As the Washington Post is reporting today (on page A16 in the print edition), Office of Legislative Affairs AAG Ron Weich has sent a letter to Congressional Hispanic Caucus Chairperson Nydia Velazquez assuring her that the information-gathering and information-sharing provisions of the PATRIOT Act do not override the preexisting confidentiality requirements of the Census Act. The critical language of the letter is this:
The long history of congressional enactments protecting such information from such disclosure, as well as the established precedents of the courts and this Department, supports the view that if Congress intended to override these protections it would say so clearly and explicitly. Because no provision of the Patriot Act, including Section 215, indicates such a clear and explicit intent on the part of Congress, the Department’s view is that no provisions of that Act override otherwise applicable Census Act provisions barring the Commerce Secretary and other covered individuals from disclosing protected census information possessed by the Commerce Department.
I think it’s clear that OLA is channeling OLC on this. I suspect that those two sentences are cut and pasted either from some informal advice OLC rendered in advance of a formal opinion, or from an as-yet-unpublished formal opinion.
Because one of the Administration’s themes is (with apologies to Blue Oyster Cult) “Don’t Fear the Census,” I expect that the opinion will be published as soon as possible on the OLC website. Recall that in August 2009, OLC published a ten-year-old Clinton-era opinion concluding that section 642(a) of the awkwardly acronymed Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) does not repeal a statutory confidentiality requirement codified at 13 U.S.C. § 9(a).
Chris says:
As acronyms go, I still like IIRIRA over AEDPA, which frequently gets a “nucular realator”-style pronunciation.
March 5, 2010, 12:24 pmAndy Patterson says:
Since the only legal purpose of the census is for redistricting, then why ask for the respondent’s name? What would be wrong with an anonymous or pseudonymous response?
March 6, 2010, 10:11 amJmaie says:
Since the only legal purpose of the census is for redistricting, then why ask for the respondent’s name? What would be wrong with an anonymous or pseudonymous response?
Because there might be illegal but useful things that other agencies/departments might want to use the data for?
/cynicism
March 6, 2010, 12:10 pmCindy Juliano says:
Wow, thank you for the information. I really enjoy your writing style. I finally found this information by searching on google, I really didn’t think I was gong to find it, but I did. Thanks again!
March 8, 2010, 8:59 pmJay Hagman says:
Thank you for this excellent insightful article. Occasionally, the greatest tips originate from the sources you actually would not expect. So far, I decided not to give much thought to leaving comments on web log posts and have left comments even less. Reading through your interesting blog, might motivate me to do so more regularly.
March 19, 2010, 6:23 pmHenry Serey says:
Thanks for nice casino list!
March 28, 2010, 2:46 amLoveGisele says:
whoa dude thx for sharing, ill def be back.. thx again!
April 7, 2010, 11:55 pmMatthew C. Kriner says:
This post is very cool, I will get back to read every new posts in future, also I think you will interested with this blog : procter&gamble, check it:>
July 8, 2010, 6:38 pmTiffany says:
I guess there’s always an easier way …
August 26, 2010, 11:31 pmbailing says:
Thank you for this excellent insightful article.
September 11, 2010, 10:45 pm