Bachmann Vows To Shun ACORN Influence, Leave Census Form Partly Blank (Note: This Is Illegal)
In an interview with the Washington Times, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) vowed that in the upcoming census, she and her family will refuse to answer personal questions on the forms beyond the number of people in her household -- which is, in fact, against the law:
"I know for my family the only question we will be answering is how many people are in our home," said Bachmann, who warned of corrupt ACORN involvement in the census. "We won't be answering any information beyond that, because the Constitution doesn't require any information beyond that."
In fact, as a Census Bureau spokeswoman told the Washington Times, what Bachmann just announced she would do is a crime punishable by a fine of up to $5,000. But hey, there's something to be said for civil disobedience.
(Via Think Progress)
Josh
Matt
Eric
Brian
Maybe if Bachmann can convince enough people to follow her lead, we can collect the fines and fund health care reform.
June 17, 2009 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Except that law enforcement won't touch her and the MSM will ignore this. Of course if it was say for example Al Gore or another Democrat they would be talking it up 24/7.
June 17, 2009 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hopefully she'll use this same 'reasoning' to justify underpaying her taxes. Maybe then the government would take notice?
June 17, 2009 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
We have a member of Congress whose every public utterance is a nearly verbatim recitation of a part of the the militia fringe creed, and no one in the MSM seems to think it's even mildly disturbing, much less downright sinister.
June 17, 2009 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
For more information about this issue and the many other issues related to the 2010 Census, please check out www.MyTwoCensus.com, the non-partisan watchdog blog of the 2010 Census.
June 18, 2009 1:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
If Bachmann could convince everybody in her district to comply as poorly, not just those to whom a $5000 fine is a minor hindrance, the federal government would have to assume there are few people in the district who benefit from any federal government program assistance. That'd be right in keeping with Bachmann's own philosophy. It'd also get her booted out on her butt when it became clear she was the ringleader who helped them cut off their noses to spite their faces.
June 18, 2009 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
even better, we should encourage all wingnuts in wingnut-majority areas not to complete the sociofasciolistic census form at all, leading to wondrous reapportionment. call it the new southern strategy. too bad they can't lose a senate seat that way....
June 19, 2009 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's concerning to me that Michele Bachmann finds everything concerning to her.
June 19, 2009 9:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Since she is so credulous and averse to fact checking--who is pulling her strings? And why would they care to make her such a pathetic joke? Is there such a large looney constituency in MN that craves the raw meat of fabulism? I can't believe that she is the author of her own psycho-drama.
June 19, 2009 9:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
She has a point. When I look in her eyes, I think, "No one's home".
June 19, 2009 9:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Aaaaannnnnd down the stretch come.... Limbaugh by a nose over Hoekstra. Bachmann making a charge on the outside, with Cheney close behind. Here comes Bachmann! She's charging like a raving lunatic... SHE IS A RAVING LUNATIC! Two furlongs to go, and Bachmann has surged into the lead!!!"
June 19, 2009 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh my god- Are those horses running BACKWARDS? All I see is horse's asses!!1!
June 19, 2009 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
As for the earlier post handicapping the race of the Republican horses or more accurately south ends of north bound horses don't forget Iowa's Steve King.
June 19, 2009 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
C'mon now, she had to say something. After all, the Iranian election has kept her out of the news for the past week.
I hate to contradict such a noted constitutional scholar as Rep. Bachmann, but Article I, section 2, clause 2 states (in part):
which to me would indicate that the census could pretty much ask anything that its enabling legislation says it can.
June 19, 2009 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Instead trying to come up with some sort of Constitutional justification for her planned actions, she should have just said:
"A census taker once tried to test me. I ate his liver. With some fava beans, and a nice Chianti."
That would probably scare those scary negro ACORN census takers away, huh?
June 19, 2009 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh Michele...I was so starting to miss your particular brand of right wing craziness, what with Hoekstra (I had to answer a census question, now I know what it feels like to experience "enhanced interrogation") and Rush and the crew. It's so good and reassuring to know that you are still out there letting everyone know what ass hats the Republicans really are!
June 19, 2009 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who are the people in MN content to be represented by this bat-shit crazy woman?
June 19, 2009 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
This woman could have an entire chapter devoted to her in an Abnormal Psychology book. Hell, she should be the cover art. She's just mentally outside the box, around the corner, jumping the sharks.
June 19, 2009 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Michelle can now kiss the genealogist vote good-bye.
The crazy thing is, the 2010 census is set up to be all short-form -- none of the extensive long-form stuff like some households got in 2000. It's only asking for the very basic sort of information that has been included on federal censuses for more than a century and a half. (Yeah, I know, we've been taking censuses since 1790, but until 1850, the only name that was asked for was that of the head of the household, and ages were only given in broad ranges.)
The 2010 census will be far less intrusive than the one from 1910, which wanted to know, among other things, how long a couple had been married; how many children any woman in the household had given birth to, and how many of those children were still living; the birth place of every member of the household and the birthplaces of their parents; whether or not you were out of work on the official census date; how many weeks you had been out of work during the previous calendar year; and whether you were blind or deaf.
I don't understand why people like Michelle Bachmann are OK with having the NSA pulling in millions of pieces of private e-mail, but object to telling the federal census taker the names and ages of the people in her household and how they are related to one another.
June 19, 2009 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink