Question about the Census

[RileyE104]

I answered the first question about how many people live in my house correctly.

What I want to know is, am I obligated by law to answer the other questions truthfully? For example, do I have to provide each person's name who lives in my house, or can I write a fake name? Same with age and race and stuff..

I'm filling the form out for my dad, I don't want to get him in trouble or anything.. :D

[tremendoustie]

I answered the first question about how many people live in my house correctly.

What I want to know is, am I obligated by law to answer the other questions truthfully? For example, do I have to provide each person's name who lives in my house, or can I write a fake name? Same with age and race and stuff..

I'm filling the form out for my dad, I don't want to get him in trouble or anything.. :D

If they find out you gave false info, they claim they will fine you. Key phrases being "find out" and "claim". I've heard a lot of stories from people who don't return the census at all, and never get fined.

Law's got nothing to do with it. The "Law" is supposedly the constitution, and that doesn't require anything other than the number of people who live there. The question is, will the particular people who run the census go after you ...

[RileyE104]

Hmm.. I'm just wondering because I wanted to put a funny name and race and age, since they aren't required to know the stuff anyways.. :p

I just don't want them going after my dad, since he's the one who owns the house.

[pacelli]

I've been writing in "4th amendment objection" and "first amendment objection" as appropriate. I'm not supplying false information. I'm answering each item correctly.

[RileyE104]

What's the worse that could happen if I fill out the Person fields with fake names and ages and races? They come back and demand "real" answers?

[JamesButabi]

When you send it in, be sure to include an invoice for your services rendered :-p

[TC95]

What's the worse that could happen if I fill out the Person fields with fake names and ages and races? They come back and demand "real" answers?

Possibly. Don't give fake info. Either give them all the info they want, leave the parts you don't want to fill out blank, or put "first or fourth amendment objection" as pacelli mentioned, but don't lie and possibly get your dad in trouble.

[RileyE104]

Possibly. Don't give fake info. Either give them all the info they want, leave the parts you don't want to fill out blank, or put "first or fourth amendment objection" as pacelli mentioned, but don't lie and possibly get your dad in trouble.

I understand the fourth amendment objection, but why first? Can someone explain that one to me??

[LittleLightShining]

Where exactly are you putting "4th amendment objection"?

[DapperDan]

# of people living in residence then you should be done and mailing it off...

[Anti Federalist]

To Whom it May Concern,

Pursuant to Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution, the only information you are empowered to request is the total number of occupants at this address. My “name, sex, age, date of birth, race, ethnicity, telephone number, relationship and housing tenure” have absolutely nothing to do with apportioning direct taxes or determining the number of representatives in the House of Representatives. Therefore, neither Congress nor the Census Bureau have the constitutional authority to make that information request a component of the enumeration outlined in Article I, Section 2, Clause 3. In addition, I cannot be subject to a fine for basing my conduct on the Constitution because that document trumps laws passed by Congress.

Interstate Commerce Commission v. Brimson, 154 U.S. 447, 479 (May 26, 1894)

“Neither branch of the legislative department [House of Representatives or Senate], still less any merely administrative body [such as the Census Bureau], established by congress, possesses, or can be invested with, a general power of making inquiry into the private affairs of the citizen. Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U.S. 168, 190. We said in Boyd v. U.S., 116 U. S. 616, 630, 6 Sup. Ct. 524,―and it cannot be too often repeated,―that the principles that embody the essence of constitutional liberty and security forbid all invasions on the part of government and it’s employees of the sanctity of a man’s home and the privacies of his life. As said by Mr. Justice Field in Re Pacific Ry. Commission, 32 Fed. 241, 250, ‘of all the rights of the citizen, few are of greater importance or more essential to his peace and happiness than the right of personal security, and that involves, not merely protection of his person from assault, but exemption of his private affairs, books, and papers from inspection and scrutiny of others. Without the enjoyment of this right, all others would lose half their value.’”

Note: This United States Supreme Court case has never been overturned.

Respectfully,

A Citizen of the United States of America

[MelissaWV]

To Whom it May Concern,

Pursuant to Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution, the only information you are empowered to request is the total number of occupants at this address. My “name, sex, age, date of birth, race, ethnicity, telephone number, relationship and housing tenure” have absolutely nothing to do with apportioning direct taxes or determining the number of representatives in the House of Representatives. Therefore, neither Congress nor the Census Bureau have the constitutional authority to make that information request a component of the enumeration outlined in Article I, Section 2, Clause 3. In addition, I cannot be subject to a fine for basing my conduct on the Constitution because that document trumps laws passed by Congress.

Interstate Commerce Commission v. Brimson, 154 U.S. 447, 479 (May 26, 1894)

“Neither branch of the legislative department [House of Representatives or Senate], still less any merely administrative body [such as the Census Bureau], established by congress, possesses, or can be invested with, a general power of making inquiry into the private affairs of the citizen. Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U.S. 168, 190. We said in Boyd v. U.S., 116 U. S. 616, 630, 6 Sup. Ct. 524,―and it cannot be too often repeated,―that the principles that embody the essence of constitutional liberty and security forbid all invasions on the part of government and it’s employees of the sanctity of a man’s home and the privacies of his life. As said by Mr. Justice Field in Re Pacific Ry. Commission, 32 Fed. 241, 250, ‘of all the rights of the citizen, few are of greater importance or more essential to his peace and happiness than the right of personal security, and that involves, not merely protection of his person from assault, but exemption of his private affairs, books, and papers from inspection and scrutiny of others. Without the enjoyment of this right, all others would lose half their value.’”

Note: This United States Supreme Court case has never been overturned.

Respectfully,

A Citizen of the United States of America

This should be stickied :p I'm not sure where, but I wish it were.

It's a wonderful, impartial, unemotional response, covering all of the reasons why no further information is required. Hell, they don't really even base the Representatives on population anymore, considering it's capped....

EXCELLENT JOB, ANTI-FED!!!

[Anti Federalist]

This should be stickied :p I'm not sure where, but I wish it were.

It's a wonderful, impartial, unemotional response, covering all of the reasons why no further information is required. Hell, they don't really even base the Representatives on population anymore, considering it's capped....

EXCELLENT JOB, ANTI-FED!!!

Thank you, I wish I could take credit, but I can't.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/52847.html

But you're right, it should be stickied.

[QueenB4Liberty]

Isn't the census pointless, even the "constitutional requirement"? The 435 members of the House was determined in 1911, when our country had about 98 million people in it. We need some more representatives for everyone to truly have representation.

[kylejack]

March 30, 2007
Confirmed: The U.S. Census Bureau Gave Up Names of Japanese-Americans in WW II
Government documents show that the agency handed over names and addresses to the Secret Service

By JR Minkel

Despite decades of denials, government records confirm that the U.S. Census Bureau provided the U.S. Secret Service with names and addresses of Japanese-Americans during World War II.

The Census Bureau surveys the population every decade with detailed questionnaires but is barred by law from revealing data that could be linked to specific individuals. The Second War Powers Act of 1942 temporarily repealed that protection to assist in the roundup of Japanese-Americans for imprisonment in internment camps in California and six other states during the war. The Bureau previously has acknowledged that it provided neighborhood information on Japanese-Americans for that purpose, but it has maintained that it never provided "microdata," meaning names and specific information about them, to other agencies.

A new study of U.S. Department of Commerce documents now shows that the Census Bureau complied with an August 4, 1943, request by Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau for the names and locations of all people of Japanese ancestry in the Washington, D.C., area, according to historian Margo Anderson of the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee and statistician William Seltzer of Fordham University in New York City. The records, however, do not indicate that the Bureau was asked for or divulged such information for Japanese-Americans in other parts of the country.

Anderson and Seltzer discovered in 2000 that the Census Bureau released block-by-block data during WW II that alerted officials to neighborhoods in California, Arizona, Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, Idaho and Arkansas where Japanese-Americans were living. "We had suggestive but not very conclusive evidence that they had also provided microdata for surveillance," Anderson says.

The Census Bureau had no records of such action, so the researchers turned to the records of the chief clerk of the Commerce Department, which received and had the authority to authorize interagency requests for census data under the Second War Powers Act. Anderson and Seltzer discovered copies of a memo from the secretary of the treasury (of which the Secret Service is part) to the secretary of commerce (who oversees the Census Bureau) requesting the data, and memos documenting that the Bureau had provided it [see image below].

The memos from the Bureau bear the initials "JC," which the researchers identified as those of then-director, J.C. Capt.

"What it suggests is that the statistical information was used at the microlevel for surveillance of civilian populations," Anderson says. She adds that she and Seltzer are reviewing Secret Service records to try to determine whether anyone on the list was actually under surveillance, which is still unclear.

"The [new] evidence is convincing," says Kenneth Prewitt, Census Bureau director from 1998 to 2000 and now a professor of public policy at Columbia University, who issued a public apology in 2000 for the Bureau's release of neighborhood data during the war. "At the time, available evidence (and Bureau lore) held that there had been no … release of microdata," he says. "That can no longer be said."

The newly revealed documents show that census officials released the information just seven days after it was requested. Given the red tape for which bureaucracies are famous, "it leads us to believe this was a well-established path," Seltzer says, meaning such disclosure may have occurred repeatedly between March 1942, when legal protection of confidentiality was suspended, and the August 1943 request.

Anderson says that microdata would have been useful for what officials called the "mopping up" of potential Japanese-Americans who had eluded internment.

The researchers turned up references to five subsequent disclosure requests made by law enforcement or surveillance agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, none of which dealt with Japanese-Americans.

Lawmakers restored the confidentiality of census data in 1947.

Officially, Seltzer notes, the Secret Service made the 1943 request based on concerns of presidential safety stemming from an alleged March 1942 incident during which an American man of Japanese ancestry, while on a train from Los Angeles to the Manzanar internment camp in Owens Valley, Calif., told another passenger that they should have the "guts" to kill President Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

The incident occurred 17 months before the Secret Service request, during which time the man was hospitalized for schizophrenia and was therefore not an imminent threat, Seltzer says.

The disclosure, while legal at the time, was ethically dubious and may have implications for the 2010 census, the researchers write in a paper presented today at the annual meeting of the Population Association of America held in New York City. The U.S. has separate agencies for collecting statistical information about what people and businesses do, and for so-called administrative functions—taxation, regulation and investigation of those activities.

"There has to be a firewall in some sense between those systems," Anderson says. If a company submits information ostensibly for documenting national economic growth but the data ends up in the antitrust division, "the next time that census comes they're not going to get that information," she says.

Census data is routinely used to enforce the National Voting Rights Act and other policies, but not in a form that could be used to identify a particular person's race, sex, age, address or other information, says former director Prewitt. The legal confidentiality of census information dates to 1910, and in 1954 it became part of Title 13 of the U.S. Code, which specifies the scope and frequency of censuses.

"The law is very different today" than it was in 1943, says Christa Jones, chief of the Census Bureau's Office of Analysis and Executive Support. "Anything that we release to any federal agency or any organization … all of those data are reviewed," she says, to prevent disclosures of individual information.

The Census Bureau provided neighborhood data on Arab-Americans to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security in 2002, but the information was already publicly available, Jones says. A provision in the controversial Patriot Act—passed after the 9/11 attacks and derided by critics as an erosion of privacy—gives agencies access to individualized survey data collected by colleges, including flight training programs.

The Census Bureau has improved its confidentiality practices considerably in the last six decades, former director Prewitt says. He notes that census data is an increasingly poor source of surveillance data compared with more detailed information available from credit card companies and even electronic tollbooths.

Nevertheless, he says, "I think the Census Bureau has to bend over backwards to maintain the confidence and the trust of the public." Public suspicion—well-founded or not—could undermine the collection accurate census data, which is used by sociologists, economists and public health researchers, he says.

"I'm sad to learn it," he says of the new discovery. "It would be sadder yet to continue to deny that it happened, if, as now seems clear, it did happen. You cannot learn from and correct past mistakes unless you know about them."
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...ensus-b&page=2

[Anti Federalist]

Officially, Seltzer notes, the Secret Service made the 1943 request based on concerns of presidential safety stemming from an alleged March 1942 incident during which an American man of Japanese ancestry, while on a train from Los Angeles to the Manzanar internment camp in Owens Valley, Calif., told another passenger that they should have the "guts" to kill President Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

On the way to the concentration camp, and you better still keep a respectful tongue in your head about the man who put you there.

By your leave M'Lord...

FFS...

[mello]

I just got mine in the mail today. When I did a search on the Census website for, "Constitutional" I
found this:

Questions beyond a simple count are Constitutional

It is constitutional to include questions in the decennial census beyond those concerning a simple count of the number of people. On numerous occasions, the courts have said the Constitution gives Congress the authority to collect statistics in the census. As early as 1870, the Supreme Court characterized as unquestionable the power of Congress to require both an enumeration and the collection of statistics in the census. The Legal Tender Cases, Tex.1870; 12 Wall., U.S., 457, 536, 20 L.Ed. 287. In 1901, a District Court said the Constitution's census clause (Art. 1, Sec. 2, Clause 3) is not limited to a headcount of the population and "does not prohibit the gathering of other statistics, if 'necessary and proper,' for the intelligent exercise of other powers enumerated in the constitution, and in such case there could be no objection to acquiring this information through the same machinery by which the population is enumerated." United States v. Moriarity, 106 F. 886, 891 (S.D.N.Y.1901).

In 2000, another District Court agreed and found that it there is no constitutional limit on collecting additional data, when necessary for governance. That court also said responses to census questions are not a violation of a citizen's right to privacy or speech. Morales v. Daley, 116 F. Supp. 2d 801, 809 and 816. (S.D. Tex. 2000). These decisions are consistent with the Supreme Court's recent description of the census as the "linchpin of the federal statistical system ... collecting data on the characteristics of individuals, households, and housing units throughout the country." Dept. of Commerce v. U.S. House of Representatives, 525 U.S. 316, 341 (1999).

(Here's the Link)
http://2010.census.gov/2010census/why/constitutional.php

I wonder how Schiff, Napolitano, & the Paul's are going to fill theirs out? Actually, if there is
anyone from Connecticut or Kentucky that is going to any future Schiff or Paul Town Hall
meetings, do me a favor & ask how they are going to fill out their Census forms. :)

[Icymudpuppy]

Good questions. I will be writing "fourth amendment objection" on any questions I don't like, and will also include Anti-Feds Sticky.

[Philhelm]

To Whom it May Concern,

Pursuant to Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution, the only information you are empowered to request is the total number of occupants at this address. My “name, sex, age, date of birth, race, ethnicity, telephone number, relationship and housing tenure” have absolutely nothing to do with apportioning direct taxes or determining the number of representatives in the House of Representatives. Therefore, neither Congress nor the Census Bureau have the constitutional authority to make that information request a component of the enumeration outlined in Article I, Section 2, Clause 3. In addition, I cannot be subject to a fine for basing my conduct on the Constitution because that document trumps laws passed by Congress.

Interstate Commerce Commission v. Brimson, 154 U.S. 447, 479 (May 26, 1894)

“Neither branch of the legislative department [House of Representatives or Senate], still less any merely administrative body [such as the Census Bureau], established by congress, possesses, or can be invested with, a general power of making inquiry into the private affairs of the citizen. Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U.S. 168, 190. We said in Boyd v. U.S., 116 U. S. 616, 630, 6 Sup. Ct. 524,―and it cannot be too often repeated,―that the principles that embody the essence of constitutional liberty and security forbid all invasions on the part of government and it’s employees of the sanctity of a man’s home and the privacies of his life. As said by Mr. Justice Field in Re Pacific Ry. Commission, 32 Fed. 241, 250, ‘of all the rights of the citizen, few are of greater importance or more essential to his peace and happiness than the right of personal security, and that involves, not merely protection of his person from assault, but exemption of his private affairs, books, and papers from inspection and scrutiny of others. Without the enjoyment of this right, all others would lose half their value.’”

Note: This United States Supreme Court case has never been overturned.

Respectfully,

A Citizen of the United States of America


It could also be added that any citizen who performs an action having faith in a previous ruling of the Supreme Court on any specific matter, cannot be held liable for a perceived transgression.

[rancher89]

Just because past court rulings found in favor of "unconstitutional" aspects of the census, doesn't mean that a later ruling will find those questions unconstitutional.

I remain of the firm intention to answer "two" and will put as an answer to race "human."


Have at it.

[disorderlyvision]

http://i524.photobucket.com/albums/cc329/disorderlyvision/211224-4med.jpg

[nateerb]

Got mine.

I hate the Feds enough as it is. So right off, when I get something from them that exclaims in bold all-caps YOUR RESPONSE IS REQUIRED BY LAW they are getting off on the wrong foot with me.

Inside is The Allmighty Census, a Bus. Reply Envelope, and a small note in FedGov's evil Arial-looking font.

The note in there talks about how many reps I get from my state to not represent me, and how whittle-kids and grannies get mo-money if I answer. Then they start with the 'don't worry, it's confidential - see the back'. Title 13 this and Sections 9 that... and no one can FOIA yous! And we release the data after 72 years, so your ancestors can find out about you. Don't you feel guilty not helping whittle-kids and don't yous want to be on teh 2137 family-tree? Still not convinced? We got a webzite on teh Internets.

Anyways...

Made a real nice One with a serif at the top and a footer line - "1", spent some time on it for ole' Uncle Sammy. Mailing tomorrow.

[tremendoustie]

Got mine.

I hate the Feds enough as it is. So right off, when I get something from them that exclaims in bold all-caps YOUR RESPONSE IS REQUIRED BY LAW they are getting off on the wrong foot with me.

Inside is The Allmighty Census, a Bus. Reply Envelope, and a small note in FedGov's evil Arial-looking font.

The note in there talks about how many reps I get from my state to not represent me, and how whittle-kids and grannies get mo-money if I answer. Then they start with the 'don't worry, it's confidential - see the back'. Title 13 this and Sections 9 that... and no one can FOIA yous! And we release the data after 72 years, so your ancestors can find out about you. Don't you feel guilty not helping whittle-kids and don't yous want to be on teh 2137 family-tree? Still not convinced? We got a webzite on teh Internets.

Anyways...

Made a real nice One with a serif at the top and a footer line - "1", spent some time on it for ole' Uncle Sammy. Mailing tomorrow.

Make sure and bill 'em for your time :D

[pacelli]

I just checked my mail, cooperated, and filled out every item on the form. Other than the first question, all other questions were answered with, "4th amendment objection, 1st amendment objection".

I also enclosed the following letter in their envelope, with the form:

To: 2010 Census Data Capture Center & Any Employees or Contractors representing the United States Census
8411 Kelso Drive
Essex, MD 21260-111

From: Resident At (redacted)

Regarding: 2010 Census Form.

Memo: There are 2 adults living here. We responded to every item on the form. Pursuant to Title 13, Chapter 7, Subchapter II, subsection 221(c), we are objecting to provide additional information beyond how many people live here, and are claiming a religious exemption as we are Hebrews and are told very specifically by God in the Bible that we are not to be counted. The Mosaic Law citations specific to our objection to disclose certain information relative to our religious beliefs can be found in 2 Samuel 24:15, 1 Chronicles 21:1, and Acts 5:29. Our written objections on the form to many of your questions pertain to information pursuant to our religious beliefs as Hebrews. These written objections are not false answers and are true, accurate, and correct to the best of our knowledge and religious beliefs.

Furthermore we are not interested in receiving any further correspondence from you or your employees or contractors on this matter, either by phone or in-person as we are concerned that such correspondence would be a violation of our 1st amendment right to religious free exercise.

Thank you for your anticipated cooperation and understanding.

Resident at (redacted)

[Wineman77]

To Whom it May Concern,

Pursuant to Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution, the only information you are empowered to request is the total number of occupants at this address. My “name, sex, age, date of birth, race, ethnicity, telephone number, relationship and housing tenure” have absolutely nothing to do with apportioning direct taxes or determining the number of representatives in the House of Representatives. Therefore, neither Congress nor the Census Bureau have the constitutional authority to make that information request a component of the enumeration outlined in Article I, Section 2, Clause 3. In addition, I cannot be subject to a fine for basing my conduct on the Constitution because that document trumps laws passed by Congress.

Interstate Commerce Commission v. Brimson, 154 U.S. 447, 479 (May 26, 1894)

“Neither branch of the legislative department [House of Representatives or Senate], still less any merely administrative body [such as the Census Bureau], established by congress, possesses, or can be invested with, a general power of making inquiry into the private affairs of the citizen. Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U.S. 168, 190. We said in Boyd v. U.S., 116 U. S. 616, 630, 6 Sup. Ct. 524,―and it cannot be too often repeated,―that the principles that embody the essence of constitutional liberty and security forbid all invasions on the part of government and it’s employees of the sanctity of a man’s home and the privacies of his life. As said by Mr. Justice Field in Re Pacific Ry. Commission, 32 Fed. 241, 250, ‘of all the rights of the citizen, few are of greater importance or more essential to his peace and happiness than the right of personal security, and that involves, not merely protection of his person from assault, but exemption of his private affairs, books, and papers from inspection and scrutiny of others. Without the enjoyment of this right, all others would lose half their value.’”

Note: This United States Supreme Court case has never been overturned.

Respectfully,

A Citizen of the United States of America


As a movement, we should print and attach this to our census sheet, with only the number of residents in our house filled out. Legal or not, the "crime" is minor. It's time for simple acts of civil disobedience in defence of the Constitution. Nothing could be more peaceful and simple than withholding unwarranted requests for information.

[Number19]

The first census, in 1790, included the name of the head of household, the number of free white males under the age of 16, the number of free white males over the age of 16, the number of free white females of any age, and the number of slaves.

The censuses of 1800 thru 1840 had variations of this format, but listing males and females in specific age categories.

The 1850 census was the first to list the name of every person in the household, including age, birthplace, occupation, value of the real estate, whether able to read or speak English, whether the person had attended school the previous year, and a few other questions.

As someone who has researched the genealogy of my family, I take a position that a census with a limited number of questions, if not too intrusive, is not objectionable. I haven't received this year's, but my understanding is that it is limited to only 10 questions.

How much of the objection is nothing but knee-jerk? Longer forms could be objected to based on the commercialization. I'll have to wait and see if any of the 10 questions crosses an undefined line.

[RileyE104]

Why is it a 1st Amendment violation? I don't get it... I understand the 4th Amendment violation, but not the first.

[pacelli]

Why is it a 1st Amendment violation? I don't get it... I understand the 4th Amendment violation, but not the first.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;....."

We personally cannot engage in free religious exercise if we were to answer some of the questions on the form.

[Anti Federalist]

The first census, in 1790, included the name of the head of household, the number of free white males under the age of 16, the number of free white males over the age of 16, the number of free white females of any age, and the number of slaves.

The censuses of 1800 thru 1840 had variations of this format, but listing males and females in specific age categories.

The 1850 census was the first to list the name of every person in the household, including age, birthplace, occupation, value of the real estate, whether able to read or speak English, whether the person had attended school the previous year, and a few other questions.

As someone who has researched the genealogy of my family, I take a position that a census with a limited number of questions, if not too intrusive, is not objectionable. I haven't received this year's, but my understanding is that it is limited to only 10 questions.

How much of the objection is nothing but knee-jerk? Longer forms could be objected to based on the commercialization. I'll have to wait and see if any of the 10 questions crosses an undefined line.

Incrementalism at work.

[Anti Federalist]

Why is it a 1st Amendment violation? I don't get it... I understand the 4th Amendment violation, but not the first.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=235896

[Number19]

Incrementalism at work.Without a doubt, however this was not a problem up through the 1930 census, the last I have info on. This census contained only full name, age, birthplace and relationship. The census is really a very minor problem easily controlled with vigilance. We have the advantage of historical hindsight.

[TastyWheat]

Isn't the census pointless, even the "constitutional requirement"? The 435 members of the House was determined in 1911, when our country had about 98 million people in it. We need some more representatives for everyone to truly have representation.
They still use it for deciding how many electors we get in the Electoral College. Otherwise it doesn't really matter. Each state decides how its own district lines are drawn.

[kylejack]

The first census, in 1790, included the name of the head of household, the number of free white males under the age of 16, the number of free white males over the age of 16, the number of free white females of any age, and the number of slaves.

The censuses of 1800 thru 1840 had variations of this format, but listing males and females in specific age categories.

The 1850 census was the first to list the name of every person in the household, including age, birthplace, occupation, value of the real estate, whether able to read or speak English, whether the person had attended school the previous year, and a few other questions.

As someone who has researched the genealogy of my family, I take a position that a census with a limited number of questions, if not too intrusive, is not objectionable.
Unless that information is later used to lock you up in a camp, as happened with Japanese Americans.

[Agorism]

What type of lawyers is best to consult about these questions and how to proceed?

[Number19]

Unless that information is later used to lock you up in a camp, as happened with Japanese Americans.There's a saying : guns don't kill people, people kill people.

(edit) Having not seen the census, I didn't snap immediately to what you were referring. One of the 10 questions must refer to national origin. Given the political climate as regards Muslims and Mexicans, this information could very well be abused.

Good reason to leave this question unanswered. Also a good reason to have this question raised before Congress on future censuses.

[specialkornflake]

I'm going to put a 1 and say I'm human.

I was at my Uncle's place and I remarked when I saw the Census Envelope, "Response Required by Law", and he said here's my response and tossed it directly into the trash.

[Brian Defferding]

So which ones do we put the "first" and "fourth" amendment objections?

[Free Moral Agent]

delete

[Patrick]

sticky

[bruce leeroy]

I threw my census form in the trash

[tonesforjonesbones]

First of all, no one to my knowledge has ever been fined for not filling out the Census. But here's the US Code Title referencing the fines, for those interested:

The official fines are found in US Code Title 13, Chapter 7, Subchapter II, Sec. 221 (a) and (b):...

(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.

All in all, I'll follow the Constitution (only answer how many people live in my home) and pay the 100 bucks to keep my privacy and fight the overreaching, corrupt growth of government

[kylejack]

But can they charge me $100 per unanswered question?

[pacelli]

But can they charge me $100 per unanswered question?

I read the word, "neglects" in the law. I gave them a response to every single question. Granted those responses are phrased as, "fourth amendment objection, first amendment objection", but I didn't neglect the questions nor did I provide false information.