Is Obama’s Census Grab Unconstitutional?
One issue that was flying underneath the radar was President Obama’s plan to oversee the census. When Judd Gregg removed his name from consideration for commerce secretary it shed a new light on the census issue.
There is a line of thought out there that President Obama’s possible takeover of the census bureau is unconstitutional. There has been talk on the radio and by some in congress:
Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) said that there was no legal or constitutional basis for Obama’s plans, citing the fact that Article I of the U.S. Constitution, which contains the census provision, spells out the powers of Congress — not of the president or executive branch.
“We [Congress] give to the executive branch and the Commerce Department the requirement to administer this constitutional duty, belonging to the Congress,” Issa explained. “By no means is there any basis, legal or constitutional basis, for the president to direct the census.”
Article 1 Section 2 of the constitution, which deals with the responsibilities of the house of representatives, spells out clearly who is responsible for the census:
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.
It is clear that the intent of the constitution was to designate the responsibility of census taking to the house of representatives. It is also clear that the founding fathers did not want the president of the United States to have too much power, which is why we have the three branches of government, the old checks and balances that the Democrats talked so much about over the last eight years.
There is absolutely no constitutional basis for President Obama to oversee the census. This move is clearly unconstitutional. And it is being done for political reasons. The only reason that President Obama can have for overseeing the census has to be so that he can influence the redistricting of house seats. He is clearly meddling in a branch of government that he does not belong in. Here are Rahm Emanuel’s words from 2006:
“If you think redistricting is always partisan and political which it is…it’s going to be on steroids this time.”
What does he mean by that? Why is the white house being so silent and mysterious about this issue? Nobody will say what Obama even means by work closely or overseeing the process. Who is he planning to count? Illegals? What methods is he planning to use to count the people? Sampling? The constitution clearly states that an actual enumeration shall be made. So sampling in itself is unconstitutional. And has been ruled unconstitutional.
This whole action seems unnecessary to me in the first place. Congress is constitutionally bound to take the census every ten years. The head of the census bureau reports to the commerce secretary and the commerce secretary reports to the president. Shouldn’t Obama then have been able to appoint a commerce secretary that shares his beliefs on what the census should consist of and how it should be managed? President Obama could have achieved whatever his ultimate, devious ulterior motive was silently with his appointment of a commerce secretary who shared his beliefs. He could have abandoned the constitution on this issue in stealth mode but he chose to blatently discard the constitution.
Perhaps this is what he meant by an open and transparent administration.
America's Watchtower 
He’s cutting out the middle man. Oh, wait… there is no middle man, yet. Like I said, S., didn’t Obama promise to uphold, preserve, and protect the Constitution of the United States? This is the area that is most disturbing to me and the one that inevitably leads to socialism.
LikeLike
Congress gave the authority to conduct the census over to the executive branch long ago – whether the President oversees it at arm’s length or over the shoulder is immaterial – it’s always been within the President’s bailiwick.
I find it sometimes amusing and sometimes troubling to find so many people willing to blame Obama’s alleged extremist ideas for circumstances that have held in this nation for ages.
As for the question of citizenship, asking that – and using the answer to determine Congressional apportionment – would be clearly contrary to the Constitution. Again, it’s alternately troubling and amusing to find so many purporting to honor that document who have no real understanding of its provisions.
For example, “Constitutional rights” are not reserved for citizens alone. The only rights in the Constitution reserved to citizens are the right to hold elective office and the right to vote for candidates for elective office. The rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, though, are available to all within our borders, and that’s the way it was meant to be.
LikeLike
It’s possible that Obama thought he could appoint Gregg to the Secretary’s position but not trust him with the census. So, Obama would just quietly take the Census into his own house and get the partisan count done, and still look wonderful for crossing the aisle and bringing in a Republican.
Obama likes to have it his way, like Burger King. Of course we need to not use a copyrighted name, so we should probably just drop the “Burger” part.
LikeLike
Huh. It’s possible that Obama’s being terribly ill-served by his staff, who seem sometimes hell-bent on guiding him from gaffe to blunder to misstep. Why he hasn’t fired someone, or many someones, is a mystery. Any staff that permits the President directly to call out the Supreme Court in the SOTU is a staff that’s not looking out for the boss. The President should review how President Reagan challenged the Supreme Court on controversial issues, because it’s obvious his staff isn’t interested.
LikeLike
….Who is he planning to count? Illegals?….
I believe they already do this. The question of citizenship isn’t asked, is it? I think what NObama wants to be sure of is that they count ALL of them. You can bet that many districts and probably states will be affected. The blue areas will become stronger at the expense of red areas.
LikeLike
Here’s what the Constitution says: “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.”
No mention of counting only citizens. In fact, that was back in the days of slavery, and slaves certainly weren’t citizens under any stretch of the imagination, and the debate wasn’t whether or not to count them, but how to count them. They finally arrived at the Three-Fifths Compromise.
Here’s the law that Congress passed for the 1790 census. You can be certain that it was consistent with the meaning of the Constitution because that document had been ratified only three years earlier:
“The final bill, Statute 2 of March 1, 1790, provided that census marshals and assistants be appointed. The marshals were directed to:
cause the number of the inhabitants within their respective districts to be taken; omitting in such enumeration Indians not taxed, and distinguishing free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, from all others; distinguishing also the sexes and colours of free persons, and the free males of sixteen years and upwards from those under that age.
The act directed that the names of the heads of families be recorded, the number of white males sixteen and older, the number of white males under sixteen, the number of white females, the number of all other free persons, and the number of slaves. ”
–http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_cens.html
Look, you’re 100% correct in what I think is your belief that the Constitution’s an awesome charter of government, but if you don’t really understand its provisions, you lose a great deal of credibility. I recommend you look it up and read it through some time – this here’s an excellent site: http://www.usconstitution.net/
LikeLike
Good post, Steve. I’m just working on a long-awaited post re: the 2010 Census. I will post a link to your posting on http://www.DrollTroll.com, if you don’t mind.
LikeLike
Thanks, and feel free to link!
LikeLike