Michelle Bachmann plans not to completely fill in the 2010 Census. Part of her objection has to do with her concerns about the involvement of ACORN. She also believes that she’s not legally obligated to answer some of the more invasive questions it contains.
Outspoken Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann says she’s so worried that information from next year’s national census will be abused that she will refuse to fill out anything more than the number of people in her household.
. . .
“I know for my family the only question we will be answering is how many people are in our home,” she said. “We won’t be answering any information beyond that, because the Constitution doesn’t require any information beyond that.” - Washington Times
It has been argued that the scope of the questions in the census has gotten far out of hand and has far exceeded its original intent. However, this extended scope of the census has received the implied approval of the Supreme Court in Knox v. Lee (Legal Tender Cases). 79 U.S. (12 Wall.) 457, 536 (1871).
“The Constitution orders an enumeration of free persons in the different States every ten years. The direction extends no further. Yet Congress has repeatedly directed an enumeration not only of free persons in the States but of free persons in the Territories, and not only an enumeration of persons but the collection of statistics respecting age, sex, and production. Who questions the power to do this?”
Although I tend to agree that some of the questions are too invasive, it seems that such concerns would not be sufficient legal grounds for refusal to answer them. At the very least, you would have a hard time winning such a case in a court of law.
There are, however, some separate reasons, and perhaps legal gounds, for challenging the 2010 Census.
Remember when Obama chose Sen. Judd Gregg as his pick for commerce secretary, after New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson withdrew his nomination? Gregg later withdrew his name, citing “irresolvable conflicts” over the administration’s stimulus bill and the upcoming 2010 census.
Before the ink was even dry on the announcement of Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) as Commerce Secretary, the Congressional Black Caucus and Latino groups were complaining that a Republican could not be in control of the census. Instead of supporting Gregg and letting the confirmation process vet this issue, the White House immediately caved and gave the power of oversight of the Census to the White House and indicated that Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel would be in charge. - Human Events
The Census was Hijacked! In short, the Obama administration plans to violate the Constitution and the law.
According to Article I, Section 2 the Constitution: “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.” As for the Law, Congress decreed the following:
The Secretary [of Commerce] shall perform the functions and duties imposed upon him by this title, may issue such rules and regulations as he deems necessary to carry out such functions and duties, and may delegate the performance of such functions and duties and the authority to issue such rules and regulations to such officers and employees of the Department of Commerce as he may designate. - U.S. State Code
Title 13 of the U.S. Code, Chapter 1, Subchapter I, § 2, entitled “Bureau of the Census,” states: “The Bureau is continued as an agency within, and under the jurisdiction of, the Department of Commerce.”
Not under the jurisdiction of Obama and Rahm Emanuel, but the Department of Commerce. The Director of the Census by law must be within the Department of Commerce and under the direction of the Senate approved Secretary of Commerce.
The way the Census is being administered may itself be illegal even if the overly, invasive scope of its questions is not.