activities, and needs”. Our federal government was never intended by its founders to be the vehicle by which statisticians and demographers would have access to mounds of data to pore over. The only legitimate purpose of the census is to count the number of Americans in order to determine that each individual receives proper representation in the federal government.
To that end, I will report the number of people in my household. I will not, however, take part in the wealth redistribution research that “will be used to help each community get its fair share of government funds”, according to the Census Bureau’s 130+ million letters sent out last week warning people about the upcoming census and encouraging them to comply. Spend some time reading through the Census Bureau’s own explanation of why they ask each question, and you’ll see that the data they’re mandating you surrender is used for nearly every un-constitutional, socialist, big government program in existence.
Despite the clear text of the Constitution, statutory law has been layered on top giving supposed authority for the Census Bureau to conduct its inquisitions. Two sections in Title 13 of the United States Code provide for a mid-decade census, collection of housing and other data, and surveys to collect statistics “related to the main topic of the census”. Whatever supposed provisions are made by law for these extra-constitutional actions, Thomas Jefferson made clear that they are all invalid:
Whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force.
No compelling argument can be made that all of the questions being asked by the Census Bureau are legitimate subjects for which the government has been given authority to inquire. Some have argued that the information collected in past censuses has been beneficial for genealogical research and other purposes, but to argue that the end—beneficial though it may be—justifies the means is to ignore the clear fact that the government has exceeded its authority in so doing. Supposed constitutionalists should not abandon their alleged allegiances whenever the end result is one that is generally seen as a net positive; too many usurpations of authority have been achieved in such disguises.
Some instances of usurpations of authority have been instigated by the Census Bureau themselves. Contrary to their placating promises of privacy, this government agency has at least in two specific cases given out narrowly targeted and/or individual information. During World War II, the Bureau delivered confidential information about Japanese Americans to the Justice Department, the Secret Service, and other federal agencies for the express purpose of aiding in the identification and location of these individuals. And just a few years ago, the Bureau provided the Department of Homeland Security with information about people who identified themselves on the 2000 census as being of Arab descent. One recent editorial highlights a disconcerting aspect of this year’s census:
In preparation for this year’s census, 140,000 workers were hired to collect GPS readings for every front door in the nation. Such pinpoint precision will certainly simplify the process of locating any individual or group that may be identified as a threat to “national security” in the future. Remember, for example, the 1976 Senate report in which 26,000 Americans were slated for roundup in the event of a national emergency at the height of the Cold War. Now that the U.S. government’s terrorist watch list has exceeded 1 million, the GPS data could be instrumental in such a roundup.
While some may toy with the idea of civil disobedience in regard to the census, many express concern about the resulting punishment dictated by the very government that has overstepped its bounds to begin with. Disregarding government mandates almost always brings a penalty of some sort, and those who pursue this path of defiance must be willing to accept whatever the corresponding consequence happens to be. In the case of the census, 13 U.S.C. § 221 specifies two levels of fines: up to $100 for failing to complete the census, and up to $500 for knowingly providing false information. Some information suggests a fine with a possible maximum of $5,000 for failure to comply, but this is based on an incorrect reading of the law which applies the larger sum only to already-convicted criminals.
This decade’s census will cost between $13.7 billion and $14.5 billion (with millions of dollars in waste already identified); does anybody really think they’re going to go after somebody for not filling out their form and impose a paltry fine of $100? Answering this themselves, the Census Bureau says:
Although the law makes it a crime not to answer the decennial census, the American Community Survey and other mandatory censuses, and authorizes the courts to impose a fine of up to $5,000 for failure to respond, the Census Bureau views this approach as a last resort. Rather than emphasizing or seeking the imposition of penalties, we encourage response by explaining the importance of the questions we ask and how the information benefits the community.
According to the Denver Regional Director of the Census, Vicki McIntire, the fine has never been levied. “Most people are positive and indicate they will respond,” she recently said. A recent poll shows that 2% of Americans “definitely will not” complete the census.
Then again, the Bureau has been known to play tough with individuals who willingly refuse to participate in their data harvesting scheme. But how much is a strict (and hypocrisy-free) adherence to the Constitution worth these days? Sunshine patriots may tolerate a $100 fine; if the Census Bureau (wrongly) tries to impose a $5,000 fine, what then? Give up, surrender your information (which the federal government really already has), and comply with a direct, un-constitutional mandate because the stakes are a bit higher? At what point is a line in the sand drawn, and the principles we love to quote firmly applied with resolute conviction?
Those who choose to take advantage of this opportunity of civil disobedience will not have any effect on the overall process; the census will continue, and the overwhelming majority of Americans will answer whatever the government asks of them. “Then why bother?”, most would respond. Regardless of what others choose, those who refuse to complete the census will be able to say that they supported and defended the Constitution when they directly and individually had the opportunity to do so. They will be free of hypocrisy when demanding that their elected representatives adhere to the Constitution insofar as they’re able within their sphere of influence, since they will have done the same. And while they may be in the minority, their course is the most effective way to end the un-constitutional portion of the census. Imagine a country where the majority of citizens acted likewise—the government would have no choice but to cancel its operation and only publish the enumeration for which it was able to collect data.
Some may scoff at this idea, considering it a small matter in relation to the bigger problems we face. While it is indeed comparatively insignificant, it is one of the most direct and individual opportunities a person will have to specifically adhere to the Constitution. And if we cannot faithfully uphold the Constitution in regards to small matters, what right do we have to charge others with upholding it in large matters?
And despite all your well-made points, the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints released a letter to be read in sacrament meetings to all the saints in the United States. That letter asked members to complete the census in “a timely and accurate” manner.
Why set yourself up to oppose the clear counsel of the First Presidency, simply because their advice treads upon your political opinions?
G West, at least quote the First Presidency accurately without adding your own words “complete the census”… they never said ‘complete’ they said ‘respond’:
Anyways, what I intended to comment on is that some people think only giving them a head count is constitutional, other believe that there are a few more answers you should give:
I still think you guys are making mountains of molehills. How does it threaten the Constitution for the government to know if you have a flush toilet or how many cars you have?
Meanwhile, Church members who incite disobedience against the government do more harm to our cause than those who might answer the questions asked on the census. It’s rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.
On the other hand, disregarding and parsing the plain counsel of the First Presidency sets members up for spiritual failure. It doesn’t demonstrate faith, trust, or a willingness to receive counsel from those anointed by the Lord.
G,
For my take on the First Presidency’s letter, please read the comment (#1 on the post) I left on my own blog post about it:
http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/the-census-the-constitution-and-civil-disobedience#comment-63686
You refer to the plain counsel of the FP, and yet you put words in their mouths. The context of their letter refers to the enumeration portion of the census only, and their encouragement to answer in an accurate and timely manner is something I will be 100% complying with.
If you can’t understand the argument for individually upholding the Constitution, even on small matters, then I invite you to try and shed your bias and assumptions and read this article again.
Please don’t insult my intelligence with statements like “If you can’t understand the argument….” I perfectly understand your arguments and it seems you’re bristling for a showdown with the federal government.
My position is very pragmatic. The prophets have foretold the demise of the United States and other nations. I don’t know if Providence has set a fixed date for those events or whether it depends on our actions to some degree. If it depends on us, I believe the wisest course of action is given us by the Lord in D&C 105:23–27. He said:
“23 And let all my people who dwell in the regions round about be very faithful, and prayerful, and humble before me, and reveal not the things which I have revealed unto them, until it is wisdom in me that they should be revealed.
24 Talk not of judgments, neither boast of faith nor of mighty works, but carefully gather together, as much in one region as can be, consistently with the feelings of the people;
25 And behold, I will give unto you favor and grace in their eyes, that you may rest in peace and safety, while you are saying unto the people: Execute judgment and justice for us according to law, and redress us of our wrongs.
26 Now, behold, I say unto you, my friends, in this way you may find favor in the eyes of the people, until the army of Israel becomes very great.
27 And I will soften the hearts of the people, as I did the heart of Pharaoh, from time to time, until my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., and mine elders, whom I have appointed, shall have time to gather up the strength of my house…”
The Church has followed this plan since the revelation was given in 1834. We keep a low profile. We send out missionaries to quietly gather in the elect. It’s not in our interest to ruffle the feathers of government officials that might try to hinder that work.
Every year, nearly 300,000 people join the Church. Every day we enjoy some degree of peace and stability adds nearly another thousand latter-day saints to the Lord’s kingdom. We don’t destabilize our government. We don’t even challenge obviously corrupt governments. As long as the nations will admit our missionaries and that the work can go forth unmolested, we are content to focus on the job of declaring the gospel and saving souls. We are not revolutionaries or freedom fighters. Our commission is to gather the elect and bring them to Zion.
Why shorten the time we have to save souls? Why bring down the scrutiny and wrath of a government that may someday be eager to prosecute “freedom fighters.” It’s hard to gather the elect when one is behind bars and barbed wire fences. We’re on borrowed time as it is. Why provoke the government in any way that possibly could threaten the work of the kingdom?
I perfectly understand what’s at stake. Sometimes you have to let go of a good thing to get a better thing. Adam had it good in Eden, but he had to move on. The next steps in building Zion will challenge American saints. If you can only hold onto one thing–the Constitution or the Iron Rod–which would you choose? I’ll pick the Iron Rod.
“As long as the nations will admit our missionaries and that the work can go forth unmolested, we are content to focus on the job of declaring the gospel and saving souls.”
To myopically focus on only this goal is to ignore plenty of other scriptures, prophetic statements, and other counsel from our leaders.
But, hey, whatever works for you. As for me and my house, we’ll keep working towards obeying this and all the other commandments we’ve received (including befriending [and defending] constitutional laws).
The primary goal, or as Joseph Smith described it, the “One Common Cause” we should focus on is the Building of the Kingdom of God and establishment of Zion… as Connor pointed out that’s not our only responsibility and there are plenty of other scriptures and words of the prophets regarding those responsibilities, including civic responsibilities.
It has been explained to me that the United States Census 2010 is typically addressed as follows, typed in all caps:
TO RESIDENT AT
1234 SLEEPWALKER AVE
EVERYTOWN, UT(TWO LETTERED ABBREVIATION FOR STATE OF___), NINE NUMBERED HYPHENATED ZIP DESIGNATED BY U.S. MAIL PROCEDURES TO FURTHER SUBDIVIDE ALL THE “STATES OF” INTO POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS.
If anyone is familiar with such an addressee, he knows that for the respondent to respond he admits being a resident. But can you literally reside at a political address, ie on top of a piece of paper? Residents are known to be such political partisans when they provide evidence of themselves as as residents, people who admit to being politically domiciled within a federal (not confederate, STATE), such as UT, ID, etc. Responding to the document as addressed makes the responds a legal admission that respondent RESIDENT is self-declaring himself to be a political resident within a political STATE, not a geographic, state. As such resident, a congress of the United States (and its political subdivisions, STATES OF, COUNTIES OF, CITIES OF), has arranged for him districts and precincts in which he must now only register to vote to become a franchised “citizen of the United States”. Now the Franchise Tax Board and the Board of Equalization will be interested in him, as will the IRS. Then he becomes not a common law juror, but a statutory juror and will soon be summonsed to sit on a jury presided by a judge within the district, “within the STATE” OF, which political judge will not allow such jurors to read or discuss the law, but only the facts in trying the accused. Go watch a trial tomorrow and witness for yourself this is true. Don’t watch TV for a few hours and learn what goes on in the courts. Take a notebook and make notes of what you see and then read your beloved constitution and ask if you saw it’s due process in action there?
Before responding to any and all government forms, are you awake, alert and attentive? Or are you like 99% of Americans lulled to sleep by the unending political propaganda to which members and non members alike have succumbed?
What makes you qualified to answer political questions for others in your household, anyway? I’ll help you understand my question. It’s just routine methodology of a huge for profit bureaucracy intent on feeding on your private information, growing itself into every home and private life of America, and preying on sleeping victims while it robs them of property, knowledge of the law and it’s limits, and their liberty.
Is your response “required by law”? A Legal Notice must inform you, on its face, of the precise law it alleges you are obligated under. I’m told the census envelope reveals no such precise, particular law. So, is it legal notice of obligation, or is it just placing the reader under threat he is too afraid of to consider not responding?
And why is the “United States” showing as a registered trademark on the envelope? Either it is the United States, the legislative democracy established by the constitution, or it is an organization perhaps contracted by the United States, to provide survey information? Be careful what you respond to for today, nothing is as it seems… 220 years
of “a congress of the United States”, populated by a large majority of Attorneys, masquerading as a republic, has made trickery and lies the modus operandi of the entire political landscape of the United States, and of the United States of America, the political and military sponsor of the United States.
If readers want this matrix made more plain, I will write further on the subject. If not interested…sleep on while your imaginary republic reduces to ashes…Those interested may reply to this commentary and mention my name so I can determine the interest level for possible follow up.
Joel
So, let me get this straight. If the Church had been in existence in 1776, G would have been a Tory and would have encouraged Church members to be Tories and remain slaves to a tyrant.
“Or do ye suppose that the Lord will still deliver us, while we sit upon our thrones and do not make use of the means which the Lord has provided for us? … Behold it is time, yea, the time is now at hand, that except ye do bestir yourselves in the defence of your country and your little ones, the sword of justice doth hang over you; yea, and it shall fall upon you and visit you even to your utter destruction. … Behold, the Lord saith unto me: If those whom ye have appointed your governors do not repent of their sins and iniquities, ye shall go up to battle against them” (Alma 60: 21, 29, 33).
Mormons believe that the Constitution, with all its faults, is one of the “means which the Lord has provided for us.” May we not then use it in the defense of our God-given freedoms?
One of the things that I get from the Book of Mormon is that there is a need for both prophets and military men. Someone needs to maintain the Church, while someone else is needed to maintain the freedoms that make having a Church possible.
“And now the design of the Nephites was to support their lands, and their houses, and their wives, and their children, that they might preserve them from the hands of their enemies; and also that they might preserve their rights and their privileges, yea, and also their liberty, that they might worship God according to their desires. … [T]he Nephites were inspired by a better cause, for they were not fighting for monarchy nor power but they were fighting for their homes and their liberties, their wives and their children, and their all, yea, for their rites of worship and their church” (Alma 43:9, 45).
Yea, verily, verily I say unto you, if all men had been, and were, and ever would be, like unto Moroni, behold, the very powers of hell would have been shaken forever; yea, the devil would never have power over the hearts of the children of men. … Now behold, Helaman and his brethren were no less serviceable unto the people than was Moroni; for they did preach the word of God, and they did baptize unto repentance all men whosoever would hearken unto their words” (Alma 47: 17, 19).
In conclusion, there is room in the Church for the humble missionary and for the political activist. Let’s keep our motives pure and remember that we are on the same team; not enemies.
“Mormons believe that the Constitution, with all its faults, is one of the “means which the Lord has provided for us.” May we not then use it in the defense of our God-given freedoms?”
Only Sparingly, I say! It is a mirage and will ensnare you with it’s misunderstood and mis applied provisions. The Bill of Rights, for one obvious example, is merely an amendment to it, an afterthought, another means of deceiving people of their plight under the constitution. An enumeration of a list of statutory rights amending a document whose demonstrable, facial and obvious purpose is to enslave a free people… cannot do anything to preserve God given unalienable rights! Wake up!!!
From the constitutions beginnings ie The Secret Convention, the boycotting of it by respected patriots, the enumeration of its defects to establish and maintain a republic an impossibility, by the oligarchic nature of the ruling elite, by the three Presidents which were created within it, yet only two of them ever acting in his office, by the military dominance and nature of the federal government created by it, by the foreknown and fore agreed first President to be Military General George Washington, presiding at the convention, by his adornment with a Masons robe at the first inauguration, by the influence of Masonic secret conspirers within the convention and the evidences fully visible of this within the printed document, by the one branch government described at Article I which encompasses the executive and judicial, rendering in actuality a one branch not a three branch government, by the failure of any President to ever take the signed Article VI oath, and numerous other devices actually with lawyers and Masons conspiring forethought and malice to liberty designed into the document, the Constitution for the United States of America is a ruse for freedom, in actuality it is a Trojan Horse upon the Free American people.
Slogans and propaganda have from the beginning been enthused by people, writers, and leaders alike, “a free land a free people; the stars and stripes wave over the land of the free”, but no one can today deny the steady, heavy handed, now nearing full police state presence of the Federal State into Americans lives, the heavy taxation, heavy regulation, all things requiring State permission and licenses, adventuresome wars never ending, and the demise of free enterprise, free banking, free association, free press, abbreviated “due process” in the courts, etc.
And in contrast to this contemporary State oppression, days leading up to the Revolution the pulpits were aflame with independent thought founded on Biblical principles, today all corporate churches are politically chilled by their statutory tax-protected status, and members are censored or excommunicated for openly sounding the alarm, and thus the churches are themselves silencing freedom criers, and actively discourage any independent discussion of the deteriorating and degraded liberties we now experience.
What has happened and where it was introduced in the constitution, can all be found by literally reading the document WITHOUT reliance on commentary by others of what it says and what it means, people can decipher the terms and phrases which began the demise of a free people. That demise began with the adoption of the Constitution for the United States of America by the ratification of the 13 confederate states. It now remains for us to decipher how they approved their own subordination to the Federal State, and what avenues to liberty yet remain for the people within the Organic laws of the USA. The good news is there is a way out, peacefully and under the terms of the written law.
Joel
Wow. Joel, there are doctors for people like you. lol!
On a serious note- you are mixing so many facts with so much fiction that it could really give a person a headache. All you need to do is go on you tube, search for “Ezra Taft Benson” and listen to ALL of his talks and videos. Then go read about the God-inspired Constitution from the Lord’s own, in their speeches, talks, and books: Ezra Taft Benson, Spencer W Kimball, David O McKay, Brigham Young, Joseph Smith, Harold B Lee, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, and many more. All of our prophets have testified of the divinely inspired Constitution. The reason we are where we are today is because America, and specifically her government, has completely left the Constitution in it’s wake and the federal government has usurped most of the powers it exercises today, while We The People stood idly by while watching TV, movies, eating out at ever increasing numbers of restaurants, buying our new cars, playing video games, and voting blindly for those same elected officials who usurped the power while keeping us wrapped up in the ILLUSION of freedom.
It is time to wake up.
Joel, I’m not sure I understooed everything you said, but one thing that can be said about the Constitution is that it has failed us, or rather, we have failed it. It’s alleged purpose is to protect the rights of the people and restrain federal government power and growth; yet, the opposite has happened, mostly through the efforts of designing men. The faults of the Constitution, particularly the Commerce Clause, the General Welfare Clause, and the Supremacy Clause have all been abused to undermine its efficacy, just as was predicted by many prominent anti-Federalists. The country was probably better off under the Articles of Confederation. Those who didn’t like the AofC were ones like Hamilton and the other Federalists who wanted an empire. It’s obvious that the Hamiltonians have won and the American experiment is nearing failure. Yet, I am at least temporarily encouraged by the words of Thomas Jefferson:
“Though written constitutions may be violated in moments of passion or delusion, yet they furnish a text to which those who are watchful may again rally and recall the people. They fix, too, for the people the principles of their political creed.” – Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Joseph Priestley [1802]
This appears to be what is happening today – a return to original principles. Let’s hope so.
Yet we read in D&C 87:6 that there will one day be an end of ALL nations, and D&C 45:68 says that the day will come when violence will be so bad that those who refuse to “take up the sword against your neighbor” will have to flee to Zion for safety. Things will get much worse before they get better.