[{"command":"add_css","data":[{"rel":"stylesheet","media":"all","href":"\/sites\/default\/files\/css\/css_veuEhhb1658wti0_ZAig66JOyixENU-N9zhjLQSLfOQ.css?delta=0\u0026language=en\u0026theme=heritage_theme\u0026include=eJwrTi1LzdNPzkksLq7Uy8tPSQUAPMsGtA"}]},{"command":"invoke","selector":null,"method":"openEssay","args":["10000006","\n\n\u003Carticle about=\u0022\/constitution\/articles\/1\/essays\/7\/enumeration-clause\u0022 class=\u0022node node--type-constitution-essay node--promoted node--view-mode-embedded clearfix\u0022\u003E\n  \u003Ch1 class=\u0022title\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan\u003EEnumeration Clause\u003C\/span\u003E\n\u003C\/h1\u003E\n\n      \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-location\u0022\u003E\n      Article I, Section 2, Clause 3\n    \u003C\/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-context\u0022\u003E\n      \n            \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EThe 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.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n      \n    \u003C\/div\u003E\n      \n  \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-body\u0022\u003E\n    \n            \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EThis section, as amended by Section 2 of the\u003Ci\u003E \u003C\/i\u003EFourteenth Amendment, requires, for the purpose of apportioning the House of Representatives, that a census be taken of the whole number of persons in the nation. Congress has followed the Constitution\u2019s command, even extending the census into territories and appending long lists of additional inquiries, although it is questionable as to what power Congress possesses to ask non-apportionment-related questions.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EThe central question regarding the original meaning of this section is whether the Constitution requires that this census consist only of an actual counting of individuals or whether the national government may rely on estimates of the national population to apportion the House. There was no direct discussion at the Constitutional Convention regarding whether there should be an actual count. The Committee of Detail\u2019s draft of the section stated that the number of inhabitants \u201cshall\u2009.\u2009.\u2009.\u2009be taken in such manner as\u2009.\u2009.\u2009.\u2009[Congress] shall direct.\u201d That phrasing was modified to \u201cas they shall by Law direct,\u201d and the Committee of Style subsequently added the phrase \u201cactual Enumeration.\u201d\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EThose who contend that this section allows the use of estimates of the population argue that this phrase \u201cactual Enumeration\u201d likely means the most accurate possible calculation. When this phrase, so defined, is read together with the words \u201cin such Manner as they shall by Law direct,\u201d they conclude that the Framers intended to grant Congress complete discretion to choose whatever method of census taking they thought would result in the most accurate calculation of population, including the use of estimating methods. Alternatively, the word \u201cactual\u201d refers to the first census to be conducted three years after the meeting of the first Congress, as opposed to the less formal enumeration the Framers relied upon in apportioning the first and second Congresses.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EThose who maintain that the phrase \u201cactual Enumeration\u201d means actual counting of individuals as opposed to the use of estimating methods argue, as Justice Antonin Scalia did in \u003Ci\u003EDepartment of Commerce v. United States House of Representatives \u003C\/i\u003E(1999), that the words mean\u003Ci\u003E \u003C\/i\u003E\u201ccounting \u2018singly,\u2019 \u2018separately,\u2019 \u2018number by number,\u2019 \u2018distinctly.\u2019\u201d The distinction between actual counting and estimating was well known and thoroughly discussed both in debates in eighteenth-century English politics and in controversies between the American colonies and England. Indeed, the participants in these debates used the precise terms at issue; those who criticized the use of estimates in calculating population figures demanded instead that an enumeration\u2014an actual count\u2014be taken.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EIn \u003Ci\u003EThe Federalist\u003C\/i\u003E No. 36, Alexander Hamilton, in attempting to reassure his audience that the population figures upon which taxation would be based would not be subject to political manipulation, stated that \u201can actual census or enumeration of the people must furnish the rule, a circumstance which effectually shuts the door to partiality or oppression.\u201d The Census Act of 1790, establishing the first census, required an actual counting; census takers were required to swear an oath to \u201ctruly cause to be made, a just and perfect enumeration and description of all persons resident within [their] districts.\u201d\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EThe Supreme Court, after avoiding the constitutional question in previous cases challenging the use of advanced statistical methods, decided the question of whether an actual counting is required in \u003Ci\u003EUtah v. Evans\u003C\/i\u003E (2002), a case involving the use of a methodology that infers that households not actually counted in the census have the same population characteristics as their geographic neighbors that were counted. Justice Stephen Breyer, writing for the majority, concluded that the Framers \u201cdid not write detailed census methodology into the Constitution,\u201d and therefore methods, such as the one used in this case, that are based on inference and not actual counting are constitutionally valid. Justice Clarence Thomas, writing in dissent, lamented the Court\u2019s decision. He concluded: \u201cWell familiar with methods of estimation, the Framers chose to make an \u2018actual Enumeration\u2019 part of our constitutional structure. Today, the Court undermines their decision, leaving the basis of our representative government vulnerable to political manipulation.\u201d\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n      \n  \u003C\/div\u003E\n\n      \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-author\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-author--media\u0022\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-author--photo\u0022 style=\u0022background-image: url(\/sites\/default\/files\/Andrew_Spiropoulos.jpg)\u0022\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n            \u003C\/div\u003E\n      \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-author--info\u0022\u003E\n              \u003Ch4 class=\u0022con-essay-author--name\u0022\u003E\n                      \u003Ca href=\u0022http:\/\/law.okcu.edu\/index.php\/faculty-staff\/faculty\/full-time-faculty\/spiropoulos-andrew-c\/\u0022\u003EAndrew Spiropoulos\u003C\/a\u003E\n                  \u003C\/h4\u003E\n                  \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-author--job\u0022\u003E\n         Professor of Law, Oklahoma City University School of Law\n      \u003C\/div\u003E\n            \u003C\/div\u003E\n    \u003C\/div\u003E\n\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-tabs\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cul data-tabs class=\u0022tabs\u0022\u003E\n        \u003Cli class=\u0022button-more thirds\u0022\u003E\u003Ca data-tab href=\u0022#node-10000006-taba\u0022\u003EFurther Reading\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/li\u003E\n        \u003Cli class=\u0022button-more thirds\u0022\u003E\u003Ca data-tab href=\u0022#node-10000006-tabb\u0022\u003ECase Law\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/li\u003E\n        \u003Cli class=\u0022button-more thirds\u0022\u003E\u003Ca data-tab href=\u0022#node-10000006-tabc\u0022\u003ERelated Essays\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/li\u003E\n      \u003C\/ul\u003E\n\n      \u003Cdiv data-tabs-content\u003E\n        \u003Cdiv data-tabs-pane class=\u0022tabs-pane\u0022 id=\u0022node-10000006-taba\u0022\u003E\n          \n      \u003Cdiv\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EMargo Anderson \u0026amp; Stephen E. Feinberg, \u003Ci\u003ECensus 2000: Politics and Statistics\u003C\/i\u003E, 32 U. Tol. L. Rev. 19 (2002)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp style=\u0022margin-left:16px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-11.95pt\u0022\u003EStephen Kruger, \u003Ci\u003EThe Decennial Census\u003C\/i\u003E (February 29, 2012), at http:\/\/papers.ssrn.com\/abstract=1985554 or http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.2139\/ssrn.1985554\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EThomas R. Lee, \u003Ci\u003EThe Original Understanding of the Census Clause: Statistical Estimates and the Constitutional Requirement of an \u0022Actual Enumeration,\u0022\u003C\/i\u003E 77 Wash. L. Rev. 1 (2002)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp style=\u0022margin-left:16px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-11.95pt\u0022\u003ENathaniel Persily, \u003Ci\u003EThe Law of the Census: How to\u003C\/i\u003E \u003Ci\u003ECount, What to Count, Whom to Count, and Where to Count Them\u003C\/i\u003E, 32 CARDOZO. L. REV.\u003Ci\u003E \u003C\/i\u003E755 (2011)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n          \u003C\/div\u003E\n  \n        \u003C\/div\u003E\n        \u003Cdiv data-tabs-pane class=\u0022tabs-pane\u0022 id=\u0022node-10000006-tabb\u0022\u003E\n          \n      \u003Cdiv\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EWisconsin v. City of New York, 517 U.S. 1 (1996)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EDepartment of Commerce v. United States House of Representatives, 525 U.S. 316 (1999)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EUtah v. Evans, 536 U.S. 452 (2002)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n          \u003C\/div\u003E\n  \n        \u003C\/div\u003E\n        \u003Cdiv data-tabs-pane class=\u0022tabs-pane\u0022 id=\u0022node-10000006-tabc\u0022\u003E\n                      \u003Ca href=\u0022\/essay_controller\/10000063\u0022 class=\u0022use-ajax\u0022\u003EDirect Taxes\u003C\/a\u003E\n                      \u003Ca href=\u0022\/essay_controller\/10000171\u0022 class=\u0022use-ajax\u0022\u003EApportionment of Representatives\u003C\/a\u003E\n                  \u003C\/div\u003E\n      \u003C\/div\u003E\n    \u003C\/div\u003E\n  \n\u003C\/article\u003E\n"]}]