Home

The Rutherford Institute: Constitutional Q&A: American Community Survey

2 Comments

Resources

PDF VERSION AVAILABLE HERE

Also available, The Rutherford Institute has developed a form letter that you may use in standing up against the government’s attempt to force you to disclose personal information

© 2017 The Rutherford Institute[1]

In an age when the government has significant technological resources at its disposal to not only carry out warrantless surveillance on American citizens but also to harvest and mine that data for its own dubious purposes, whether it be crime-mapping or profiling based on race or religion, the potential for abuse is grave. As such, any attempt by the government to encroach upon the citizenry’s privacy rights or establish a system by which the populace can be targeted, tracked and singled out must be met with extreme caution.

The American Community Survey (ACS) qualifies as a government program whose purpose, while seemingly benign, raises significant constitutional concerns.

Empowered by Congress with greater powers to amass information about citizens, the Census Bureau introduced the ACS in 2005. Unlike the traditional census, which is limited to a simple head count every ten years for the purpose of establishing representation in Congress, the ACS is sent on an ongoing basis to about 3 million homes every year at a reported cost of hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars.[2]

Individuals who receive the ACS must complete it or be subject to monetary penalties. Although no reports have surfaced of individuals actually being penalized for refusing to answer the survey, the potential fines that can be levied for refusing to participate in the ACS are staggering. For every question not answered, there is a $100 fine. And for every intentionally false response to a question, the fine is $500. Therefore, if a person representing a two-person household refused to fill out any questions or simply answered nonsensically, the total fines could range from upwards of $10,000 and $50,000 for noncompliance. More

Advertisements

“Why We Americans Do Not Want This Healthcare Bill”

2 Comments

By: Donna Garner (c)copyright 2010 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED by author.

 

Summary of Obama/Reid healthcare bill by Michael Connelly:

It places control of our personal health care decisions in the hands of unnamed Federal Bureaucrats who care nothing about us or our individual needs. It provides instant access for these same bureaucrats to see our medical and financial information, it massively increases our taxes and ultimately our insurance premiums, and it reduces our access to the health care that we need. It takes away our choices and our personal freedoms and it increases the Federal deficit that will eventually land on the backs of our children and grandchildren. (Michael Connelly is a U.S. Army veteran, a retired attorney, a published author, freelance writer, and teaches law courses online worldwide — (http://michaelconnelly.viviti.com .) 

Index of topics by section:

1.  OBAMA’S PROPOSAL RELEASED ON 2.22.10
2.  SENATOR REID’S HEALTHCARE BILL
3.  NEW TAXES TO BE PAID BY EVERYONE
4.  CONFIRMATION OF HIGHER PREMIUM COSTS
5.  ABORTION
6.  MEDICARE — COSTS COUNTED TWICE
7.  MEDICARE — HOME HEALTH CARE AGENCIES TARGETED
8.  OTHER PROBLEMS WITH MEDICARE PROVISIONS
9.. MEDICARE — DR. SCOTT GOTTLIEB SPEAKS OUT
10. MEDICARE VS. SPECIALISTS
11. CLASS ACT
12. HOW THE UNSCRUPULOUS SEN. REID INSERTED HIS “FIX”
13. MEDICAID INCREASES
14. MEDICARE ADVANTAGE
15. “SWEET DEALS” 
16. CONSTITUTIONALITY

___________________________________________________

“Why We Americans Do Not Want This Healthcare Bill” More

Progressive View of Gun Rights: 2A All the Way.

Leave a comment

 

http://www.opednews.com/articles/2A-All-the-Way-by-Rady-Ananda-090419-216.html

 by Rady Ananda 

pink_ak-armedfemalesofamerica-2795-20090419-349

Because this essay sparked strong reaction, OEN owner Rob Kall has convinced me that I could better make my case for Second Amendment advocacy if I clarified my politics: I am a progressive populist. As a progressive, I value, work toward, and believe in an ever-expanding recognition of equality for all peoples. I have no tolerance for intolerance. Owning personal firearms levels the playing field somewhat for those most vulnerable to abuse: women, the elderly, the poor, and the handicapped.  I’m a populist because I feel no allegiance to or from elites. Instead, I fear the vast expansion of governmental power over the past decade, at the expense of the Rule of Law, and at the expense of basic human rights — particularly the 800-year-old Magna Carta provision for habeas corpus. 2A advocacy is an egalitarian issue. ~ RA

 (Excerpted from the full article at  www.opednews.com)

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

Gun rights are neither liberal nor conservative, feminist nor patriarchal, Democrat nor Republican, Left nor Right. Gun rights are populist at their core, in defense against government tyranny at their widest application, and in self-defense at their most personal application.  
The debate over gun rights is vast and well-documented. The basic arguments for an armed citizenry are:
  

  • To maintain political order and prevent tyranny;
  • To protect community from outside invasion;
  • Personal defense and crime prevention; and
  • Sport and hunting.
  • The basic arguments against an armed populace ignore history or adopt a Pollyanna view toward government. Plenty of folks, on the Right and on the Left, and those in-between, recognize the value of preventive armament. We recognize that bipartisan-passed legislation over the past nine years strips US citizens of their sovereignty and destroys the Bill of Rights. (All this legislation, because it’s unconstitutional, is void, in my non-legal opinion.) 
    Some history – Jews and Other Genocides
    In 1981, Morton Grove, Illinois became the first U.S. city to ban the possession of firearms. Next came Evanston, Illinois, which passed a similar ordinance without controversy.  But when the measure was proposed in nearby Skokie, it was soundly defeated.  Skokie, populated by Holocaust survivors, knew the merits of personal armament and the dangers of its lack. (Alderman and Kennedy)  
    Some researchers took this argument on a survey of seven nations that committed genocide in the 20th century, determining that in each instance, citizens were legislatively disarmed prior to their mass extermination by their government.  In Lethal Laws: Gun Control Is the Key to Genocide, the authors demonstrated that these nations that perpetrated genocide had chosen a victim population which was disarmed.  If the intended victims were not already gun-free, then the murderous governments first got rid of the guns before they began the killing. 

    %d bloggers like this: