Enumeration vs. Census

06 Jul

Seal of the United States Census Bureau. The b...

Image via Wikipedia

In response to my article “Birth Certificates for Slaves?,” one of my readers posted a lengthy comment about the 16th Amendment and income taxes.  I started to write a brief reply but, as usual, the more you look the more you see, so my “brief reply grew into the following article:

Article 1.2.3 of The Constitution of the United States declares in part,


First, note that in the phrase “Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers,” the word “States” clearly refers only those member-States of the “Union” (“The United States of America”).

Second, in that same phrase, note the relationship of “States” to “their respective Numbers”.

What “Numbers” are they talking about?

Clearly, not the “Numbers” of “States” (thirteen or forty-eight or fifty, etc.)  but rather the “Numbers” of the People who comprise each of the States of the Union.  Article 1.2.3 tells us absolutely that the States of the Union are first and foremost composed of People.  States of the Union may have certain limited territories and they may have a State government,” but the essential feature of every State of the Union is the People.  These People don’t merely “inhabit” the State as if it were as if it were house, or a territory or some entity other than the People.  Instead, the People comprise and are the State of the Union.

This insight isn’t “news”.  It’s been fairly common knowledge that the People comprise the States for some time.  But finding an apparent “authority”–right there in the Constitution–to support that common knowledge is important.

We can infer from the fact that the People comprise each individual State of the Union, that the Union (“The United States of America”) is also composed of People rather than territory.  That “Union” of People may have or own territory, but that Union is not comprised by territory.  It’s comprised by People.

Third, under Article 1.2.3. of the federal Constitution, “Enumeration” of “their respective Numbers” was clearly intended to count the number of People who comprise each of the States of the Union.

Fourth, note that Article 1.2.3 makes no express reference to territories in the requirement for “apportionment”.  This makes perfect sense since a “territory” is, by definition, a fixed geographic area that may or may not be inhabited.  You can have a “territory” without any people, but you can’t have a State of the Union without any People.  Therefore, while an “Enumeration” of the People comprising each State of the Union makes perfect sense, what would be the point of conducting an “Enumeration” (under Article 1.2.3) of a territory if 1) the territory could be uninhabited; and 2) even if the territory were inhabited, the people therein were not members of a State of the Union.  If the purpose of an “Enumeration” is to count up the total number of People who comprise the Union, and the people of the territories are not members of that Union, there’s no requirement for “apportionment” among the territories and therefore no requirement for a territorial “Enumeration”.

Thus, it appears that an “Enumeration” of the sort described and defined at Article 1.2.3 should only apply to the States (people) of the Union—not to any “territory” or territorial inhabitants.

•  Any doubt as to whether “Enumeration” also applies to the territories should be ended by noting that the fundamental purposes of an “Enumeration” under Article 1.2.3 are to determine:

1) the amount direct taxes to be apportioned; and

2) number of “Representatives” that might be elected by each State and sent to Congress.

Insofar as the Constitution makes no proviso for electing “Representatives” to Congress for Territories and Washington DC, the purposes for “Enumeration” as condition precedent for electing “Representatives” must only apply to the States of the Union.  We can infer from the fact that the territories have no elected Representatives to Congress, that the territories are not subject to an “enumeration”.   More, given that under Article 4.3.2, Congress has exclusive legislative jurisdiction over the territories, Congress has absolute power to impose any tax it wants, any time it wants, on the territories or their inhabitants without regard to any “enumeration”.

More, the idea of “apportioning” both taxes and Representatives in Congress means that the number of Representatives and the amount of federal taxes imposed on each State of the Union would be determined according to the number of people who comprise each State.  If an “Enumeration” of the “respective Numbers” of people comprising The State of Virginia and The State of New York determined that The State of Virginia was comprised of twice as many people as The State of New York, then The State of Virginia would be entitled to twice as many Representatives in Congress as The State of New York, and, broadly speaking, the people comprising The State of Virginia would also be subject to twice as much federal tax as the people comprising The State of New York.

•  Once the federal “Enumeration” determined the “respective Numbers” of People comprising each State, the number of Representatives and the amount of taxes for each State would also be determined.  But once the number of Representatives and the amount of taxes to be apportioned (according to population) to each State was decided by the federal “Enumeration,” it was up to each State to decide how to allocate its total number of Representatives and federally imposed taxes among the People of that State.

The State of New York might be entitled to ten Representatives in Congress.  Based on State-wide population distribution, three of those ten Representatives might be allocated to New York City.  But within New York City, how should you divide up that community so one part of the City could only vote for one Representative, another part of the City could only vote for the second, and another part would vote only for the third?  That was up to the State government to determine. The feds determined how many representatives each State might have.  It was up to each State to fairly allocate those representatives among their State’s population.

•  Same thing with federal taxes.

Based on the federal “Enumeration” of the population comprising each State, New York’s “fair share” of federal taxes might be $100 million.  Nebraska’s “fair share” might be $10 million.  Once that the total tax was imposed on New York and Nebraska, it would be up to each State’s government to determine who or whose conduct among the people of that particular State would bear the new tax.  Within The State of New York, they might choose to raise the $100 million due to the federal government by imposing a tax on the manufacture of clothing.  Within The State of Nebraska, the legislature might decide to raise the $10 million due to the feds by imposing an new tax on the sale of corn.  Another State might impose a general sales tax among its People.

As I understand it, while the federal tax imposed on each State of the Union was based on the number of People comprising that State, the federal tax could not be directly imposed by the federal government on each of the People of the States of the Union.

•  Article 1.9.4 declares:


In the phrase “Census or Enumeration,” I see ambiguity.

When the Founders wrote “Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken” at Article 1.9.4,  the phrase “Enumeration herein before directed to be taken” they clearly referred to the “Enumeration” required at the previous Article 1.2.3.   That “Enumeration” in Article 1.2.3 seems certain to apply only to the States of the Union.  Therefore, the “Enumeration” referred in Article 1.9.4 must also apply only to the States of the Union.

But, oddly, Article 1.9.4 includes the phrase “Census or Enumeration”.  OK—insofar as the word “Enumeration” in both Article 1.2.3 and 1.9.4 refers only to States of the Union—what does the word “Census” mean?

Are we to believe that “Census” is simply a synonym for “Enumeration”?  Was the word “Census” added gratuitously, but without conveying any additional meaning?  Was the word “Census” superfluous or redundant?

I can’t point to the case, but as I recall, the Supreme Court has ruled that every word in the Constitution is to be treated as having meaning and relevance.  No words are to be deemed superfluous or gratuitous.

If so, “Census” should not be synonymous with “Enumeration”.

If “Census” and “Enumeration” are not synonymous, how do they differ?

Given that both terms refer to the counting of people, is it possible that “Enumeration” clearly applies to counting the People of the States of the Union while “Census” is intended to count to the people of the territories?

If so, when you submit to a “census” are you presumed to be one of the People of a State of the Union?  Or, by submitting to the “Census,” have you voluntary declared yourself to be a person who inhabits a territory?

•  The plot thickened a bit (or curdled, depending your perspective) with the enactment of the 14th Amendment (A.D. 1868).

Section 2 of the 14th affected the “Enumeration” requirement of Article 1.2.3 , by declaring in part, “Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.”

This phrase eliminated the previous “Enumeration” of “those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and . . . three fifths of all other Persons.”  This elimination in the 14th Amendment was probably based on the 13th Amendment which prohibited both slavery and involuntary servitude within the States of the Union.

The “three fifths of all other Persons” referred to slaves.  Prior to the 13th and 14th Amendments, each slave within a State of the Union was “enumerated” as 3/5ths of a man.  Under Article 2 of the 14th Amendment, if a State dared to designate any of its people as “slaves,” it’s representation in Congress would be proportionally reduced.  I.e., if a particular State of the Union was entitled to 10 Representatives in Congress, but regarded 10% of its population to be slaves, that States would lose 10% of its Representatives and be allowed to elect only 9 Representatives to Congress.

•  In Article 1.2.3, the phrase, “those bound to service for a Term of Years” included those who were not slaves, but had voluntarily entered into a trust indenture whereby, in return for passage to the United States, or a piece of land, or a sum of money, an individual man had agreed to enter in a “service” or “servitude” as indentured servant (fiduciary) working for a “term of years” for his creditor (beneficiary).

Under Article 1.2.3, those who had voluntarily entered into a servitude (fiduciary relationship) “for a term of years” would be counted in the “Enumeration” that would determine the number of Representative and federal taxes to be apportioned to each State of the Union.   But, under section 2 of the 14th Amendment, it’s unclear whether the “counting of persons in each State” would, or would not, count those who had entered into a voluntary servitude “for a term of years”.

This makes for a fascinating rabbit trail.

Let’s suppose that by using a So-So Security Number, it was presumed that I’d voluntarily entered into some fiduciary relationship with the federal gov-co wherein I agreed to act as fiduciary for the benefit of the gov-co beneficiary.  Or, perhaps by virtue of using Federal Reserve Notes, could it be presumed that I had entered into some other fiduciary relationship?   Admittedly, these supposed fiduciary relationships might not have an express “term of years” referenced in Article 1.2.3.

But if I were deemed to have entered into any voluntary servitude, under Section 2 of the 14th Amendment, could I still be “counted” as one of the “persons in each State” of the Union?

If not, what (under Section 2 of the 14th) would the consequences be if virtually everyone within that State of the Union was deemed to have voluntarily entered into a fiduciary relationship by means of Social Security Numbers, using FRNs, applying for a drivers license or a voters registration, etc.?  Would the State be presumed to be “depopulated”?  Given that a State of the Union I comprised of People, is a State without People necessarily reduced to the status of a mere “territory”?

In fact, if you’re in a mood to speculate, we might even suppose that if I were not counted as one of the “persons” in my State of the Union, and I were nevertheless taxed, would I have a ground for complaining about taxation without representation?

•  Here’s the balance of Section 2 of the 14th Amendment:


That text is confusing.  I don’t like the requirement that the injured parties be “citizens of the United States” (undoubtedly, these are the “citizens” declared in the first sentence of the 14th Amendment).

But, in broad strokes, the text might be interpreted to imply that if the rights of some of the People comprising a State of the Union to vote for any of the Executive, Judicial, or Legislative officers or representatives of that State of the Union were “denied” or “in any way abridged,” that the State’s number of Representatives in Congress would be proportionally diminished.

Let’s suppose that my notions concerning the difference between The States of the Union and the territories were roughly correct.  (See,

If so, the States of the Union may have been supplanted by “territorial states” (actually, administrative districts of a single national “territory” under the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of Congress).  But the governments of the States of the Union would no longer be operable.

If so, wouldn’t you and I be voting for territorial officers whenever we voted in a “state” (actually, territorial) election?

If so, would your and my rights (declared at Section 2 of the 14th Amendment) to vote for legislative, executive and judicial officers of our State of the Union be denied or “in any way abridged”?  I.e., if we were deceived into voting for officers and officials of some territory rather than those of a State of the Union, wouldn’t our right to vote for officers and officials of our State of the Union be “denied” or somehow “abridged”?

If we could prove (under Section 2 of the 14th Amendment) that virtually every voter was being denied his right to vote for officers of The State of the Union, could we attack “this state’s” ability to send Representatives to Congress?

If we could, would we want to?

I’m not sure.  But the speculation is intriguing.

•  The phrase “census or enumeration” appears again in the 16th Amendment (ratified in A.D. 1913).  This Amendment is widely believed to have provided the constitutional foundation for the income tax.

The 16th declared:


Again, we see the phrase “census or enumeration” (just like Article 1.9.4).

Again, we’re left to wonder if use of the word “census” is superfluous or redundant.

Again, we’re left to wonder if “census” and “enumeration” are synonymous, or if the “enumeration” applies only to States of the Union while “census” applies only to the territories.

If “census” is synonymous with “enumeration,” why didn’t they write “thingamabob” or “whatchamacallit” instead of “census”?

The word “census” must mean something other than the word “enumeration”—which apparently applies only to the States of the Union.

I can’t prove it, but I suspect that the “census” is intended to refer to counting the number of persons in a territory.

Alternatively, perhaps a “census” covers both States of the Union and Territories while an “enumeration” only covers States of the Union.

•  Thus, judging from Articles 1.2.3  and 1.9.4 and the 16th Amendment, it might be possible to argue that by means of a “census” the income tax might be imposed only in the territories, but that same income tax might not be applied within the State of the Union without an “enumeration”.  Conversely, if you submit to a “census,” you might thereby be presumed to have voluntarily submitted to the federal income tax.


Tags: , , , , ,

13 responses to “Enumeration vs. Census

  1. Rich H

    July 6, 2011 at 10:54 AM

    There wouldn’t be any 16th Amendment if it were not for the 14th. Interesting that you brought up section 2 of the 14th Amendment. Basically, voting is illegal except in rebellion. Rebellion against what exactly? Against lawful (de jure) government.

    Income tax is imposed on US citizens. Voting is prima facie evidence that one has given up (rebelled against) their rights under the de jure system, and have unwittingly become a US citizen who is obliged to pay taxes and obey statutes/private law. Maybe the link I provided above explains it better.

  2. Zeke

    July 6, 2011 at 3:14 PM

    Personally for me, after 30 years of rabbit holes and defacto v dejure, the supreme court finally weighed in on June 16, 2011 to admit 72 years of denial of Tenth Amendment Rights for individuals in Bond v. United States Everyone should read it.

    No lawyer or representative of any kind is going to tell you about this case. It only applies to INDIVIDUALS who now have the power to challenge the legislative authority on Tenth Amendment grounds upon Article III STANDING!!! Best case ever!

  3. Hermes

    July 7, 2011 at 2:07 PM

    Thank the Lord I have found fresh AIR! The commentors are making sense of the cacophony that is my mind. I’m sure many of you probably felt the same way until something clicked and it all made sense. I am not quite there, but I am getting very, very close.

    I just wanted to drop a line in the newest post to say thanks to Adask and all those who come in here and document significant legal references for those seeking true, god ordained freedom. I’ve been researching this topic on/off again for around three years. I hope to contribute what I can and learn far more to actually put into practice the legal theories as I understyand them. I hope to soon say with confidence, not legal theories, but lawful facts since anyone possesing logic and reasoning skills can perceive the shadows, yet not quite the light. The lack of responses from the few government officials thus far is telling…

    • Adask

      July 7, 2011 at 4:00 PM

      One of the strongest attributes of this blog is the quality of comments provided by my readers. I’m not just grateful to have readers, I’m grateful and impressed by the intelligence and knowledge seen in a lot of those who comment. The teach me. They help me to learn.

  4. Dan

    July 7, 2011 at 10:28 PM

    My understanding is that “enumeration” means ONLY to count items, in this case people. “Census,” on the other hand, is not only counting items, people, but also SORTING THWEM BY CATEGORY.

    Inasmuch as the Constitution speaks of both in the same sentence, the ONLY type of sorting by category would refer to people in territories. There is NO other reason for these two words to be used like they are in the Constitution unless they were written by fools who needed redundancy for clarity. The Founding Fathers were NOT fools.

  5. derick

    July 9, 2011 at 2:23 PM

    The FRN is rented into circulation and used as a transaction instrument. The FRN is not “money”, You can not “pay” for anything with FRN’s, we are only able to discharge debt. “Taxes” is code for rent.

    We voluntarily entered into this rent paying, monopoly money system. If you have a taxpayer identification number you are an agency of corp us, even without the 16th amendment corp us. can lawfully directly tax its agencies without apportionment.

  6. RB

    July 9, 2011 at 6:42 PM

    My sense of this is that taking a “census” is to “take into account” of HOW MANY men, (and now women as well!) live within the geographic boundaries of a State, whereas “enumeration” is the act of “making an account”, which would have originally involved using only a name and birthdate combination as a “unique identifier”, but which now uses a machine-readable SSN. Slaves newly delivered to the docks had no names or birthdates. They likely received numbered tags, if temporarily. Their masters could later give them “Christian” names and use the date of sale as their “birth” into slavery.

    In the former instance, we “take into account”, by simply counting, while in the latter we “MAKE an account”, quite literally, by “enumeration”, which involves the assigning of a number, rather than simply counting.

    Since the Constitution mentions both “census and enumeration” in the same sentence, and since full consideration is to be given to every word, it would seem to show that a two-tiered scheme has long existed that could have eventually shifted from “counting” sovereigns to “enumerating” American slaves by creating accounts on behalf of flesh and blood men and women, naming those accounts with SSN “stock numbers”, linking those accounts to the names and birthdates of said men and women, thus creating an artificial entity, the linkage obfuscating all distinction between the two, tricking people into thinking that the “account” is actually them, and not their “strawman”, which is a slave.

    I have to wonder, didn’t African slaves, whose names and birthdates were unknown, receive numbered metal tags to uniquely identify them as “inventory” when they first arrived on the docks? This would be the precedent for “enumeration”. Freemen were “accounted for” by Census, whereas only slaves were “enumerated”. If only slaves had been “enumerated” before slavery had supposedly been abolished, then what would that say about us today? If free men and woman were once “counted” by census, while slaves were “enumerated”, then if we are “enumerated” today, rather than being counted by census, does it not strongly imply our status as being changed to something other than free and sovereign?

    To distill it to simplest terms:

    1. Sovereigns may only be “counted”, i.e. per census,
    2. Slaves are ALWAYS “enumerated”.

    • Adask

      July 9, 2011 at 11:45 PM

      I disagree. Article 1.2.3 refers only to “enumeration”. That “enumeration” will determine how many Representatives will be allocated to each State of the Union. That “enumeration” counts the number of “free persons” and excludes “Indians not taxed” and counts 3/5ths of all “other persons”. I presume the term “free persons” to equate to individual sovereigns. I know that that the term “other persons” means slaves. Clearly, the “enumeration” counts both sovereigns and slaves. But it only counts them within the territorial jurisdictions of the member-States of the Union because the enumeration determines the number of Representatives to be allocated to each member-State of the Union.

      The difference between “enumeration” and “census” still appears to be one of venue. Enumeration counts sovereigns, taxed Indians, and slaves only within each State of the Union. The census appears to count persons within the territories. Insofar as Congress (under Article 4.3.2) was deemed to have exclusive legislative jurisdiction over the territories, the members of Congress are the “sovereigns” for the territories. Within the territories, they count subjects –not sovereigns–by census.

  7. RB

    July 11, 2011 at 9:24 PM

    I hear what you are saying.

    But in practice I would have to say, from my own personal experience that being “enumerated”, particularly with a SSN, in the eyes of the Federal “enumerators”, is tantamount to being an indian on a reservation, and/or an outright slave.

    I recently had a run-in with the U.S. Department of State, the U.S. Census, and the local Code Enforcement officer, for no more reason than I am and choose to be “un-enumerated”.

    I recently applied to have my US Passport replaced, after it had been confiscated by police officers during a routine traffic stop. The original passport, my first ever, had been obtained without providing a SSN, which is perfectly legal to do. In fact, they cannot deny you a passport on that basis, provided you know the law, and leave the SSN box on the passport application blank.

    The passport agency sent me a terse letter back, stating that my application had been “improperly executed”. though I followed the exact same procedure I did to get the first one. The letter said that all U.S, citizens owe their status to the 14th Amendment, something I had vehemently denied by the attached affidavit. I called and got the district director, who informed me the same. I informed her that the 14th Amendment only gave quasi-citizenship status to newly freed African slaves, and did NOTHING to change the status of my ancestors, or myself as their natural born American progeny, who already had Citizenship. I think she was black and got very offended by that dose of reality.

    I sent in another application, with a more detailed affidavit, wherein I provided various high court rulings wherein it was stated that no white American living at the time the 14th Amendment was ratified owed their Citizenship to the 14th Amendment. I got my new passport mailed to me in short order.

    But the next thing I know, the U.S. Census is knocking on my door, claiming that I am required by federal law to answer all the questions on a detailed “household” survey. She insisted that it was the “household” that was selected randomly (yeah right!), and that it was not ME, the natural man, who was the target. Then she told me that if I refused, there would be a hefty fine. I told her I thought it was disingenuous, at best, to say that I was not personally the “target” of the survey, but that if I refused I would be the one fined, not the “household”. I have never participated ina census in my entire life, and now, all of a sudden, here I am being extorted out of my right to remain silent!

    I stood my ground and firmly but politely refused. She said her superiors would be contacting me. Within a day, I got a Fedex letter informing me that I was required by federal law to answer all questions, or suffer a heavy fine. A couple of days later, she returned again, and again I sent her away empty handed.

    A few days after that, a man showed up, with Census Bureau credentials, trying very, very hard to intimidate me into answering their questions. Again I firmly but politely refused. A day later, I got a second letter via Fedex, reminding me AGAIN that I am in violation of Federal law for refusing to answer the questions, and would be liable for a big fine. I ignored the letter, and never called them back, and they stopped coming by.

    In short order a local Code Enforcement officer magically shows up. He stared me down hard, and rudely ordered me to remove my old unregistered 1973 collectible sports car from my property and get it out of the city limits. Te car was parked in the side yard, behind a fence, next to the garage. It was not an eyesore nor a safety hazard. In fact, it needed only minor repairs to be drivable, so was not “junk”. A friend who happened to be there at the time, offered to tow it out to his farm, and not needing any more controversy, I agreed and we did just that, avoiding a confrontation I was not ready or willing to engage in. I got the feeling the guy was looking for any excuse to call the police.

    Some time later, I got access to a copy of the municipal code, and discovered that it would have been perfectly legal for me to move the car into my garage, 20 feet instead of to a farm 20 miles away. The Code Enforcement officer never gave me that choice. He only insisted that the car had to leave town. I was being punished.

    State Department called the Census Bureau on me, and Census called local Code Enforcement on me. It was only because I “complied” instead of standing my ground that the police did not get involved, in which case I would have been arrested,

    Anyway, all that was only because I am “un-enumerated”, which may as well be a seriously felony, and “terrorism”.

    The Census Bureau obviously believes they have sufficient jurisdiction over ALL individuals, on private property, within a state, engaging in no activities whatsoever that could even remotely be construed to create such jurisdiction. I have been treated like a runaway slave or a renegade Indian going off the reservation. Maybe, that is exactly what I am, as far as they are concerned.

    This raises the question of whether it is possible that the states are indeed “territories”, at least for those who are “enumerated” with the SSN, giving the feds the jurisdiction and power to conduct and compel participation in a highly invasive census survey. It is equally possible that the same patch of land remains indeed a sovereign state, but only for the “un-enumerated”. Imagine that. The same patch of ground might be a State for some of its inhabitants, but a federal territory for others, both at the same time.

    Whichever it is, the feds have proven to me that they have no desire to make any such distinction, and prefer instead to intimidate, bully, and coerce everyone into their jurisdiction, whether they are “enumerated” into it, or not.

    As far as they are concerned, we are ALL “enumerated”, no matter what we might have to say about it, and so are ALL subject to being compelled to answer every question, at any time.

  8. RB

    July 11, 2011 at 9:34 PM

    In the Christian Bible, it is widely understood that, at the birth of Jesus Christ, the Romans were conducting a Census in Palestine and that there was a census tax on those compelled to participate, who were not Roman Citizens. Palestine was a conquered administrative territory.

    Were Roman citizens in Rome required to participate in a Census and pay a tax? Seems to me that people in the territories had to pay many taxes and the citizens of the Republic/Empire paid few, if any.

    America is now under a form of revived Roman Law as embodied during the time of the Caesars, who were dictators and had overthrown the constitutional Republic..

    Perhaps looking at how it worked in Roman times, vis a vis the Republic versus the Empire, can better inform us about its nature today, as we leave the Republic behind, and are submerged into the revived Roman Empire..

  9. Jerry Lee

    July 20, 2011 at 10:22 PM

    “enumerated” as used in the Social Security Act. The Social Security Administration has stated on their former web site:
    “The process of issuing Social Security numbers is called “enumeration,” and over the years it has been one of the most interesting topics involving Social Security.” Now, here is the legal definition of ENUMERATED: The term is often used in law as equivalent to “mentioned specifically,” “designated” or “expressly named or granted;” as in speaking of enumerated government powers, ITEMS OF PROPERTY, or articles in a tariff schedule…

  10. martin-lynn

    November 21, 2011 at 12:15 PM The 14 amendment was never legally rattifed by the appropriate number of States.


Leave a Reply


You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture


Facebook photo


Google+ photo


Connecting to %s


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,125 other followers