The Washington Times recently covered Rep. Michelle Bachmann's vow to not complete next year’s national census due to concerns that include the potential of ACORN door-to-door information collection efforts. The piece notes the Congresswoman stating that “the Constitution doesn’t require any information” other than “how many people are in (her) home.”

Shelly Lowe, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Census Bureau, was quoted saying that Rep. Bachmann is "misreading" the law. Lowe also apparently sent “a portion of the U.S. legal code that says anyone over 18 years of age who refuses to answer ‘any of the questions’ on the census can be fined up to $5,000.”

This is quite laughable at many levels, as Lowe seems to not recognize the difference between the United States Constitution and statutory law. Perhaps she is a victim of a pandemic that has swept federal bureaucrats into believing that all laws, rules, and regulations are explicitly constitutional.

Let’s see whether she’s right. According to Article I, Section 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.”

In light of this, should any reasonable person assume that there is a constitutional rationale to include areas of demography other than a headcount of constituents? I fail to see a basis upon which to ask questions regarding age, gender, race, nationality, socio-economic status, marital status, sexual orientation, hobbies, favorite NFL team, etc., for the exclusive purpose of congressional districting (no vested interest or conflict regarding ACORN’s involvement, of course).

The Times notes that Lowe claimed that the Congresswoman was “misreading the law;” however, Bachmann didn’t claim to have read “the law.” She only made mentioned of that which is she is constitutionally obligated to respond to.

“The law” is 13USC221, which by the way only states that anyone over the age of 18 who refuses to answer census questions “shall be fined not more than $100.” One who “willfully gives any answer that is false, shall be fined not more than $500.”

Where is Lowe’s $5,000 fine mentioned? Oh, here it is. The bureau’s FAQ site claims that 18USC3571 and 18USC3559 “in effect amends (sic)”13USC221 “by changing the fine for anyone over 18 years old who refuses or willfully neglects to complete the questionnaire or answer questions posed by census takers from a fine of not more than $100 to not more than $5,000.”

The bureau is utilizing scare tactics to make one think that Title 18, which refers to maximum sentencing and fines for any potential federal felony, misdemeanor, or infraction actually amends that which has indeed not been amended and is fully intact under 13USC221. Just look at how loose the language is and notice how it only appears as an answer to an FAQ and is not codified as law anywhere. If you don’t believe me, search Title 18 all you want.

On a side note, allow me to point out that 13USC221 also states that “no person shall be compelled to disclose information relative to his religious beliefs or to membership in a religious body.” Good to see that the bureau is required to respect at least some degree of our privacy.

Whether I am part of the sample for the ongoing American Community Survey or the 2010 Census, which will be mailed to every U.S. household in March, I plan to echo Congresswoman Bachmann’s stance, and will only answer that which I am constitutionally obligated to provide a response for. If I face a mere $100 fine, so be it. Privacy is well worth it.

Citizens of the City and County of San Francisco utterly abuse the initiative and referendum system by petitioning for Proposition R – “Renaming the Oceanside Water Treatment Plant.”  If it receives a fifty percent plus one affirmative vote, it would change the name to the George W. Bush Sewage Plant.

There certainly are valid arguments for an against the process that many western state and local governments have instituted – some are fond of the practice of direct or “pure democracy,” and some argue that it undermines a republican form of representative government and can lead to “mob rule.”

Regardless of either argument, the City and County of San Francisco has enabled a group of citizens with obvious ill-intent to create legislation that creates an official public proclamation of disrespect for a soon-to-be former President of the United States.

Furthermore, while the renaming will have a only a minute fiscal impact on the City and County, tax dollars are being used to publish the voter guide that enables citizens to publicly defame a President in a manner that is far above and beyond that which simply provides an objective manner in which to persuade voters to affirm the proposition.

While it is clear that President Bush has lacked popularity for much of his administration and one can arguably disagree with many of his policies and actions, as do I, it is utterly shameful and immature to utilize a taxpayer owned municipal/county facility as a symbol of dishonor of any public official, let alone an eight-year Commander-in-Chief of the United States of America.  I would have the same viewpoint regardless of the President in question.

Do not let it be mistaken that I am not an ardent proponent of the First Amendment.  I am not arguing for censorship nor claiming that any illegal action has been taken.  I would certainly even decry a lawsuit against the City and County for enabling the name change and furthermore would be disappointed in a federal judge or panel of judges that would award damages to a given plaintiff taking action against government officials.

This is a matter ethics and maturity.  Individuals have numerous fora in which to “Bush bash."  Need such hatred and disrespect be expressed on the title of a governmental facility as well as within the text of government-issued so-called voter education?

Read pages 202-205 here to see what I am talking about.

I suppose I could have discounted this as simply being yet another “whacky” action to come out of San Francisco, but this one I could not leave alone. Those involved are downright childish.

- Craig

It will be interesting to see how the numbers shake out going into next week, given the fact that Rasmussen is now viewed as more favorable in the public eye than both Obama and McCain. Rasmussen

Her speech on Wednesday night also got greater viewership than Obama’s last Thursday. AP

Oprah doesn't want Palin? Oh well... I wouldn't consider that an insult by any means. Apparently Palin's story is not Oprah-worthy but since a "pregnant man" (no - a woman with a mastectomy and testosterone treatments) is, I suppose Palin should take this as a complement. TMZ Oprah

-         Craig

Oh, and why didn’t he address what exactly he was doing visiting Rielle Hunter at the Beverly Hills Hilton last month without telling his wife? Was he perhaps visiting his baby?

At any rate, while I am deeply sympathetic toward the Senator, Elizabeth, and their three children and hope and pray that they have already become stronger as a family since 2006, I selfishly hope that Edwards is to the Democrats in 2006 what Mark Foley was to the Republicans in 2008; however, I am sure his party will give him a pass just as they do every six years with Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd, and he will likely keep his Senate seat when up for re-election in 2010. Hopefully he’s wise enough to give up his presidential ambitions though…

John Edwards' statement

By POLITICO STAFF| 8/8/08 5:16 PM EST

STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN EDWARDS

August 8, 2008

Chapel Hill, North Carolina

In 2006, I made a serious error in judgment and conducted myself in a way that was disloyal to my family and to my core beliefs. I recognized my mistake and I told my wife that I had a liaison with another woman, and I asked for her forgiveness. Although I was honest in every painful detail with my family, I did not tell the public. When a supermarket tabloid told a version of the story, I used the fact that the story contained many falsities to deny it. But being 99% honest is no longer enough.

I was and am ashamed of my conduct and choices, and I had hoped that it would never become public. With my family, I took responsibility for my actions in 2006 and today I take full responsibility publicly. But that misconduct took place for a short period in 2006. It ended then. I am and have been willing to take any test necessary to establish the fact that I am not the father of any baby, and I am truly hopeful that a test will be done so this fact can be definitively established. I only know that the apparent father has said publicly that he is the father of the baby. I also have not been engaged in any activity of any description that requested, agreed to or supported payments of any kind to the woman or to the apparent father of the baby.

It is inadequate to say to the people who believed in me that I am sorry, as it is inadequate to say to the people who love me that I am sorry. In the course of several campaigns, I started to believe that I was special and became increasingly egocentric and narcissistic. If you want to beat me up – feel free. You cannot beat me up more than I have already beaten up myself. I have been stripped bare and will now work with everything I have to help my family and others who need my help.

I have given a complete interview on this matter and having done so, will have nothing more to say.