Article One Section Two Clause Three of our Constitution says:
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 to 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 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 Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse [sic] three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.
Although segments of this provision have since been amended, including the 3/5th provision and the number of citizens a Representative shall represent, the fundamentals of the provision are unchanged to this day.
Primarily, the purpose of the census is still only two-fold. The census is used to determine the number of representatives per state and it is used to determine the amount of DIRECT taxes each state must pay. No other provision in the Constitution dictates that the census be used for ANYTHING else. Although, now days there's no longer any direct apportioned tax. Though, that provision of the clause has never been repealed.
The real problem with the Census Clause is not what it says, but what our out of control government has transformed it into. Today, on television, I saw a public service announcement encouraging us to cooperate with the census process not because its our constitutional duty, but because it will help make sure that government aid to our state is not adversely affected. WHAT?!
Read that clause again. WHERE does it say ANYTHING about using the census to help determine how much charity the federal government gives to each state? This is warped on so many levels.
And now, the President wants to take complete control over the Census, bringing it completely in house. He had originally planned on having his ACORN buddies hired to do the job...a nice little perk for helping get him elected and a guarantee that the results will meet his desires.
However, in my humble opinion, the most obscene usurpation of this provision in the Constitution surrounds the apportionment of taxes amongst the states. Originally, taxes were collected by the federal government from the states, not the people. The amount of money the states each paid was tied into their population. The states would then collect taxes from the people of the state to pay this debt to the federal government.
The government was not afforded, by the Constitution, the right to collect unapportioned direct taxes from the people. Numerous court cases confirmed this up until 1913. What happened in 1913? (Read The Creature from Jekyl Island for a thorough understanding of the institution of the federal income tax). In 1913, the sixteenth amendment which, apparently, gave the feds a new power to tax the people directly and without apportionment. Although, the courts didn't actually agree with that assessment. The Brubaker case in 1918 indicated that the sixteenth amendment gave the government NO NEW POWER of taxation. So, let me get this straight, if the courts said for decades prior, that the feds had NO power to tax the directly without apportionment, then went on to say that the sixteenth amendment gave them no new powers to tax, what the heck gives them the idea that they now have the power to tax us directly and without apportionment?
We've been hoodwinked, my friends. This is all connected with the Federal Reserve and controls the government now has over our monetary system. No wonder Jefferson once said that the government's power to print money was more dangerous to a free country than any standing army.