Few things glaze the eyes of readers on Sunday more than a column that begins by quoting the Constitution, but if you will forgive me, there are two issues in Washington right now that could have a huge impact on Utah, depending on how literally the nation's leaders intend on taking that document.

First, on the census, the Constitution says an "actual enumeration" shall be made every 10 years in order to apportion representatives and taxes. And on the subject of members of the House of Representatives, it says that they shall be chosen every two years "by people of the several states..."

In recent days, the Obama administration hinted it may rearrange the Department of Commerce so the Census Bureau reports directly to the administration. Then, in the middle of last week, a Senate committee approved a bill that would grant a full-voting House representative to Washington, D.C., as well as one more to the next state in line to receive a new seat, which would be Utah.

Thus, in the space of only a few days, Utahns who believe the Constitution means what it says were left with a dilemma. They believe the Constitution would have to be amended to grant Washington a representative, because it isn't a state. But they also had some political cover because it was thought that Utah would be a shoo-in for a fourth seat after the 2010 Census, anyway.

An Obama power grab of head-counters would change that equation. To put it bluntly, he who counts heads also keeps the tally. To gain a fourth seat, Utah wouldn't merely have to grow, it would have to grow in proportion to other states in such a way as to gain a seat where another state loses one. That could get tricky.

Ten years ago, a lot of interest groups were pushing to have the census use a form of statistical sampling to estimate the number of residents in inner-city areas. People in those neighborhoods, for one reason or another, are not easily counted. They also tend to vote Democrat. The Supreme Court got the last word on that in 1999 when it ruled, 5-4, that the Census had to actually count real people, but only for purposes of reapportioning congressional seats.

But even that ruling is little comfort when the nation's chief politician wants to pull the Census Bureau close to his bosom. The census might allocate more resources to one state, and less to another, thus affecting the accuracy. Ranking Republicans on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform recently sent Obama a letter, calling this "a shamefully transparent attempt by your administration to politicize the Census Bureau and manipulate the 2010 Census."

For its part, the Obama administration has backpedaled a bit, saying it merely wanted to work closely with the census.