The U.S. Is Already a Majority-Minority Nation

The New York Times reports that "ethnic and racial minorities will comprise a majority of the nation's population in a little more than a generation." But ethnic and racial minorities already comprise a majority of the nation's population. The current U.S. population is about 300 million. There are roughly 46 million Hispanic Americans, 40 million African Americans, 35 million Irish Americans, 16 million Italian Americans,  15 million Asian Americans, 10 million Polish Americans, 3 million Greek Americans, and 3 million Russian Americans. That's a majority right there, and I've left out a bunch of ethnic groups.

What the Times really means, of course, is that "Americans who identify themselves as Hispanic, black, Asian, American Indian, Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander will together outnumber non-Hispanic whites." We've become so accustomed to this arbitrary definition of "ethnic and racial minorities" that it's easy to lose sight of how bizarre it is. Is there a single objective criterion that unites these particular ethnic and racial minorities while distinguishing them from all the excluded groups? Is there any rational reason why a descendant of Spaniards, say, should count as a real minority, whether or not his ancestors spent time in Latin America, while a descendant of Italians does not? What is it, exactly, that makes Indians more ethnic than Albanians?

While some Americans view the arrival of the milestone heralded by the Times with horror, others see it as a sign of progress. I'd say obsessing about it one way or another indicates a lack of progress.

Comments

short, fat bastard | August 14, 2008, 2:32pm | #

Short fat guy of Irish, English, Scots, Dutch, and Dane ancestory. So what what ethnic group covers the descendants of various pillagers and rapist.

Remember boys, first pillage, then rape, AND THEN burn the village!

Elemenope | August 14, 2008, 2:34pm | #

We are rapidly approaching the point where it will become impossible to not have met a person of a different color skin than you.

Oh the horror. I imagine the Lonewacko is preparing his seppuku knives as we speak.

Nigel Watt | August 14, 2008, 2:34pm | #

I agree. I don't see why the Census should even bother with race, if we're to have a Census in the first place.

Senator Bulworth | August 14, 2008, 2:36pm | #

. . . everyone just keeps fucking everyone until we're all the same color.

golf nut | August 14, 2008, 2:37pm | #

Go ahead, be a Tiger.

J sub D | August 14, 2008, 2:38pm | #

While some Americans view the arrival of the milestone heralded by the Times with horror, others see it as a sign of progress. I'd say obsessing about it one way or another indicates a lack of progress.

QFT. When cut, we all bleed red. The racial and ethnic bean counting is counterproductive to the goal of ending reducing* prejudice and intolerance.

* Bigoted idiocy will be with us always. I try to set realistic goals.

Jeff P | August 14, 2008, 2:39pm | #

And mutts and mongrels will outnumber all of them within a generation.

Now, who want's a little Scotish in 'em?

J sub D | August 14, 2008, 2:41pm | #

I don't see why the Census should even bother with race, if we're to have a Census in the first place.

In 2000 the wife and I left that blank. They got age and sex and nothing else. Amazingly enough they didn't come back and ask for more data.

Naga Sadow | August 14, 2008, 2:43pm | #

Non hispanic. I've always wondered what that meant. My grandmother is Mexican so where does that leave me?

Jozef | August 14, 2008, 2:44pm | #

I don't see why the Census should even bother with race, if we're to have a Census in the first place.

When I did some research on the One Drop Rule (which I learned about thanks to some commenters here) I found out that the issue of race in census is a political one, and pushed especially by non-white groups. In fact, it took years of negotiations to include - for the first time - "multiracial" as a category in the 2000 Census. Up to that point, thanks to the black leaders, people were forced to pick only one of five races.

Episiarch | August 14, 2008, 2:45pm | #

My grandmother is Mexican so where does that leave me?

On LoneWackjob's shitlist? Which is a good place to be.

Elemenope | August 14, 2008, 2:48pm | #

I am a serial user of the box marked "other".

prolefeed | August 14, 2008, 2:50pm | #

Last census, I tried to screw up their statistics as much as possible. Since the theory is that all humans originated in Africa, everyone in my household was listed as "African-American" (or whatever PC term they used). And I listed our unborn child as a member our household, date of birth as of the estimated date of conception, since damned if I'm going to accept their implied hypothesis that life only begins when you exit the birth canal.

If they're gonna ask for stuff beyond the enumeration allowed by the Constitution, they're gonna get wildly misleading stats from me.

Naga Sadow | August 14, 2008, 2:51pm | #

Episiarch,

I meant where does that place me in the census category of race. But as for your comment . . . fuck lonewacko!

John | August 14, 2008, 2:56pm | #

"Non hispanic. I've always wondered what that meant. My grandmother is Mexican so where does that leave me?"

In the real world it leaves as an American. In bizzaro PC world it leaves you as one of the oppressed Latino masses. When you think of your grandmother do you feel oppressed? Do you feel the pain of your brothers and sisters around you and the injustice of American imperialism?

ClubMedSux | August 14, 2008, 2:59pm | #

Is there a single objective criterion that unites these particular ethnic and racial minorities while distinguishing them from all the excluded groups?

Well, in theory the objective criterion is that the "minority" ethnicities were historically oppressed in our society. Of course, that breaks down in practice. As you pointed out, Spanish-Americans shouldn't count as minorities just because some of their ancestors came to the New World and cohabitated with natives. And of course, Irish, Italians and most Eastern Europeans were all discriminated against at some point in our country's history. That being said, I suppose the British were the first "majority" and the easiest thing to do is to define anybody that doesn't look like them as the minority.

Mr. Nice Guy | August 14, 2008, 3:00pm | #

Oh brother, more census hate. And this from folks deriding another as "Lonewacko."

Naga Sadow | August 14, 2008, 3:01pm | #

Come to think of it John . . . I do feel a little oppressed. Not from white people though. I work in an Asian restaurant now and I'm one of only 5 non-Asian workers in the restaurant. They call me "Me-chung" which they claim means white people but I'm convinced it means white monkey! The horror of it all!

bubba | August 14, 2008, 3:01pm | #

My Spanish colleagues delight in listing themselves as Hispanics.

Why the hell do the Conquistadors get the same privileges as the Natives?

mk | August 14, 2008, 3:02pm | #

The whole hispanic thing re the census is interesting as someone can be from one of any of the other groups and still be hispanic. If you are a white Hispanic, are you considered a minority?

Also I think being an Eskimo puts you in the the same group as a Hawaiian. I imagine both parties think that is a bit silly. What do these groups culturally have in common? Of course, the same could be said for "Black" in an area that contains immigrants from all across the continent of Africa.

R C Dean | August 14, 2008, 3:02pm | #

Is there a single objective criterion that unites these particular ethnic and racial minorities while distinguishing them from all the excluded groups?

Sure. Skin tone.

In 2000 the wife and I left that blank.

As I did, and plan to, forevermore. It would be nice if some crackpot rich-guy activist funded a campaign to encourage people to boycott State-sponsored racial pigeonholing.

My grandmother is Mexican so where does that leave me?

Mine, too. Actually, I think she may have been almost all Navajo (Apache is a more remote possibility - she was from some little crossroads in northern NM). Nobody really knows - that generation of my family just died out, and they never volunteered (and we never asked).

John | August 14, 2008, 3:07pm | #

I had a collegue who is whiter than I am and from a rich family in Mexico. He went to Columbia undergrad and NYU law school and is now a political appointee of fairly high rank. He was telling me yesterday who his daughter scored a whoppin 1100 on her SATs but is getting letters from Harvard and Penn because she is a "hispanic". Oh the joys of modern racial America.

Nigel Watt | August 14, 2008, 3:07pm | #

Yeah, why the hell is "Native Alaskan/Pacific Islander" a single ethnic group?

Mr. Nice Guy | August 14, 2008, 3:08pm | #

U.S. Const. Art. I Sec. II "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."

Prole-Did you get that "in such manner as they shall by Law direct" part?

LarryA | August 14, 2008, 3:09pm | #

if we're to have a Census in the first place.

Population figures are required to apportion seats and determine voting districts in the U.S. House of Representatives. The census also keeps a lot of academic types off the streets.

ethnic and racial minorities will comprise a majority of the nation's population in a little more than a generation

If instead of “who do you identify with” we counted by DNA “multiracial” would take over.

Non Hispanic.

My sister-in-law, born of Scotch-Irish parents, was counted as “Hispanic” for two of her marriages. “Spanish surnamed.”

I just love it when our TV News talking heads go on about San Antonio’s (>60%) “Hispanic minority.”

BDB | August 14, 2008, 3:10pm | #

"Hispanic" is a fabrication anyway, made up in t he 70s (Nixon was behind that I think). Before they marked white, just as people with other "ethnic" backgrounds do. And if they had continued too, we would be 80% "white" well into the next century.

EJM | August 14, 2008, 3:11pm | #

I came across this official Census map on Wikipedia some time ago--and, as someone of German and Norwegian heritage, appreciate the large amount of light blue (or is it blue-gray?).

P.S.: I filled out the ethnicity portion of my Census 2000 form, but I did play havoc with their insistence on "first name, middle initial, last name".

Mr. Nice Guy | August 14, 2008, 3:11pm | #

As in Congress may, by law, direct the Census.

So maybe you think it's an unwise use of constitutionally granted authority for Congress to direct the Census in its current fashion, but it ain't unconstitutional.

Taktix® | August 14, 2008, 3:11pm | #

Americans who identify themselves as Hispanic, black, Asian, American Indian, Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander will together outnumber non-Hispanic whites.

I still never understood why Hawaiians got their own category. Was it part of a treaty or something?

Taktix® | August 14, 2008, 3:12pm | #

I still never?

Sorry, my dumb disease is acting up today...

robc | August 14, 2008, 3:12pm | #

J sub D,

In 2000 the wife and I left that blank. They got age and sex and nothing else. Amazingly enough they didn't come back and ask for more data.

I got the long form in 2000. They got my name*, phone number*, address, number of people in household. That was it.

*I gave them these in case they wanted to contact me/charge me for failing to fill out my census form properly.

I gave them everything they needed for determining house districts and electoral votes.

BDB | August 14, 2008, 3:13pm | #

What the hell do Chinese have in common with Polynesians anyway? Two very distinct groups put under the same heading. Stupid.

For that matter, East Indians, Chinese, and Polynesians are all the same category. They need to re-think those labels.

BDB | August 14, 2008, 3:13pm | #

That map really shows how black population is still heavily concentrated in the South.

John | August 14, 2008, 3:14pm | #

"I just love it when our TV News talking heads go on about San Antonio’s (>60%) “Hispanic minority.”

I lived in San Antonio for several years. I suppose if you lived on the South side you might feel out of place, but living on the north side in the good areas of towns I never felt like I was anywhere but the US.

One of my friends' family was from Monterey, Mexico. He was fairly light skinned and very American. He hate Tajano music. Tajano music is basically Mexican cowboy music. On the news "Mexican music" always meant Tejano music. Used to drive him nuts. Of course us pointing to the Tejano stage at Fiesta every year and going "Carlos your people" didn't help.

robc | August 14, 2008, 3:14pm | #

MNG,

Who hates the census? I just gave the constitutionally required information. I dont hate THAT part of the census.

BDB | August 14, 2008, 3:15pm | #

John IIRC Texan Hispanics are much more Americanized than their Californian brethern.

robc | August 14, 2008, 3:16pm | #

MNG,

Actually, I think it is unconstitutional for them to require any questions other than those needed for the censuses purpose. If "as the law directs" including sacrificing your children as a part of the census process, would that be constitutional? And would you do it?

robc | August 14, 2008, 3:20pm | #

Although my county shows up on the map posted above as "german", Im proud that my state appears to have the highest percent of counties claiming "American" as our ancestry.

Citizen Nothing | August 14, 2008, 3:20pm | #

I always check "Pacific Islander."
In my mind, I'm always on the Big Island.

BDB | August 14, 2008, 3:20pm | #

"American"=rednecked Scots-Irish, usually.

Mr. Nice Guy | August 14, 2008, 3:22pm | #

robc-It's clearly constitutional for the Census to ask any questions "directed by Law." See the Constitution.

Nigel Watt | August 14, 2008, 3:24pm | #

Texan Hispanics are very much American, and they want to be even more so (from my experience). Except LULAC.

robc | August 14, 2008, 3:24pm | #

MNG,

Its not at all clear that they can ask any questions beyond those needed. I think I could make a reasonable 5th amendment argument, for one thing. "As the law directs" would mean "by paper, or by internet, or by a census taker stopping at your house", its not referring to what questions they are allowed to ask.

Kwix | August 14, 2008, 3:26pm | #

I have taken to calling myself a "Heinz57-American" after my great aunt traced the family tree back. She lost track of the lines in Ireland, England and Italy and unfortunately the Sioux were not known for keeping written records.

Taktix® | August 14, 2008, 3:29pm | #

I came across this official Census map on Wikipedia some time ago

Decent showing for my Irish side, but damn, only one county in the whole U.S. is majority Polish?!? I guess that side couldn't figure out how to fill out the form...

robc | August 14, 2008, 3:29pm | #

MNG,

To clarify even more, the constitution only allows for "an enumeration...in such manner as they shall by law direct"

Anything beyond an enumeration is not allowed. Asking about race, sex, age, number of miles I drive to work, etc, etc, goes beyond an enumeration. The last part allows for different means of collecting the enumeration.

Joshua Corning | August 14, 2008, 3:29pm | #

The current U.S. population is about 300 million. There are roughly 46 million Hispanic Americans, 40 million African Americans, 35 million Irish Americans, 16 million Italian Americans, 15 million Asian Americans, 10 million Polish Americans, 3 million Greek Americans, and 3 million Russian Americans. That's a majority right there, and I've left out a bunch of ethnic groups.

What the FUCK!!

What about the Cornish?!?!?!

I guess i should not bitch i do have some Russian and polish and probably some Irish to boot. Still my Welsh blood is boiling with indignation.

Anyone else notice we have more Irish then Ireland

Mr. Nice Guy | August 14, 2008, 3:29pm | #

That's pretty broad language, suggesting a broad grant. Direct would certainly and reasonably mean the kind of questions asked. How would you argue that the language "direct" rules out the kind of questions asked? I'd like to hear that one...

Your 5th Amendment argument is silly, you're only protected there in "any criminal case."

This is a case of libertarians reading what they think SHOULD have been in the Constitution into the text.

BDB | August 14, 2008, 3:30pm | #

We also have more Jews than Israel, I think.

robc | August 14, 2008, 3:31pm | #

Taktix,

only one county in the whole U.S. is majority Polish?

We also did a good job separating the frenchies as far apart as reasonably possible.

Mr. Nice Guy | August 14, 2008, 3:32pm | #

Enumerate means literally "to determine the number of : count." That's what they do when they count race, sex, commuting time, etc.

robc | August 14, 2008, 3:33pm | #

MNG,

1. enumeration is not a broad grant, that is a very specific word.

2. The 5th amendment argument is kinda silly, but it isnt just criminal. The last clause "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation". Information about my household is private property and they are trying to get it for a public use. Without paying. The fair market value for knowing how far I drive to work is really damn expensive too. I realize that clause has virtually no meaning anymore, but Im not ignoring it.

Mr. Nice Guy | August 14, 2008, 3:34pm | #

If it said "an enumeration of the number of voting age citizens" then you might have some kind of case.

It doesn't, btw. It just says enumerate and then further clarifies and suggests a very broad idea of that by adding "as directed by law."

joe | August 14, 2008, 3:34pm | #

What a mind-bogglingly naive things to write.

Ever seen the mall cops follow around two Irish kids?

John | August 14, 2008, 3:35pm | #

"The current U.S. population is about 300 million. There are roughly 46 million Hispanic Americans, 40 million African Americans, 35 million Irish Americans, 16 million Italian Americans, 15 million Asian Americans, 10 million Polish Americans, 3 million Greek Americans, and 3 million Russian Americans. That's a majority right there, and I've left out a bunch of ethnic groups."

If you consider the "one drop rule" that needs to be rewritten to read that 46 million Americans have some form of Hispanic background and so forth. That is really all it means. Under the current system RC Dean with is Apache grandmother counts as a "native American" just as much as a Navaho who has never left the reservation. The catagories have long since lossed their meaning.

Mr. Nice Guy | August 14, 2008, 3:37pm | #

robc-
How many voting age citizens are in a district is also information that people pay for all the time, and noone thinks you the Census, in getting that, it "taking" your private property.

You're just being weasley now.

robc | August 14, 2008, 3:37pm | #

MNG,

Enumerate in that context means "count number of people". The compiling of the other statistics are not part of this enumeration.

The constitution should never be read broadly, especially in the main articles. It was meant to grant very specific powers to the federal government that wouldnt otherwise exist. The need to count people for representation and direct taxastion requires was all that was needed and thus, all that was granted.

robc | August 14, 2008, 3:39pm | #

MNG,

If it said "an enumeration of the number of voting age citizens" then you might have some kind of case.

Voting age citizens doesnt matter. Representation and direct taxation are determined by total number of residents (+ 3/5ths of all slaves), whether voting age or not, whether citizen or not.

joe | August 14, 2008, 3:39pm | #

Lots of straw being thrown about about the "one drop rule." If you actually think that somebody with seven white great-grandparents and one black great-grandmother is going to be considered black either by law or in their everyday life, you're nuts.

Mr. Nice Guy | August 14, 2008, 3:39pm | #

noone thinks that the Census, in getting that, is "taking" your property

robc | August 14, 2008, 3:40pm | #

MNG,

You keep leaving off the work "manner". The "manner" of the enumeration can by as law directs: paper, everyone gathering in town square, census collector, internet, phone, yelling really loud all at once, whatever stupid means of saying "aye" in a collectible way that congress comes up with.

Mr. Nice Guy | August 14, 2008, 3:41pm | #

"Enumerate in that context means "count number of people". The compiling of the other statistics are not part of this enumeration."

On what do you base that meaning?

The broad language of the grant? The lack of the specifying words that would lend some credence to your reading?

BDB | August 14, 2008, 3:41pm | #

IIRC even in 1790 the census did more than just count people. The people who actually wrote the Constitution were still alive and in power and didn't cry foul at that.

robc | August 14, 2008, 3:41pm | #

MNG,

noone thinks

I do. Thus, you are wrong.

Mr. Nice Guy | August 14, 2008, 3:44pm | #

You don't think "whatever manner" Congress decides on includes the very questions asked?

If you take a "Methods" class in social science they won't stop at whether you should do a phone survey or a mail survey, they will cover the actual questions to be asked. It's all included in the "manner" of collecting data.

robc | August 14, 2008, 3:44pm | #

BDB,

They added on age and sex at some point, but I dont think it was until the 2nd or 3rd census. I have looked thru early 1800s census record, they had names of adults and number of kids and sometimes ages and sometimes even the names and ages of the kids, but that was inconsistent.

For more than that, you had to get to much later censuses.

The initial congresses did lots of stuff that was unconstitutional. Alien and Sedition Acts anyone?

Mr. Nice Guy | August 14, 2008, 3:46pm | #

"noone thinks

I do. Thus, you are wrong."

robc
So you are maintining that the 5th Amendment takings clause prohibits the Census from counting how many people live in your house (the most narrow and strained view of "enumeration")? SO on the one hand the Constitution mandates this taking, and then prohibits it?

You see the nonsense your view on this leads to.

BDB | August 14, 2008, 3:46pm | #

Robc-

They did do race in 1790. The country was 80% white, 20% "African".

By the late 1800s the race categories were truly strange. "Mulatto", "Octaroon", "Quadroon", etc.

John | August 14, 2008, 3:47pm | #

"If you actually think that somebody with seven white great-grandparents and one black great-grandmother is going to be considered black either by law or in their everyday life, you're nuts."

Certainly by the dopes who run Universities and government programs they will be. Could they avail themselves of discrimination laws? That depends. First, just because you only have one out of eight great grandparents who is black doesn't mean you will not look black. It depends on how the genes work out. Second, it also depends on how you identify yourself. Certainly, a lot of people with very little actual Indian DNA identify themselves as Indians. If you identify yourself publicly as an Indian or a Hispanic and have one drop of blood to that effect, you are protected from discrimination under the law. If that isn't being "treated as a minority" I don't see what is.

BDB | August 14, 2008, 3:48pm | #

John is right about that. Thats how Ward Churchill passed himself of as "Native American" even though hes 7/8ths white or something.

John | August 14, 2008, 3:49pm | #

But beyond that Joe, you are right in some ways in that if you are only 1/8th black you probably are not black in any cultural sense. But you are still counted by the census as "black" which renders their numbers pretty meaningless.

robc | August 14, 2008, 3:50pm | #

MNG,

You cant use modern data collection methods and terms to determine what they meant in the 1780s. They needed a method to collect counts. Nothing more.

Look, they felt they needed to include this clause for a reason, its because without the clause, a census would be unconstitutional. And, as is clear from other places, despite modern interpretations (like commerce clause), they rarely gave broad powers, only specific ones. They needed a means to count people for representation purposes. They granted congress the power to make this happen and left the methodology to congress. To collect more information than that does not make sense with the way the rest of the constitution works (although it makes perfect sense with the way the rest has been treated - if you also favor a broad commerce clause and a broad general welfare clause then you are, at least, being consistent).

joe | August 14, 2008, 3:52pm | #

Certainly by the dopes who run Universities and government programs they will be.

No, they won't. You just completely made that up, and don't have a shred of evidence. I defy you find a case of someone with one black great-grandparent and 7 white ones who was listed as African-American by a university or treated as such by the admissions department. Alternately, you could find a statement from a university indicating that it is their policy to do that. Until then, I'll continue to use the word "nuts" to describe this belief.

Second, it also depends on how you identify yourself. Which refutes the assertion that there is a "one drop rule," since a "one drop rule" is about defining people's racial categories regardless of how they define themselves.

robc | August 14, 2008, 3:52pm | #

MNG,

You see the nonsense your view on this leads to.

Why are you arguing with something I called a "silly" argument. I said I could make a 5th amendment argument, I didnt say it would be any good, that one probably doesnt hold up too well. :)

The base reading of the Article in question, however, holds up well.

Mr. Nice Guy | August 14, 2008, 3:53pm | #

The 1790 Census asked about race. This was right after adoption of the Constitution whose original meaning we are trying to discern.

http://www2.census.gov/prod2/decennial/documents/1790b-02.pdf

joe | August 14, 2008, 3:54pm | #

BDB,

When it became known that Ward Churchill was only 1/8 American Indian, it destroyed his reputation as an American Indian scholar, and he was widely derided as a fraud.

robc | August 14, 2008, 3:54pm | #

MNG,

As I pointed out, so was the Alien and Sedition Acts. Well, late 90s, but same frickin guys.

joe | August 14, 2008, 3:55pm | #

John,

But you are still counted by the census as "black" which renders their numbers pretty meaningless. No, you're not. If such a person checked white, they'd be counted as white. If he chacked multi-racial, he'd be counted as multi-racial.

Nonions | August 14, 2008, 3:56pm | #

Semi-Related:
Race Against Time

Mr. Nice Guy | August 14, 2008, 3:56pm | #

Look at the II Article of the Constitution. You don't have to be Bushite unitary executive to think that broad grants of power were not that unusual in the Constitution.

For that matter the 1st Article had plenty of broad grants. The Congress may have the powers "To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces."

To make rules. That's a pretty broad grant!

joe | August 14, 2008, 3:57pm | #

John,

...and if you didn't fill out the census form, and the census bureau sent someone around to fill in the blanks, a person with 7 white great-grandparents and 1 black great-grandparent would almost certainly be put down as white.

Bronwyn | August 14, 2008, 3:58pm | #

I'm a RedMickWOPKraut... so I guess I'm in the minority majority, too.

Yippee!

John | August 14, 2008, 3:59pm | #

Here you go Joe from your own hometown paper

http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2004/10/10/on_ethnicity_thinking_out_of_box/

"For students of mixed ethnic backgrounds, such choices raise one key question: How will picking one or the other affect my chances of getting in?

Admissions counselors at colleges that have this choice say that such students receive the same preference in admissions or affirmative-action programs that they would if they checked only a single minority box. Dan Lundquist, vice president for admissions and financial aid at Union College in upstate New York, says such students should receive the benefits of affirmative action because "they represent an important element of diversity."

Lundquist acknowledges that some students may claim multiple ethnic backgrounds on the basis of "being 1/64th American Indian" and he says that there is some "vanishing point" at which such applicants aren't adding much diversity. But he says that admissions counselors' "vigilance and professionalism" prevents abuses."

Some vanishing point? Whatever that is. That is functionally a one drop rule. If someone puts themselves down as black or hispanic or whatever, and they really do have some of that backround, I find it very difficult to believe that any college will deny them on it.

Mr. Nice Guy | August 14, 2008, 4:00pm | #

btw-I don't buy the amorphous reading of the Commerce Clause, and I think the General Welfare clause is just preamble. I probably agree on more of this Constitutional stuff than you may imagine, but I just think it's a hard case to state that the Census, even in its bloated form, is unconstitutional. Unwise policy, maybe. Unconstitutional, hard to argue...

Bottom line, the Founders were more libertarian than our current lot, but they were certainly not "libertarians" nor did they design the Constitution to be a libertarian manifesto...

John | August 14, 2008, 4:01pm | #

"and if you didn't fill out the census form, and the census bureau sent someone around to fill in the blanks, a person with 7 white great-grandparents and 1 black great-grandparent would almost certainly be put down as white."

I am not so sure about that. If I were 1/8th black I would be putting down black on every government form I filled out. I suspect I am not alone in that.

robc | August 14, 2008, 4:03pm | #

joe,

Depends if they send by the random sampling double checker. I got that guy in 2k, he checked off white as my race even though I refused to give him an answer to the question of my race.

He also guessed at my age. At that point I closed the door on him.

BDB,

Actually, they didnt ask race in 1790. They had 5 columns of information (plus name of HoH):

Free White Males 16+
Free White Males under 16
Free White Females
Other Free persons
Slaves

While I would argue that they only needed 2:
Free People
Slaves

it could be argued that other info was needed for determining number of members of the militia, but I think that is an abuse of the census department, but maybe not much of an abuse.

Personally, I dont have much problem with the census asking the extra questions as long as it is voluntary. There are a few mandatory questions.

robc | August 14, 2008, 4:05pm | #

To make rules. That's a pretty broad grant!

Not really, it only applies to land and naval forces, thats a narrow grant.

joe | August 14, 2008, 4:06pm | #

John,

Nope, fail. The fact that there is a "vanishing point" is exactly the opposite of a One Drop Rule.

The fact that what someone puts down is involved in the decision makes that exactly the opposite of the one-drop rule.

The One Drop Rule - which actually existed in the law - stated that a person with any African ancentry was considered black, regardless of how they self-identify. If someone with a black ancestor can be considered white, bam, no one drop rule. If somone with a black ancestor can be considered white under any circumstances, bam, no one drop rule.

The term One Drop Rule has an actual meaning. You're applying it wrongly, and I think you're doing it purely for emotional effect.

robc | August 14, 2008, 4:07pm | #

MNG,

Bottom line, the Founders were more libertarian than our current lot, but they were certainly not "libertarians" nor did they design the Constitution to be a libertarian manifesto...

I agree. Hell, most of them werent libertarian at all, just enough of them to force certain issuees. But, considering the anti-federalist pressures, they couldnt make too strong a central government, no matter what Hamilton wanted.

When I reread constitutional debates, I tend to think the anti-federalists were right.

John | August 14, 2008, 4:07pm | #

One more thing Joe. As people intermarry more and more, they answers they give on those questions mean less and less. This is especially true with regard to Hispanics where there is a high intermarriage rate. There are a ton of people out there who have one parent who is first generation hispanic immigrant and one parent who is white. Are they really hispanic? A lot of them will probably say so on the census form but I don't see how that answer says much one way or another.

robc | August 14, 2008, 4:08pm | #

joe,

There was always a vanishing point. We are all descendents of at least one black person (actually, we are all descendents of very many black people), so the rule was never applied strictly as written.

John | August 14, 2008, 4:09pm | #

No Joe, you misunderstand my point. Those numbers, whatever they are, are not reflective of the reality of society since fewer and fewer people are only of one race.

Antiglobalist | August 14, 2008, 4:11pm | #

Pluralism always fails. Whether it's ethnic, religious or even political.

If you disagree, name the great successes of pluralism throughout history and how long they lasted, please.

Mr. Nice Guy | August 14, 2008, 4:11pm | #

robc
If they reported the number of free whites vs. the number of free blacks vs. the number of free women, vs. the number of free whites under 16 vs. the number of free whites over 16, then how do you figure they did not ask questions about race, sex and age?

robc | August 14, 2008, 4:12pm | #

MNG,

What race are those "other free persons"?

They didnt ask about free blacks.

joe | August 14, 2008, 4:12pm | #

John,

I agree with this:

As people intermarry more and more, they answers they give on those questions mean less and less. Or, it will mean less and less for more and more people. There will still be plenty of people - probably a majority or close to it - in any race who marry someone of the same race.

But on the larger point that the boundaries of racial categories are less clear now than they were in the past, and will become even less clear in the future, I think you're right. Still, I compare it to (what else?) neighborhoods. Once a upon a time, the South Side and Happyville each had a commercial center, surrounded by houses, and a stretch of farmland in between. Today, there is the center of South Side, the center of Happyville, and all of the area between them is full of houses. Some of those houses are in South Side. Some of them are in Happyville. Some could be both or neither. Nonetheless, there is still a South Side and a Happyville.

robc | August 14, 2008, 4:13pm | #

MNG,

I guess

Please check one:
White
Other

may be a question about race, but not much of one.

joe | August 14, 2008, 4:14pm | #

robc,

Certainly, there is no true, hard line. Race is socially-constructed.

But so is the value of the U.S. dollar. Nonetheless, it is very real, we all understand it's real, it has real effects on our lives, and we can talk about it meaningfully.

robc | August 14, 2008, 4:15pm | #

joe,

Nonetheless, there is still a South Side and a Happyville.

This reminds me of a comment in a Niven novel/short story (I forget which one).

It talks about the metropolis stretching from Seattle to San Diego, but no one but historians remembered which end was which.

That story represents Brazil racially.

robc | August 14, 2008, 4:17pm | #

joe,

Certainly, there is no true, hard line.

That was my point. Even when/where the "one drop" rule existed, it wasnt applied as written, it had some sort of cut off. Otherwise, everyone would have been black.

R C Dean | August 14, 2008, 4:19pm | #

U.S. Const. Art. I Sec. II "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 last clause gives Congress the authority to specify the manner in which an "actual Enumeration" may be done. It doesn't give Congress the authority to engage in anything more than an actual Enumeration.

The real question, I think, is what counts as an actual Enumeration. Since the purpose is to divvy up House districts, I don't see how race, etc. comes into it.

J sub D | August 14, 2008, 4:20pm | #

My constitutional objections to answering intrusive question in the census follows.

Specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbra, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance. Zones of privacy emanate from the First Amendment's penumbra right of association, the Third Amendment's prohibition against the quartering of soldiers in any house without consent in peacetime, the fourth's guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures, and the fifth's privilege against self-incrimination.

Any questions other than name, age and sex violate one of my zones of privacy.

Is that good enough for you? You may have come across this line of reasoning in your reading somewhwere.

J sub D | August 14, 2008, 4:21pm | #

The preceding was intende for Mr. Nice Guy.

robc | August 14, 2008, 4:21pm | #

J sub D,

Nice. We need more 3rd amendment cases.

Mr. Nice Guy | August 14, 2008, 4:22pm | #

robc
It was at least that (white, non-white), and so yes, a question on race.

And sex and age.

robc | August 14, 2008, 4:22pm | #

The 3rd amendment: Americans strongest amendment!!

There should be a documentary or something.

joe | August 14, 2008, 4:23pm | #

robc,

Since nobody knew about the existence of the African origins of homo sapiens when the One Drop Rule existed, there wasn't actually such a cutoff.

robc | August 14, 2008, 4:23pm | #

MNG,

Notice they didnt care about the age of the women or them others (or the age/sex of the slaves)? I dont know what to make of that. Like I said, the 16+ for free white males might have been for militia purposes. Not really sure.

joe | August 14, 2008, 4:26pm | #

The Census Bureau does conduct an actual enumeration. Then, they do other things as well. I don't see any language saying they govenrment can't do other forms of studies.

How is adding race and number of toilet questions (seriously, wtf?) to the census form any less legal than having a United States Geological Survey to make soils maps, or sending Lewis and Clark to find mammoths?

robc | August 14, 2008, 4:26pm | #

joe,

Im not referring to the African origin, Im making a much later reference. Im referring to the mathematical analysis that has shown that anyone who was alive ~3000 (2k if they lived in the middle east) years ago who has living descendents today is actually an ancestor of everyone alive today. Of course, this analysis is only a few years old at best.

The lack of knowledge of this analysis shows that there was a de facto cut off (how far back we know our lineage) if not a de jure one.

ellipsis | August 14, 2008, 4:27pm | #

I'm 1/8th Scottish, which by clan rules means I can wear a kilt.

Also, Native American nations accept anybody with 1/8 or more of that tribe's ancestry.

Perhaps silly, but the line has to be drawn somewhere.

robc | August 14, 2008, 4:27pm | #

joe,

I don't see any language saying they govenrment can't do other forms of studies.

The federal government is only granted specifically listed powers. They cant do other forms of studies because they were not given the power to do other forms of studies. It doesnt have to say they cant do it. It must say they can do it.

joe | August 14, 2008, 4:28pm | #

IIRC, the law only requires you to fill out the # of persons, age, and sex columns. Everything else is voluntary.

It can't be a violation of your privacy rights if you can ignore it at will.

robc | August 14, 2008, 4:29pm | #

joe,

How is adding race and number of toilet questions (seriously, wtf?) to the census form any less legal than having a United States Geological Survey to make soils maps, or sending Lewis and Clark to find mammoths?

It isnt. Although, L&C might be defensible on national defense grounds. Lewis was a Colonel or something wasnt he?

joe | August 14, 2008, 4:30pm | #

robc,

So, it's illegal to have a USGS. Lewis and Clark's expeditions were unconstitutional. Gotcha.

Good luck with that one.

Rhywun | August 14, 2008, 4:31pm | #

"American"=rednecked Scots-Irish, usually.

Yeah, I was wondering about that.

only one county in the whole U.S. is majority Polish?!?

And it's not Erie County, NY (Buffalo)??

Actually, these don't seem to be "majorities" but rather "pluralities". Otherwise how else is New York County "Dominican"? Either way it's an exercise in silliness.

joe | August 14, 2008, 4:31pm | #

Lewis was a Colonel or something wasnt he?

So the entirety of your argument would vanish if the head of either the Census Bureau or the Commerce Department held a military rank?

C'mon.

robc | August 14, 2008, 4:32pm | #

joe,

I think you IIRC wrong. I would be okay with what you said (age and sex are too far, but Im nothing if not reasonable. That is a reasonable compromise on my part :) ). I got the long form and from my reading (which may have been wrong) my failure to fill it out in its entirety was punishable by something like a $500 fine and up to 1 year in jail.

GILMORE | August 14, 2008, 4:33pm | #

Neither here not there, but I stumbled on an interesting sort of neo-nazi racist-nationalist website full of big-wordy data tinkerers who use charts and graphs and stuff to say some really fucking stupid shit =

http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/alon_ziv_on_race_mixing/

here they conclude that the baby that that black songwriter 'Seal' had with ("deranged") white-hottie Heidi Klum aint nearly as pretty as the nice white baby girl she'd had with some other whiter fella.

Only he says it like this =

"The malformed mulatto neonate has grown into a retarded-looking malformed toddler; contrast his features with the beauty of the white child Heidi Klum had previously"

All this learns me is that total fucking idiots love to use lotsa fancy words to make the crazyness less obvious. Or to make themselves feel like they teh smarters than the darkies.

here's the thinking man's version of the Black Isrealites 12-Tribes theory...

http://wiki.majorityrights.com/race

In case you've never seen the Black Israelites thing... =

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wv1wbWGds2s

I've done this before, where I'd hang out with them, and be like, "YEAH!... Totally! White people want to fuck dead people! Say it again! WHoo hoo! You guys want to play fight with swords?"

Best line ever = "Germans are known all over the world for promoting pornography with excrement"

All i can say for sure from all my research, is that racists really like to dress up in funny costumes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOZbdKLY3Lk&feature=related

Thank god for that too.

Dude, there's so many funny videos featuring Black Hebrews vs. The World!! It's better than the Godzilla Series!

Black Israelite vs. 2 Mormons in Bike Helmets!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9q5gS2uAOSU&feature=related

Mormons get pwned!!

Warty | August 14, 2008, 4:33pm | #

When it became known that Ward Churchill was only 1/8 American Indian, it destroyed his reputation as an American Indian scholar, and he was widely derided as a fraud.

I thought this smelled like bullshit, so I took a look around. Lo and behold, he's not 1/8 Indian, he's 0/8 Indian:

The Rocky Mountain News, in 2005, published a genealogy of Churchill, and reported "no evidence of a single Indian ancestor" [of Churchill's]. The News reports that both of Churchill's birth parents are listed as white on the 1930 census, as are all of his other known ancestors on previous censuses and other official documents.[22] The Denver Post's genealogical investigation resulted in the same conclusion.

It amuses me that I'm more Indian than this fraud. At least I think so...I'm somehow blood related to Will Rogers, and he supposedly was 1/32 Cherokee or something. Whatever. This blood/tribal bullshit is stupid.

robc | August 14, 2008, 4:34pm | #

joe,

No, that only applied to exploring the territory. Teh census bureau isnt defending the borders. If L&C could be considered a military trip to plan border defense, which I think it can, it *MIGHT* survive constitutional muster.

Dont read things I didnt say into my writing. You of all people.

kevrob | August 14, 2008, 4:34pm | #

J sub D rocks!

MNG left this out of his Constitution quote:

Art. I, Sec. 3. Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other persons.

The purpose of the enumeration was outlined here as to:

1.) Count people for purposes of representation and

2.) Count people for purposes of taxation. Remember that, under the original Constitution, Federal spending had in any state had to be in proportion to the taxation of that state. The 3/5ths compromise related to both representation and taxation.

So, census questions that stray from the original purpose of determining representation in the House are ultra vires. The Federal spending function has been rendered moot by the 16th Amendment, unless someone can prove that its ratification was fraudulent. [ Big :) ]

Kevin

robc | August 14, 2008, 4:35pm | #

Good luck with that one.

Im well aware that SCOTUS and I disagree on constitutional issues.

joe | August 14, 2008, 4:36pm | #

I got the long form

You poor bastard. No wonder you hate the census.

I suspect the form used ambiguous language like "this form" and didn't specify that you had to fill it out in its entirety. People submit incomplete forms all the time. The census bureau follows up to get the data they can get, but you can't be prosecuted unless you blow off the form entirely.

Now I have to go back and check the most borning book in the world from the grad course I took.

GILMORE | August 14, 2008, 4:39pm | #

as a follow up I would like to add that the Irish are a vile breed of papists who thrive at nothing other than drink, violence, debauchery and song, and will undermine our values and mix with our women and destroy the fabric of our great nation.

And we're doing it too!!! In your face, America!

joe | August 14, 2008, 4:39pm | #

No, that only applied to exploring the territory.

Then show me the language that authorizes the government to explore the territory.

Or record plant and animal specimens.

robc | August 14, 2008, 4:40pm | #

joe,

You poor bastard. No wonder you hate the census.

I decided before it came in 2k that I was only filling out minimum info. The fact that it was the long form didnt change the 10 seconds or so it took to fill it out, I didnt even have to turn to page 2. I did spend some time looking at all the dumbass questions they asked of me.

You may be right about the law. I wasnt actually worried about being prosecuted for failing to fill out the whole thing, but I figured it was a possibility.

robc | August 14, 2008, 4:43pm | #

joe,

Dont fucking cut off my quotes.

"No, that only applied to exploring the territory. Teh census bureau isnt defending the borders. If L&C could be considered a military trip to plan border defense"

Im pretty sure I can show where the federal government has the power to use the military to defend the borders. Finding where the borders actually are seems to be a key part of that. :)

Im not sure if L&C was a legitimate military journey or not, Im just saying it might be possibe to consider it one.

Heck, Im not sure the Louisiana Purchase was constitutional.

Taktix® | August 14, 2008, 4:44pm | #

What about the Cornish?!?!?!

I guess i should not bitch i do have some Russian and polish and probably some Irish to boot. Still my Welsh blood is boiling with indignation.

Uhh, Josh, Cornwall and Wales are two different regions.

Just sayin'.

Andy | August 14, 2008, 4:46pm | #

As long as we get women who look like Jessica Alba, all will be well..

joe | August 14, 2008, 4:49pm | #

Don't swear over nothing, especially when the only part of the quote that is relevant is the fucking part I quoted.

Lewis and Clark did far more than explore the territory for military purposes - they explored it for scientific and political purposes as well. It can be considered to have a military purpose IN ADDITION TO other purposes, which were precisely the same as the purposes of those additional census questions. If anything, the "military purpose" was the least significant.

So, we find ourselves with two precisely equivalent studies, if we go with your idea that the L&C mission was a military one. The government undertakes an activity under a specifically numerated power, then expands the scope of that undertaking to include additional studies.

robc | August 14, 2008, 4:56pm | #

joe,

The 3rd sentence was relevant. My argument wasnt about general exploration, it was about exploration for military purposes. The fact that I put a 2nd sentence between there is bad form on my part, but doesnt mean you get to split my thought up just because I did. :)

Where did I say I considered Lewis and Clark constitutional? The fact that it wasnt for military purpose probably means it wasnt. I just gave TJ and out to argue from.

So, we find ourselves with two precisely equivalent studies, if we go with your idea that the L&C mission was a military one. The government undertakes an activity under a specifically numerated power, then expands the scope of that undertaking to include additional studies.

A. It wasnt my idea that it was military, I think I even put it in the form of a question, but Im too lazy to scroll up to see.

B. Like the census, the expansion beyond the legal stuff would be unconstitutional. So, I agree, if we take them as equivalent, they should be treated equivalently.

Jim Bob | August 14, 2008, 4:56pm | #

Jacob,

Probably brownness or lack thereof.

GILMORE | August 14, 2008, 4:57pm | #

I propose this thread devolve into a niggling bitchfest over some minor historical misinterpretation, where each party pretends to have all facts and constitutional authority at their disposal.

Or, we can talk about crazy black hebrews.??! Come on!

robc | August 14, 2008, 4:58pm | #

GILMORE,

I agree. The niggling bitchfest is clearly preferable to discussing black hebrews.

J sub D | August 14, 2008, 4:58pm | #

BTW, I shamelessly cribbed my reasoning from that used by Justice William O. Douglas in Griswold vs Connecticut.

Liberals (clasical ones in particular) love this ruling.

Warty | August 14, 2008, 4:59pm | #

I was still in high school at the time of the 2000 census, and I remember that almost every house in the neighborhood got the long form. It's a very hoity-toity neighborhood full of doctors and lawyers (we're the Beverly Hillbillies. We have cars in the yard and 50 guns or something, and we blow the neighbors' minds by doing our own house and yard maintenance), so we assumed there were some kind shenanigans going on, like someone somewhere wanted to artificially raise the average income figures or something. My parents and a bunch of the neighbors didn't fill out anything except the names and ages of the people in the household.

Some months later, I came home from school to see a car sitting in front of the house with two stern looking middle-aged women sitting in it. Being a little creeped out, I went over to them. They told me that they were from the Census Bureau, and had come to collect the information that we hadn't filled out. I think they said something about criminal penalties, but I may have invented that memory. It's been 8 years, after all.

Anyway, I told them to go away and went inside and drank some stolen Genessee Cream Ale and fondled some guns. We never heard from the Census again.

Charles | August 14, 2008, 5:01pm | #

It is a scientific fact, from some book I can't remember, that mixed race women tend to be better looking that single (?) race women.

robc | August 14, 2008, 5:02pm | #

J sub D,

Thanks for the link. I had know idea Douglas actually used the 3rd amendment in that ruling. What a dumbass.

robc | August 14, 2008, 5:03pm | #

Charles,

Hybrid vigor?

It also explains Tiger Woods golf game. Not that I would make that argument.

robc | August 14, 2008, 5:05pm | #

"All these emanations failed to impress dissenting Justice Stewart, who could find no constitutional infringements whatever in the law. In what conceivable way, asked he, did Connecticut's birth-control law violate the Third Amendment ban against quartering soldiers in private homes?"

From the linky J sub gave us.

robc | August 14, 2008, 5:07pm | #

If Douglas can decide Griswold on 3rd amendment grounds (in part) then I dont think my 5th amendment suggestion above is even remotely silly. In comparison.

GILMORE | August 14, 2008, 5:07pm | #

robc | August 14, 2008, 4:58pm | #

GILMORE,

I agree. The niggling bitchfest is clearly preferable to discussing black hebrews.

Awwww.

But they have *costumes*!!

Charles | August 14, 2008, 5:01pm | #

It is a scientific fact, from some book I can't remember...

This is one of my favorite lines ever.

I was actually technically registered in the US as an Eskimo until i was about 21. I consistently lied on all my state required tests like Regents and AP and SAT and whatnot, and it made its way somehow into the system. I thought of myself as Nanook of New York.

Hey, they didnt have 'dirty irish' as an ethnic tickbox. what do you want.

robc | August 14, 2008, 5:09pm | #

GILMORE,

Land any eskimo scholarships?

Charles | August 14, 2008, 5:10pm | #

Hybrid vigor sounds right-ish. It also explains why so many dalmatians are so stupid.

matth | August 14, 2008, 5:15pm | #

Joe, you've been around here for a while. Are you really surprised that many of us have a fairly restrictive view of what the constitution authorizes?

And, prior to moving to Vermont, I lived in Jackson MS, Augusta GA, and New Orleans. Can I tell you what interesting characteristic they all share? My white ass was in the minority. You know what? I miss the visual diversity. I wouldn't mind a little more diversity in Vermont.

GILMORE | August 14, 2008, 5:34pm | #

robc | August 14, 2008, 5:09pm | #

GILMORE,

Land any eskimo scholarships?

In fact YES mon frere! Good read!

My dad was so pissed. Cornell and Dartmouth both invited me to visit in a special "diversity recruiting" drive. Other colleges sent all sorts of unexpected recruiting media to our home. My pop finally caught on when he reviewed my transcripts, then forced me to write letters to the schools and then to the College Board that provided my test scores to universities to both apologize and correct the confusion. In my heart of hearts though, i still FELT eskimo. Even now I yearn for a chunk of raw seal meat.

I'd actually been applying to Cornell anyway and he was pissed because i'd probably screwed any chance of getting in. Brown probably didnt care, but he wasnt paying for me to go there in any case (*too libberal and lamo)

I fortunately ended up going to a top-flight racist southern university. They thought "Yankee" was fucked-up-diverse enough as it was.

Mr. Nice Guy | August 14, 2008, 6:12pm | #

Yes, that language is there (I didn't cut it out for nefarious purposes but because it is very long and obscures the point I was making, that of the very breadth of the "as directed by law" provision). To paraphrase, fairly I think, the Constitution here says "congresspersons will be allocated based on a count, which will be done however Congress decides." That's the paraphrase, and to argue that the first part, which proposes a purpose for the count, controls the specific grant of discretion in the second, is a hard argument to make. I'm not sure why anyone who doesn't already just hate to see the government do "more stuff as opposed to less" would ever buy it.

And as robc admits, the Founders were not a bunch of guys who necessarily hated seeing the government do more stuff. They certainly wanted it to do less stuff than our current leaders do, but they were hardly libertarians. They wanted a national government that was limited, yes, but also vigorous, and while they often were very specific in their grants of power they also used broad grants too (like "make rules for the navy and army" or "any manner directed by law"). So there is not even really a compelling argument to be made that historical or textual context exists to over-ride the most reasonable explanation of the language, that there is to be a count but done however the Congress decides. And the Congress has decided to stick all those extra questions in. Notably there is NO language explicitly placing ANY limit on the type of information to be gathered. None.

Mr. Nice Guy | August 14, 2008, 6:14pm | #

And let's be fair to Griswold. The argument was not that the 3rd Amendment controlled, it was that if you look at the 9th's promise of unenumerated rights, and then in trying to discern what they are you notice that the 1st, the 5th, the 3rd, the 4th, etc., all seem to touch on the same abstract right of privacy (privacy of thought, privacy of home, privacy of stuff), then you get a right of privacy.

It's not the strongest argument in the world, but it's not as terrible as many of its detractors make it out to be imo.

R C Dean | August 14, 2008, 6:19pm | #

I don't see any language saying they govenrment can't do other forms of studies.

And there we have the descent into the Total State in a nutshell.

This is supposed to be a government of enumerated powers. The first question isn't "Do you see anything that specifically prohibits the government from doing this", its "Do you see anything that specifically allows the government to do this".

J sub D | August 14, 2008, 6:51pm | #

And let's be fair to Griswold. The argument was not that the 3rd Amendment controlled, it was that if you look at the 9th's promise of unenumerated rights, and then in trying to discern what they are you notice that the 1st, the 5th, the 3rd, the 4th, etc., all seem to touch on the same abstract right of privacy (privacy of thought, privacy of home, privacy of stuff), then you get a right of privacy.

I am fair to Griswold. I'm a libertarian for cryin' out loud. Privacy rights exist in "the specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights [that] have penumbras formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance". It may be crappy composition but he was right. And whether I consider myself white, black or a Turk is a private matter and noe of the governments goddam business. Just like whether I use a rubber or smoke a little reefer now and then.

Understand?

Mr. Nice Guy | August 14, 2008, 7:19pm | #

RC if the people felt it was necessary to jump through whatever hoops were necessary to make most of what it now does "enumerated" they would (a la the 16th Amendment). Most of the modern state is a direct result of the people asking for it to fix what they saw as horrible problems.

J sub D
As noted, the've been asking a race question since 1790, so they must find it useful for something!

Seriously though, you don't find it interesting for example that we are reaching a minority majority status? Of that New Meixco is xx% Hispanic and was xx% Hispanic ten or twenty years ago? I think the information provided by the Census to be a genuine public good, accessible to anyone interested. I imagine those not interested are quite dull fucking people ("I don't care about what's happening out there, now gimme my remote control!").

Oh yeah, remembering what site I'm on I should mention that the private sector would not provide such accessible and comprehensive information. Since they HAVE to count anyway, why not ask the extra questions? Wtf?

Mr. Nice Guy | August 14, 2008, 7:39pm | #

Even a broke clock is right twice a day. The Census is one of those golden things the government does.

MikeP | August 14, 2008, 7:58pm | #

Mr. Nice Guy,

Unfortunately, statistics are not the mere intellectual amusement for far too many social engineers that they are for you.

This was well known by the person most responsible for the miracle that is Hong Kong, viz.:

Asked what is the key thing poor countries should do, Cowperthwaite once remarked: "They should abolish the Office of National Statistics." In Hong Kong, he refused to collect all but the most superficial statistics, believing that statistics were dangerous: they would led the state to to fiddle about remedying perceived ills, simultaneously hindering the ability of the market economy to work. This caused consternation in Whitehall: a delegation of civil servants were sent to Hong Kong to find out why employment statistics were not being collected; Cowperthwaite literally sent them home on the next plane back.

J sub D | August 14, 2008, 8:11pm | #

Seriously though, you don't find it interesting for example that we are reaching a minority majority status?

WTF? Are there going to be more foreigners than Americans or something?

I'm a apostate catholic atheist, I could give a shit if "white" people pecome a plurality vice a majority. I've been a minority my whole life.

Mr. Nice Guy | August 14, 2008, 8:56pm | #

J sub D
So like Colbert, you don't "see race?"

I'm interested in social phenomena. You should look into it (in fact, you do, as evidenced by your participation here). Our understanding of it is GREATLY influenced by government collected stats.

MikeP
I'm well aware of the libertarian hard on for Hong Kong.

Hong Kong is a city, not a country. The NYC economy is much better than most counties in NY state. To quote economist Adam Sandler "whoopedy-doo!"

Antiglobalist | August 14, 2008, 11:12pm | #

Forgive me for that last message, folks. I'm just a pathetic neo-Nazi troll/loser and my mommy didn't hold me enough as a child. I'm also a hypocrite for being a Nazi and listening to metal, which has its roots in rock n' roll (which used to be called nigger music by my Klan buddies).

I think pluralism doesn't work because I've never heard of Stitzerland or Singapore before.

I'm also still a virgin. Please pity me.

Paul | August 15, 2008, 12:00am | #

So maybe you think it's an unwise use of constitutionally granted authority for Congress to direct the Census in its current fashion, but it ain't unconstitutional.

Enumeration.
e·nu·mer·ate (ĭ-nōō'mə-rāt', -nyōō'-) Pronunciation Key tr.v. e·nu·mer·at·ed, e·nu·mer·at·ing, e·nu·mer·ates

To count off or name one by one

Not "statistical sampling". Oh hey, that reminds me. I wonder if our left-leaning friends are going to shut the fuck up about filling out all the little boxes about race and religion-- you know, so the government can keep track of what persuasion you are, not just how many you are-- since 9/11?

I'm wondering if the government couldn't do a little data-mining on everyone who checks "muslim".

The Census is one of those golden things the government does.

*smiles*

Despite their desperate-- I say 'desperate'-- attempts to fuck it up for the 2000 census.

austin | August 15, 2008, 10:42am | #

Minorities like blacks and Latinos have lagged in socioeconomic indicators because of institutional discrimination. Minorities like Asians had been excluded to even enter the US for a certain period because of discrimination in immigration policies specifically aimed at them, such as the Chinese Exclusion Act. Non-hispanic whites largely did not experience institutional or cultural discrimination. That is why that majority-minority marker is noteworthy. Having said that, I must say that the US has come a long way and have made great progress. So, I am dubious about the relevance of the majority-minority nation by the year 2042 or 2050.

mutterhals | August 15, 2008, 12:07pm | #

I couldn't agree more. That headline was slathered all over the internet yesterday, with the obvious intention of riling 'whites', whoever they may be.

wayne | August 15, 2008, 2:35pm | #

Two questions:
1. who is oppressed?
2. who are the oppressers?

GILMORE | August 17, 2008, 10:32am | #

Answers =

1. The oppressed

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IN5StQAr7n0&feature=related

2. The oppressors

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmK07gRcVo0