Is there a "Right" to vote? [Archive]

03_SHOOTER

01-16-2009, 11:58 AM

Is there a "Right" to vote in Federal elections? Not only is there no "right" to vote in Federal elections, there never has been, and there never was any intention to allow "universal suffrage", and for very good reason. The Founding Fathers understood that in order for our great experiment to work, it would require the clear and rational thought of people who were inclined to, and capable of, putting the "General Welfare" of the entire nation above their own selfish wants and desires, and as such in much of early Colonial America, in order to be allowed to vote, even in local and state elections, you had to be a minimum of 21 years old, white, educated, a property owner, and protestant. Now while today that may seem a bit "racist", or "sexists", or however one who fails to consider the context of the times may choose to attempt to slander the wisdom of the Founding Fathers, the fact remains that they determined that those were the only people who were actually inclined to put the nation above themselves.

The fact of the matter is that it is the States who elect their electors to the Electoral College, and therefore it is the States who have the Right to determine who among us is allowed to inform those electors of their wishes concerning who they will cast their votes for. Now, while it is true that various Amendments have been passed defining under what conditions one may not be denied their ability to vote, (female, black, over 18), what most people fail to understand is that the 14th Amendment also acknowledges that the States do in fact have the ability to deny the vote to any of their citizens, for whatever reason they deem necessary (excepting those cases covered by Amendment to the Constitution), and the only result is a decrease in the number of Representatives in the US House by the number of a states citizens that are denied the vote.

In the first 135 years of this nation, that system worked fairly well, including the fact that in those years suffrage was extended to include females and blacks, but where it began to fall apart was with the "bread and circuses" voting of the general public, as we were warned about in the quote often attributed to Alexander Tytler "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until a majority of voters discover that they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury." It is this "bread and circuses" voting by the majority that has resulted in our, now $15 Trillion debt (when one adds in the $5 Trillion insolvency of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac), the constant usurpations and abrogations by our elected mis-representatives, from abridging our Freedom of Speech, our Right to petition for redress of grievance, our Right to "...keep and bear arms...", the slow and steady march towards Socialist/Communist dictatorship by those whom we "elect", and so many others that it would require an entire other thread to explore them fully, that now the Great Experiment that the Founding Fathers has been almost irrevocably destroyed.

If we are in fact to turn the course of our ship of nation back to it's original, the first thing that must be done is to ensure that We The People must ensure that only the voices of those who are educated in the true functions of our nation are heard when it comes to the "right" to vote. As such, I and many others have proposed that before someone is allowed to vote that they should be required to demonstrate their knowledge of not only the Constitution, and Civics in general, but of the candidates and issues that are on the ballot that they are seeking to cast. Contrary to the unwarranted and disingenuous castigations of our opponents, we do not propose any "Jim Crowe" style process, but rather a process no different than that for acquiring a drivers license. Everyone who wishes to vote would be required to pass a test, for which study material would be supplied by the State in which they would be voting.

If it were up to me, I would simply use the new citizenship test, in essay form (no multiple choice) and passage of the test would result in the issuance of a new Voter Registration Card, however, if you score less than 90%, you would not be issued the card, because, frankly, you're too ignorant (and I use that word advisedly) to be permitted to participate in the process. This test, like a Drivers License, would be required to be taken every 4 years, you would be given one "make up" opportunity, and failing that would result in your having to wait 2 years until the next election cycle. I would also require supplemental testing, no more than 45 days prior to an election to ensure that you knew who was actually running in the election for Senator, Representative, and POTUS. Failure to pass this test would result in your Voter Registration Card being confiscated, and would preclude you from voting in that election. I would also eliminate the "straight party ticket" voting, and to be honest would like to see all ballots free of any notation of party affiliation to abolish this crutch of intellectual honesty.

03_SHOOTER

01-16-2009, 11:59 AM

The citizenship test I mentioned above.

A. Principles of American Democracy

1. What is the supreme law of the land?

2. What does the Constitution do?

3. The idea of self-government is in the first three words of the Constitution. What are these words?

4. What is an amendment?

5. What do we call the first ten amendments to the Constitution?

6. What is one right or freedom from the First Amendment?

7. How many amendments does the Constitution have?

8. What did the Declaration of Independence do?

9. What are two rights in the Declaration of Independence?

10. What is freedom of religion?

11. What is the economic system in the United States?

12. What is the "rule of law"?

B. System of Government

13. Name one branch or part of the government.

14. What stops one branch of government from becoming too powerful?

15. Who is in charge of the executive branch?

16. Who makes federal laws?

17. What are the two parts of the U.S. Congress?

18. How many U.S. Senators are there?

19. We elect a U.S. Senator for how many years?

20. Who is one of your state's U.S. Senators?

21. The House of Representatives has how many voting members?

22. We elect a U.S. Representative for how many years?

23. Name your U.S. Representative.

24. Who does a U.S. Senator represent?

25. Why do some states have more Representatives than other states?

26. We elect a President for how many years?

27. In what month do we vote for President?

28. What is the name of the President of the United States now?*

29. What is the name of the Vice President of the United States now?

30. If the President can no longer serve, who becomes President?

31. If both the President and the Vice President can no longer serve, who becomes President?

32. Who is the Commander in Chief of the military?

33. Who signs bills to become laws?

34. Who vetoes bills?

35. What does the President's Cabinet do?

36. What are two Cabinet-level positions?

37. does the judicial branch do?

38. What is the highest court in the United States?

39. How many justices are on the Supreme Court?

40. Who is the Chief Justice of the United States?

41. Under our Constitution, some powers belong to the federal government. What is one power of the federal government?

42. Under our Constitution, some powers belong to the states. What is one power of the states?

43. Who is the Governor of your state?

44. What is the capital of your state?

45. What are the two major political parties in the United States?*

46. What is the political party of the President now?

47. What is the name of the Speaker of the House of Representatives now?

C: Rights and Responsibilities

48. There are four amendments to the Constitution about who can vote. Describe one of them.

49. What is one responsibility that is only for United States citizens?

50. What are two rights only for United States citizens?

51. What are two rights of everyone living in the United States?

52. What do we show loyalty to when we say the Pledge of Allegiance?

53. What is one promise you make when you become a United States citizen?

54. How old do citizens have to be to vote for President?

55. What are two ways that Americans can participate in their democracy?

56. When is the last day you can send in federal income tax forms?*

57. When must all men register for the Selective Service?

AMERICAN HISTORY

A: Colonial Period and Independence

58. What is one reason colonists came to America?

59. Who lived in America before the Europeans arrived?

60. What group of people was taken to America and sold as slaves?

61. Why did the colonists fight the British?

62. Who wrote the Declaration of Independence?

63. When was the Declaration of Independence adopted?

64. There were 13 original states. Name three.

65. What happened at the Constitutional Convention?

66. When was the Constitution written?

67. The Federalist Papers supported the passage of the U.S. Constitution. Name one of the writers.

68. What is one thing Benjamin Franklin is famous for?

69. Who is the "Father of Our Country"?

70. Who was the first President?

B: 1800s

71. What territory did the United States buy from France in 1803?

72. Name one war fought by the United States in the 1800s.

73. Name the U.S. war between the North and the South.

74. Name one problem that led to the Civil War.

75. What was one important thing that Abraham Lincoln did?

76. What did the Emancipation Proclamation do?

77. What did Susan B. Anthony do?

C: Recent American History and Other Important Historical Information

78. Name one war fought by the United States in the 1900s.

79. Who was President during World War I?

80. Who was President during the Great Depression and World War II?

81. Who did the United States fight in World War II?

82. Before he was President, Eisenhower was a general. What war was he in?

83. During the Cold War, what was the main concern of the United States?

84. What movement tried to end racial discrimination?

85. What did Martin Luther King, Jr. do?

86. What major event happened on September 11, 2001 in the United States?

87. Name one American Indian tribe in the United States.

INTEGRATED CIVICS

A: Geography

88. Name one of the two longest rivers in the United States.

89. What ocean is on the West Coast of the United States?

90. What ocean is on the East Coast of the United States?

91. Name one U.S. territory.

92. Name one state that borders Canada.

93. Name one state that borders Mexico.

94. What is the capital of the United States?

95. Where is the Statue of Liberty?

B. Symbols

96. Why does the flag have 13 stripes?

97. Why does the flag have 50 stars?

98. What is the name of the national anthem?

C: Holidays

99. When do we celebrate Independence Day?

100. Name two national U.S. holidays.
Answers (http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/blinstst_new.htm)

03_SHOOTER

01-16-2009, 01:41 PM

It might also be helpful to review THIS (http://www.gruntsmilitary.com/board/showthread.php?t=936) thread which I started a while back.

TruBlu

01-16-2009, 07:38 PM

03_SHOOTER

01-16-2009, 09:37 PM

Testing to-be or would-be voters on civics is a grand idea. The system mentioned would ensure that only those educated on the subject matter of our nation and relevant people of a particular election would be the ones voting. After reading through the test, I'd have to say that 90% of it is learned in high school classes and 10% is learned by simply being aware of where you are. I have only two quarrels with this system.

1. Make it multiple choice. Why? For one, the time it would take for people to grade by hand would take a lot, and money to pay said people would be even more. The point of the test is to prove knowledge, and I think that can be done with a multiple choice test. You may have to make the selection of 'answers' really tricky, but non-the-less I believe you can deem someone capable, especially if passing will be set at a 90%.

I understand the economic reasons you mention. To me it's quite simple though, we're not talking about something as trivial as driving, we're talking about our nations future. Personally I believe the expense would be well worth it. Also, multiple choice tests tend to favor the "ill prepared". If we are to utilized multiple choice, the standard would have to be raised to 95%

2. Making people re-register/renew every four years is a hassle if you have to take the same test over and over again. I know it's spread out over years at a time, but it's the way you put it, it wouldn't be just like a drivers license because when you renew your drivers license (at least in my state) you don't have to re-take a test. I'd say once you 'earn' the 'right to vote,' you retain it, or at least spread the renewal process by two or four more years.

I cannot concur. The test would need to be taken again each 4 years to impart upon people the importance of what they are doing, and if they can't find the time and energy to take a test, then voting isn't very high on their list of priorities, and as such, we should disabuse them of that burden.

Other than those two tidbits, it's solid and would work. I'd be willing to bet that we wouldn't have the same elected officials over the past 16-20 years if this had been implemented. And just to pose the question, what would it take to have something like this implemented? Would this be at a state or federal level or implementation?

Thank you. As to having it implemented, that would be up to the states, and it will happen just as soon as pigs fly, eagles dig ditches, and Liberals not only embrace, but demand that illegals sign in at the borders and that all unregistered aliens be unceremoniously THROWN out of the country and told NOT to come back, on pain of death, until they learn to ask permission first, unfettered market capitalism, the uninfringed right to "...keep and bear arms..." without any licensing requirements whatever, and the death of federal Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, food stamps, WIC, HUD, Section 8, AFDC, Head Start, and all of the other socialist programs that are killing this country.

TruBlu

01-17-2009, 11:01 AM

I understand the economic reasons you mention. To me it's quite simple though, we're not talking about something as trivial as driving, we're talking about our nations future. Personally I believe the expense would be well worth it. Also, multiple choice tests tend to favor the "ill prepared". If we are to utilized multiple choice, the standard would have to be raised to 95%.

A 95 percentile on a multiple choice exam is not far fetched, with 100 questions, that's missing five, which is certainly enough. I think that meets an equilibrium between a short answer and multiple choice exam, and it would cut the economic costs and manpower required by ten fold.

I cannot concur. The test would need to be taken again each 4 years to impart upon people the importance of what they are doing, and if they can't find the time and energy to take a test, then voting isn't very high on their list of priorities, and as such, we should disabuse them of that burden.

True, and after looking a second time at the could-be questions, some of them will vary through the years, so continuous testing would be not only appropriate, but necessary in order to maintain the viability of the testing in the first place.

Thank you. As to having it implemented, that would be up to the states, and it will happen just as soon as pigs fly, eagles dig ditches, and Liberals not only embrace, but demand that illegals sign in at the borders and that all unregistered aliens be unceremoniously THROWN out of the country and told NOT to come back, on pain of death, until they learn to ask permission first, unfettered market capitalism, the uninfringed right to "...keep and bear arms..." without any licensing requirements whatever, and the death of federal Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, food stamps, WIC, HUD, Section 8, AFDC, Head Start, and all of the other socialist programs that are killing this country.

LOL, I knew that was coming! I think at least one or two states could have a fighting chance (say Alaska and Tennessee), and once those put it out there on the political scene, other states could follow suit. If states can argue their 14th Amendment 'right' well enough, a precedent could be set and the system at hand could come to be.

One more question/concept for now. Each individual state would establish and maintain their own examination, if they so choose to adopt a 'voter viability exam,' correct? With that, not all states would have testing, and those that wouldn't would most likely be those of a blue nature, and those are the ones that house major metropolitan populations. So this system would be counter-productive for certain parties who wish to adopt it because the other would have the simple advantage or more voters. If this was implemented at a federal level it would be mandated to each state and quintessentially remove that problem. Then again that would go against the very core of our government (the one that works I mean, so now minus quite a few years) by having a singular body controlling the collective.

It's a vicious circle...

Billyd

01-18-2009, 10:29 PM

03_SHOOTER

01-19-2009, 01:10 AM

Considering one has no FEDERAL right to vote, why would the FEDERAL government set forth the standard by which one is able to vote (re a civics test). Since the STATE set forth the requirements for voting (other than what is covered via various amendments to the Constitution of the United State), the individual states would have to bear the burden of the suggested testing method.

I think that a fill in the blank/short answer format is better than M/C. That requires some study to pass and the standard should be 95%.

Concur on both counts.

I also believe that in order to vote you should meet some basic requirements other than being of the required age and still converting O2 to CO2 (though not necessarily true in some precincts). One of those is being a landowner. Being a landowner means that you have taken an interest in your community, pay taxes on that land (a rant for another day) and intend, usually, to settle into that community for the long term.
That would depend on each individual State. Here in NC, the State Constitution prohibits land ownership being a qualification for voting.

As to paying taxes, sorry guys and gals, but if you get back an amount equal to or greater than what you paid in taxes, sorry, but you have not contributed to the upkeep of the nation. Paying taxes is one of those evils that we endure and those that pay taxes should have a say in how the country is run. If you don't pay taxes, talk to us when you pay them.

If you are on the public dole, guess what, you do not have the right of suffrage. You want to register to vote, be prepared to show a pay-stub.

Agree, with the obvious exception of those who are retired or disabled. I also feel it necessary given the present financial crisis to add the caveat that those who are temporarily out of work should be excepted.

I know that some out there will disagree with me, but think about what I said. As noted earlier, when the electorate realizes that they can vote themselves a piece of the treasury, our republic will not be long for this earth and we need to reverse this trend towards socialism.

Personally I would like to see "ear marking" and "pork barrel" spending outlawed, with the obvious correspondent lowering of Federal taxes. If the federal government is collecting so much in federal taxes that they can vote to direct part of that to individual states or projects, how about we just let the states take over that function and keep their money for their own use? Simply put, if it's not in Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution, the federal government shouldn't be legislating on it, much less spending money on it in the first place.

TheLegalShark

01-19-2009, 02:06 AM

I also believe that in order to vote you should meet some basic requirements other than being of the required age and still converting O2 to CO2 (though not necessarily true in some precincts). One of those is being a landowner. Being a landowner means that you have taken an interest in your community, pay taxes on that land (a rant for another day) and intend, usually, to settle into that community for the long term.

While I agree that we need to have some requirements to ensure that people are responsible enough to vote, I would strongly disagree with this requirement. In many places it would exclude many people simply because their income precludes owning land or a home. Included in this group could very well be police officers, firefighters, EMTs, military personnel, and other people who's professions serve the community but do not pay enough for them to own land. Hell, in many urban areas and the surrounding surburbs, the only people that may own land are in the upper income brackets.

If you are on the public dole, guess what, you do not have the right of suffrage. You want to register to vote, be prepared to show a pay-stub.

Here I agree and disagree with you. I think people who sit on their ass and do nothing but collect a government check should not vote, however I would not include several other people in that category. There are good hard working people who lose their jobs and collect unemployment until they find another one. There are people who are disabled and unable to work. There are also students who are either not able to work because of their schedules, and/or contractually obligated to abstane from work during the academic year. There are also people who do work, but do not make enough to get by without some form of government assistance, but I guess the pay stub would be a way around this.

In all I understand why you make these proposals, but they exclude people based upon income in a given area.

03_SHOOTER

01-19-2009, 07:32 AM

One other thing I thought of last night was that if land ownership were tied to voting Rights, it would probably drive the cost of land up to the point where many would simply be unable to own their own property. This was one of the things that Jefferson consistantly warned against, allowing the government to do anything that would affect the marketplace.

TruBlu

01-19-2009, 12:49 PM

Here I agree and disagree with you. I think people who sit on their ass and do nothing but collect a government check should not vote, however I would not include several other people in that category. There are good hard working people who lose their jobs and collect unemployment until they find another one. There are people who are disabled and unable to work. There are also students who are either not able to work because of their schedules, and/or contractually obligated to abstane from work during the academic year. There are also people who do work, but do not make enough to get by without some form of government assistance, but I guess the pay stub would be a way around this.

Agreed.

My own father was one of those hardworking individuals who was laid off a short time ago and had no work for a period of time. Taking his voting eligibility away because of a circumstance that is far beyond his power to control is not only unfair but a strait slap in the face. Also, disabled citizens and students should not be barred simply because they are unable to work. Telling someone they can't vote because they can't work is ridiculous. And students, that is the future of the nation, not being able to vote is, in my opinion, out of the question. Students, who are usually of the younger generation, give a more varied view to the polls, not necessarily an ignorant one.

After all, that's the purpose of the test isn't it?

03_SHOOTER

01-19-2009, 08:31 PM

And students, that is the future of the nation, not being able to vote is, in my opinion, out of the question. Students, who are usually of the younger generation, give a more varied view to the polls, not necessarily an ignorant one.

After all, that's the purpose of the test isn't it?

But that is the problem isn't it, there is no test, and as such, especially the younger generation are incredibly ignorant, and IMNSHO intentionally so by the very institutions that we pay to educate them.

"A people of well perverted literacy, indeed, is invincibly unintelligent", or to put it in the common vernacular, so many people know so much that simply isn't so, and have no problem making grand pronouncements to any who will listen those things that aren't so, further compounding the lies they were taught.

Billyd

01-20-2009, 07:57 AM

Seems I created a bit of a stir with my comments. Good. The idea is to make you think and consider options to my stated beliefs. Should there be exceptions to the rules?

You and I both know that there will never be any absolute requirement to vote regardless of what we desire.

Come up with a better solution that covers every circumstance and see if you can convince someone to agree with you.

TruBlu

01-20-2009, 09:46 AM

But that is the problem isn't it, there is no test, and as such, especially the younger generation are incredibly ignorant, and IMNSHO intentionally so by the very institutions that we pay to educate them.

That statement was based on the actual implementation of such a system, I know there isn't a test now. What I was attempting to convey was that we don't need a mass pile of requirements or disqualifications for a voter "right;" that would be for the test to decide.

Come up with a better solution that covers every circumstance and see if you can convince someone to agree with you.

Isn't that not the truth? I say that the test, a minimum age, and citizenship for a certain amount of years be the requirements for a voter license. How about that?

JohnP

01-20-2009, 12:48 PM

Isn't that not the truth? I say that the test, a minimum age, and citizenship for a certain amount of years be the requirements for a voter license. How about that?

The National Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. § 1973–1973aa-6) outlawed discriminatory voting practices that had been responsible for the widespread disenfranchisement of African Americans in the United States. Echoing the language of the 15th Amendment, the Act prohibited states from imposing any "voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure ... to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color." Specifically, Congress intended the Act to outlaw the practice of requiring otherwise qualified voters to pass literacy tests in order to register to vote, a principal means by which southern states had prevented African-Americans from exercising the franchise.

Congress has amended and extended the Act several times since its original passage, the most recent being the 25-year extension signed by President George W. Bush on July 27, 2006.

The Act requires municipalities that receive requests for ballots in other languages to comply with the request.

Section 2 contains a general prohibition on voting discrimination, enforced through federal district court litigation. Congress amended this section in 1982, prohibiting any voting practice or procedure that has a discriminatory result. The 1982 amendment provided that proof of intentional discrimination is not required. The provision focused instead on whether the electoral processes are equally accessible to minority voters.

Section 5 of the Act requires that the United States Department of Justice, through an administrative procedure, or a three-judge panel of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, through a declaratory judgment action "preclear" any attempt to change “any voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting..." in any "covered jurisdiction." The Supreme Court gave a broad interpretation to the words "any voting qualification or prerequisite to voting" in Allen v. State Board of Election, 393 U.S. 544 (1969). A covered jurisdiction that seeks to obtain Section 5 Pre-clearance, either from the United States Attorney General or the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, must demonstrate that a proposed voting change does not have the purpose and will not have the effect of discriminating based on race or color. In some cases, they must also show that the proposed change does not have the purpose or effect of discriminating against a "language minority group." Membership in a language minority group includes "persons who are American Indian, Asian American, Alaskan Natives or of Spanish heritage." The burden of proof under current Section 5 jurisprudence is on the covered jurisdiction to establish that the proposed change does not have a retrogressive purpose.

References:

A.) "US Department of Justice - Voting Rights Act of 1965". U.S. Department of Justice (2006-03-20).

B.) Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964) at 561-562: "Undoubtedly, the right of suffrage is a fundamental matter in a free and democratic society. Especially since the right to exercise the franchise in a free and unimpaired manner is preservative of other basic civil and political rights, any alleged infringement of the right of citizens to vote must be carefully and meticulously scrutinized." Almost a century ago, in Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886) at 370, the Court referred to "the political franchise of voting" as "a fundamental political right, because preservative of all rights."

TruBlu

01-20-2009, 04:46 PM

JohnP

01-20-2009, 06:13 PM

So the National Voting Rights Act of 1965, in its supreme nature, encourages ignorance through exception? Let's set the race factor aside, as I'm sure all of us agree that it is only correct to not deny rights based on ethnicity. But is it acceptable for those illiterate or purely ignorant as to the subject matter to be allowed to take part in it? Think about it. Should an environmental adviser for a car production plant have a say in the management of financial resources? No, that's ridiculous because the environmental adviser does not have the sufficient understating to make decisions about financial management. The same is for the voting eligibility test: Someone who cannot display the basic understanding of the country they are a citizen of or how the country operates politically and economically should be barred from voting because they are not sufficiently adept in the subject matter that is at hand, and that is to say the future of a nation.

Let's face it, a lot of presidents, good and bad have been elected by completely ignorant people. My mother was a very intelligent woman whose only mistake in life was keeping me as a son, voted in every election she could. She received her high school diploma the same year as her grand-daughter. Until she was 30, could not read and write, are you saying that under your recommedations, that she should not be allowed to vote? President Johnson, was unable to read and write, had no formal education, and was taught by his wife to do so along with math. Would that mean he wouldn't have been able to vote?

I believe this should be saved for another forum, but since education is being questioned, should the current students, graduating today, be allowed to vote because of their lack of knowledge of their voting rights? It is a noble idea that you have, but you are looking at more than just political reform when you make bold questions such as "But is it acceptable for those illiterate or purely ignorant as to the subject matter to be allowed to take part in it?"

While the title of the Voting Rights Act might imply that it established an explicit right to vote for President for U.S. citizens, there is no such federal right. However, the Voting Rights Act and three constitutional amendments that prevent discrimination in granting the franchise have established in United States Supreme Court jurisprudence that there is a "fundamental right" in the franchise, even though voting remains a state-granted privilege. However, states are given considerable leeway when it comes to this "fundamental right".

In Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000), the Supreme Court ruled that, "The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States," a logical conclusion given the history of the Electoral College. States do not have to extend suffrage to ex-felons, nor do they have to allow citizens to register and vote on Election Day. In 2008, the Supreme Court upheld voter ID laws, claiming that the states had an interest in deterring voter fraud. While the Supreme Court has stated that the right to vote and the right to be a candidate are connected, they have often upheld state laws that make it difficult for independent and minor party candidates to be included on the election ballot.

It is now time for my esteemed colleague and Southern Gentleman from the Great State of North Carolina to impart which amendments to the constitution I make reference to.

03_SHOOTER

01-20-2009, 06:14 PM

Well, regardless of all of that, none of the "Voting Rights Acts" in any way contravene the Constitution, and as such the "right" to vote remains exclusively within the purview of the States, and if the Feds don't like it, they can shove it sideways up their fourth point of contacts. Unless or until such time as any or all of the "Voting Rights" Acts are ratified as Amendments to the US Constitution, the only Constitutional limitations on what the States may or may not do with regards to voting requirements for Federal elections are contained in the 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th Amendments.

HairyEyeball

01-20-2009, 06:27 PM

The National Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. § 1973–1973aa-6)...requires municipalities that receive requests for ballots in other languages to comply with the request.

Why?

With few exceptions for State and municipal elections, only citizens of the United States may vote. The language taught in our government schools is English (or some perverted variation thereof). Immigrants who wish to become citizens are required to pass a citizenship test...in English. The President and Congress, as well as the unelected judiciary and bureaucracy, conduct their - our - business in English.

While nobody should be deprived of suffrage for reasons of race, color, religion or previous condition of servitude, and there is - at least in theory - a measurable difference between sentience and 'literacy' (and the concept that such a vast percentage of the electorate has no concept of the issues or the contestants renders the fact that the Union still stands, albeit in a form unrecognizable to its authors little short of miraculous), by what distortion of logic can the concept be justified that those who cannot even master the rudiments of the nation's language be granted the power to decide who governs it?

JohnP

01-20-2009, 06:57 PM

Why?

With few exceptions for State and municipal elections, only citizens of the United States may vote. The language taught in our government schools is English (or some perverted variation thereof). Immigrants who wish to become citizens are required to pass a citizenship test...in English. The President and Congress, as well as the unelected judiciary and bureaucracy, conduct their - our - business in English.

While nobody should be deprived of suffrage for reasons of race, color, religion or previous condition of servitude, and there is - at least in theory - a measurable difference between sentience and 'literacy' (and the concept that such a vast percentage of the electorate has no concept of the issues or the contestants renders the fact that the Union still stands, albeit in a form unrecognizable to its authors little short of miraculous), by what distortion of logic can the concept be justified that those who cannot even master the rudiments of the nation's language be granted the power to decide who governs it?

Multilingual balloting
The Act requires municipalities that receive requests for ballots in other languages to comply with the request. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher of California said of the Act, "What unites us? It's our language, the English language," and that the Act is "hurting America by making it easier not to learn English."

I whole-heartedly concur with the esteemed Gentleman from Arizona.

In addition, Some judges and proponents of racially drawn congressional districts have interpreted Section 5 of the Act as requiring racial gerrymandering in order to ensure minority representation. (For our less educated members: Gerrymandering is a form of redistribution in which electoral district or constituency boundaries are used for the electoral advantage. Gerrymandering may be used to help or hinder particular constituents, such as members of a political, racial, linguistic, religious or class group.)

Where can we go with this? Let's take a look at Section 5:

Section 5 of the Act requires that the United States Department of Justice, through an administrative procedure, or a three-judge panel of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, through a declaratory judgment action "preclear" any attempt to change “any voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting..." in any "covered jurisdiction." The Supreme Court gave a broad interpretation to the words "any voting qualification or prerequisite to voting" in Allen v. State Board of Election, 393 U.S. 544 (1969). A covered jurisdiction that seeks to obtain Section 5 Pre-clearance, either from the United States Attorney General or the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, must demonstrate that a proposed voting change does not have the purpose and will not have the effect of discriminating based on race or color. In some cases, they must also show that the proposed change does not have the purpose or effect of discriminating against a "language minority group." Membership in a language minority group includes "persons who are American Indian, Asian American, Alaskan Natives or of Spanish heritage." The burden of proof under current Section 5 jurisprudence is on the covered jurisdiction to establish that the proposed change does not have a retrogressive purpose.

JohnP

01-20-2009, 07:16 PM

Since '03 hasn't had a chance to address this in full, I give you the following:

The Fifteenth Amendment (Amendment XV) to the United States Constitution prohibits each government in the United States to prevent a citizen from voting based on that citizen's race, color or previous condition of servitude (i.e., slavery). It was ratified on February 3, 1870.
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

The Nineteenth Amendment (Amendment XIX) to the United States Constitution prohibits each of the states and the federal government from denying any citizen the right to vote because of that citizen's sex.

The Twenty-fourth Amendment (Amendment XXIV) prohibits both Congress and the states from conditioning the right to vote in federal elections on payment of a poll tax or other types of tax. The amendment was proposed by Congress to the states on August 27, 1962, and was ratified by the states on January 23, 1964.
Poll taxes had been enacted in eleven Southern states after Reconstruction as a measure to prevent African Americans from voting, and had been held to be unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court. At the time of this amendment's passage, only five states still retained a poll tax: Virginia, Alabama, Texas, Arkansas, and Mississippi. However, it wasn't until the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections (1966) that all state poll taxes (for both state and federal elections) were officially declared unconstitutional, because they violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

The Twenty-sixth Amendment (Amendment XXVI) to the United States Constitution standardized the voting age to 18. It was adopted in response to student activism against the Vietnam War and to partially overrule the Supreme Court's decision in Oregon v. Mitchell. It was adopted on July 1, 1971

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

The question is, does this make National Voting Rights Act of 1965 a redundant law? Or is this just another way for the Federalist Government to revoke states rights?

03_SHOOTER

01-20-2009, 07:50 PM

Let's face it, a lot of presidents, good and bad have been elected by completely ignorant people. <snip> President Johnson, was unable to read and write, had no formal education, and was taught by his wife to do so along with math. Would that mean he wouldn't have been able to vote?

Perhaps his wanton illiteracy played some part in his eventual IMPEACHMENT!

I believe this should be saved for another forum, but since education is being questioned, should the current students, graduating today, be allowed to vote because of their lack of knowledge of their voting rights? It is a noble idea that you have, but you are looking at more than just political reform when you make bold questions such as "But is it acceptable for those illiterate or purely ignorant as to the subject matter to be allowed to take part in it?"

While the title of the Voting Rights Act might imply that it established an explicit right to vote for President for U.S. citizens, there is no such federal right. However, the Voting Rights Act and three constitutional amendments that prevent discrimination in granting the franchise have established in United States Supreme Court jurisprudence that there is a "fundamental right" in the franchise, even though voting remains a state-granted privilege. However, states are given considerable leeway when it comes to this "fundamental right".

In Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000), the Supreme Court ruled that, "The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States," a logical conclusion given the history of the Electoral College. States do not have to extend suffrage to ex-felons, nor do they have to allow citizens to register and vote on Election Day. In 2008, the Supreme Court upheld voter ID laws, claiming that the states had an interest in deterring voter fraud. While the Supreme Court has stated that the right to vote and the right to be a candidate are connected, they have often upheld state laws that make it difficult for independent and minor party candidates to be included on the election ballot.

It is now time for my esteemed colleague and Southern Gentleman from the Great State of North Carolina to impart which amendments to the constitution I make reference to.

I would first like to thank my esteemed colleague, and Gentleman from the Great State of Texas for his kind words, as well as to apologize for "jumping the gun" so to speak in my previous post, but it would appear that we were posting at the same time.

As I said earlier the 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th and 26th Amendments are to only Constitutional restrictions placed upon the States as to their extending the privilege of voting to their citizens, and as such it is the States responsibility to ensure that their citizens are in fact contributing intellectually to the process. If a State is going to require that it's citizens obtain a license to operate a motor vehicle on the "Post Roads" in their States, when those citizens, at worst, are presenting a possible danger to a few hundred of their fellow citizens, is it not logical to extend similar requirement to voting when the lives of 300 million Americans, and the fate of our entire nation is in the balance? To which I most fervently proclaim YES!

While the Constitution does prohibit the States from disenfranchising their citizens on the basis of race, sex, tax payments, or age (provided that they are at least 18 years of age), there is no other Constitutional restriction upon which the States may require of it's citizens prior to being extended the privilege of voting in federal elections.

03_SHOOTER

01-20-2009, 07:56 PM

03_SHOOTER

01-20-2009, 07:59 PM

Since '03 hasn't had a chance to address this in full, I give you the following:

<snip>

The question is, does this make National Voting Rights Act of 1965 a redundant law? Or is this just another way for the Federalist Government to revoke states rights?

Thank you. The various iterations of the "Voting Rights Acts" are completely unconstitutional on their face, and are nothing but yet another attempt by the federal government to further usurp the 10th Amendment Rights of the various States.

Billyd

01-20-2009, 08:33 PM

Now that learned gentlemen from North Carolina, Texas, and Arizona have provided discourse on the limits the federal government has placed on the states to determine their own requirements as to who may vote. That being a 10th Amendment issue since the Constitution does not speak of voting until the various and sundry Amendments are ratified and then only to limit who state may not deny the vote to due to one specific identifier. Be that race (15th), gender (19th), Ability to pay a poll tax (24), or age (25).

From my earlier post, I stated some beliefs I have. And, since no one has convinced my otherwise, I still stand by those beliefs. Are they realistic, no, not really, but they are still my beliefs.

The "right" of suffrage is a myth. This responsibility of suffrage is great and one should be fully prepared to exercise that responsibility. We rarely send those who protect us out without proper equipment and training. Why are we sending our prodigy out to vote without the same training and equipment? Many of us presume the Publik Educashon system is going to prepare our off-spring to enter the world and be ready to succeed. If you are a parent, and yes, I know that I am preaching to the choir here, it is YOUR responsibility to teach your children how to think critically and make wise decisions. If, however, you desire your spawn to become one of the illiterate masses that subsist on the public dole, then I am afraid that this is not the place for you.

Take a look around you and your neighborhood and schools. Look at the students that are succeeding and compare them to those that are getting by or worse. Catalog the differences for yourself and you will come to some realizations. Formulate your own opinions, but you will see similarities in those that are going to make it to Harvard, Yale, Stanford and you will see similarities in those that will be attending Graybar U.

03_SHOOTER

01-20-2009, 09:10 PM

My apologies to the gentleman from the great State of Florida if my responses to his points were insufficiently clear.

I think that a fill in the blank/short answer format is better than M/C. That requires some study to pass and the standard should be 95%.

We are of an accord on this point.

I also believe that in order to vote you should meet some basic requirements other than being of the required age and still converting O2 to CO2 (though not necessarily true in some precincts). One of those is being a landowner. Being a landowner means that you have taken an interest in your community, pay taxes on that land (a rant for another day) and intend, usually, to settle into that community for the long term.

Being unfamiliar with the Florida Constitution I cannot address the particulars of your State, but in North Carolina our Constitution specifically prevents land ownership from being a consideration with regards to the privilege of voting. It is also my belief that if land ownership were made a requirement for the privilege of voting that it would invariably result in an increase in land values thereby precluding otherwise fully eligible citizens such as the majority of public servants as well as Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines from being permitted to have their voices heard. There is also the fact that in todays "upwardly mobile" society, as well as the high number of elderly, that many people who are perfectly capable of owning their own homes simply choose not to, preferring instead to live in Condo's, Townhouses, apartments, or "assisted care facilities", so I must respectfully disagree with land ownership being made a requirement.

As to paying taxes, sorry guys and gals, but if you get back an amount equal to or greater than what you paid in taxes, sorry, but you have not contributed to the upkeep of the nation. Paying taxes is one of those evils that we endure and those that pay taxes should have a say in how the country is run. If you don't pay taxes, talk to us when you pay them.

Paying taxes is how we pay for our government, and as such should be considered, provided that we ensure that we are not disenfranchising those who have done so their entire lives and are now retired, whether by age or disability, or those who, especially given the current economic realities, are temporarily out of work. I know a lot of people right now who are on unemployment, not due to anything they have done, but simply to the economic realities in their various industries.

If you are on the public dole, guess what, you do not have the right of suffrage. You want to register to vote, be prepared to show a pay-stub.

Again, I conditionally agree, but we must be careful to define exactly what the "public dole" is and is not. If by "the public dole" you mean long term recipients of welfare, food stamps, WIC, or those perpetually living in HUD and Section 8 housing because they refuse to apply themselves, then I agree, with the full understanding that we will invariably run afoul of the race baiter's who will attempt to construe it into a "racial" issue. If on the other hand "the public dole" means any form of governmental support, including those who are retired and drawing the Social Security reimbursements after long years of contributing, or those who are temporarily receiving assistance due to an unexpected change in their circumstances that was beyond their control, then I would have to disagree as I consider it to be the epitome of bad taste to kick a man while he's down (unless of course he deserves it).

Billyd

01-21-2009, 08:11 AM

My apologies to the gentleman from the great State of Florida if my responses to his points were insufficiently clear.

We are of an accord on this point.

My friend, your responses were of sufficient clarity.

Being unfamiliar with the Florida Constitution I cannot address the particulars of your State, but in North Carolina our Constitution specifically prevents land ownership from being a consideration with regards to the privilege of voting. It is also my belief that if land ownership were made a requirement for the privilege of voting that it would invariably result in an increase in land values thereby precluding otherwise fully eligible citizens such as the majority of public servants as well as Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines from being permitted to have their voices heard. There is also the fact that in todays "upwardly mobile" society, as well as the high number of elderly, that many people who are perfectly capable of owning their own homes simply choose not to, preferring instead to live in Condo's, Townhouses, apartments, or "assisted care facilities", so I must respectfully disagree with land ownership being made a requirement.

As I was speaking in general terms, it is possible and highly likely that I presumed it would be understood that there would be exceptions to the rules. One of those exceptions being those that serve the public good.

Paying taxes is how we pay for our government, and as such should be considered, provided that we ensure that we are not disenfranchising those who have done so their entire lives and are now retired, whether by age or disability, or those who, especially given the current economic realities, are temporarily out of work. I know a lot of people right now who are on unemployment, not due to anything they have done, but simply to the economic realities in their various industries.

Re-reading my original post, I can see where you are coming from. Most of these persons are still paying taxes of some sort. I, for instance, have the usual litany of involuntary deductions taken from my retirement pay. Having not drawn disability or unemployment compensation, I can not speak first hand as to any deductions taken from them. I am open to enlightenment.

Again, I conditionally agree, but we must be careful to define exactly what the "public dole" is and is not. If by "the public dole" you mean long term recipients of welfare, food stamps, WIC, or those perpetually living in HUD and Section 8 housing because they refuse to apply themselves, then I agree, with the full understanding that we will invariably run afoul of the race baiter's who will attempt to construe it into a "racial" issue. If on the other hand "the public dole" means any form of governmental support, including those who are retired and drawing the Social Security reimbursements after long years of contributing, or those who are temporarily receiving assistance due to an unexpected change in their circumstances that was beyond their control, then I would have to disagree as I consider it to be the epitome of bad taste to kick a man while he's down (unless of course he deserves it).

Here we are on the same page. I am talking about the long term recipients that refuse to apply themselves. I also have no desire to kick a man when he is down and do not consider those that are recieving benefits earned by the sweat of thier brow to be on the public dole.

HairyEyeball

01-21-2009, 09:47 AM

Additional consideration might also be directed at three related areas: Given the broad variety of paper and electronic options currently employed in the electoral process; the 'difficulty' apparently experienced by allegedly 'competent' individuals in navigating some; and the documented vulnerability of the latter to manipulation; one might consider a standardized form, and standardized electronic recording and transmission with the requisite 'paper trail' voluntarily subscribed to by the disparate Boards of Elections.

Given the perennial problem in certain areas of the nation for the number of ballots cast far exceeding the number of registered - indeed, the number of living - voters, some method of confirming the identity of the individual voter need be devised. In Arizona, a 'half-step' in this direction has been approved: The preferred form includes both photograph and address (i.e. 'drivers license'), but also allows 'two utility bills in your name'. The opportunities such provides for outright fraud should be obvious: One may easily rent a 'broom closet' for a month or two in any name, and in multiple precincts; arrange for utility service and receive - but never pay - the first bill; and cast ballots in as many precincts as one may comfortably travel to - and still meet the 'ID requirements'.

Finally, the problem of 'absentee' and 'early' ballots demands re-examining. While there is no question that such option is mandatory for deployed military personnel and possibly those in long-term care unable to travel to the polls on the day of an election, is there any justification for the wholesale distribution of such ballots to those whose sole 'qualification' is being too lazy to make the trip? And given the fact that such 'early' ballots may be tabulated - and the results released (cases documented in Arizona) prior to the election - both influencing the outcome and irrevocable should parameters change between submission and 'official' count (i.e. death or felony conviction of a candidate), should there be formal restriction on who may receive such ballot, or the circumstances on which it may be avaliable?

Should the definition of whom may be 'qualified' to vote be narrowed to include only those who 'should' be, whether any such examination, for instance, survive the legal hurdles, there would still remain the question of identifying the individual: If birth certificates and passports can be forged wholesale with the advances in computer technology, certainly 'voter registration'/ID cards certainly may.

And, of course, there is the question of 'media influence': The fact that the current President was, for all practical intents and purposes, anointed by the media and the master manipulator of 'pop psychology' Doprah; that the Presidency was, to an unprecedented extent 'purchased' with illegal funding; and the restrictions still in place through the McCain-Feingold Incumbent Protection and First Amendment Abrogation Act - but that is meat for a separate thread.

03_SHOOTER

01-21-2009, 08:15 PM

If we are to properly address the various abuses of our voting system within the context of the voting test, I would recommend that it be tied in to the "motor voter" registration system where the people would simply take their voting test at the same time they take their drivers test or obtain a State issued ID card. As sufficiently proper identification is required to obtain a Drivers License/State ID card, the same identification could be utilized for the purposes of the voting test, and the various States could decide for themselves if they wished to issue a separate photo "Voter ID", or if there would simply be an appropriate notation similar to the "organ donor" designation on the Drivers License/State ID card indicating whether the individual in question has passed their voter test. Perhaps a distinctly different color drivers license/State ID card, with an appropriate bar code, would be appropriate for those who are, and those who are not entitled to vote, and the identification would be presented at the designated polling place, and the bar code scanned prior to the issuance of a ballot.

03_SHOOTER

01-21-2009, 08:23 PM

My friend, your responses were of sufficient clarity.

I am heartened to read this as I feared I had somehow failed to properly elucidate my position.

As I was speaking in general terms, it is possible and highly likely that I presumed it would be understood that there would be exceptions to the rules. One of those exceptions being those that serve the public good.

I too presumed as much, and only wished to ensure that we were perfectly clear for those who might wish to "pick at nits".

Re-reading my original post, I can see where you are coming from. Most of these persons are still paying taxes of some sort. I, for instance, have the usual litany of involuntary deductions taken from my retirement pay. Having not drawn disability or unemployment compensation, I can not speak first hand as to any deductions taken from them. I am open to enlightenment.

As I too have never drawn unemployment or disability I am also unsure what, if any, exceptions the current tax code makes for those payments, however I do know that I have had enough money forcibly deducted from my pay over the years to consider those to be in the same category as Social Security, meaning I've paid into it, and if I need it I would like to believe that I wouldn't be further taxed for money that was already taxed the first time.

Here we are on the same page. I am talking about the long term recipients that refuse to apply themselves. I also have no desire to kick a man when he is down and do not consider those that are receiving benefits earned by the sweat of their brow to be on the public dole.

Very good. Well then it appears that we are in fact generally on the same page, if not the same paragraph, although I am a bit curious if you still maintain that property ownership should be a prerequisite, or if my arguments have given you pause to reconsider that position.

Boiler Cadet

03-11-2009, 02:11 PM

HairyEyeball

03-11-2009, 04:29 PM

Child, we are not here to cater to the ignorant, incapable of comprehending words greater than one syllable. Should you eventually develop consciousness, you will discover that the majority of 'learning' takes place outside of academia - and this is one of the areas in which one may increase one's knowledge, should one possess the wit.

If the level of discourse is that far beyond your comprehension, I suggest remedial reading courses, with a 'side order' of the easily available writings of the Founding Fathers for a lesson in literary embellishment, and one in common courtesy for obvious reasons...and if the level of discussion still exceeds your capacity, perhaps you should consider confining yourself to the kiddie pool until such time as you're capable of carrying on a conversation without evincing an infantile resentment of those whose vocabularies exceed your limited parameters.

JohnP

03-11-2009, 04:51 PM

Please stop talking like lawyers or politicians. "Getlemen this... esteemed that".
YOU ARE NOT ON CSPAN stop talking differently just to impress people it's annoying. Speak in normal every day english, not some upity form of speech.

Ok now that thats out, once you restrict people who are ignorent. Who's next? Where do stop? Do you then have only people with college eduaction, then people with only a degree in political science? Once you start when do you stop?

How about this Mr. Cadet Boiler...Why don't you crawl back into the hole where you were hiding and let the big people have some fun. Is that clear enough English for you or do you wish for me to spell it out in big letters in three-lined tablet? When you jump into an established thread, you should not open up with an insult or belied threat, it will give you a large target on your forehead that many will happily take a shot at. If you wish to learn the ropes, step back into the Cadet Forum, read and learn. There is an old axiom and acronym that we used to give to our young troopers until they were schooled enough for positive input: SDASTFU!

You appear to be a little wet behind the ears and have no clue to the type fun we were having by poking sticks at each other. We are constantly aware that we are not on CSPAN and given the opportunity we would be severely reprimanded and quickly removed for telling the people of this Great Nation how we really truly feel. In addition, if I were attempting to impress people, I would sport my college degree in a tattoo on a unique portion of my anatomy and have people kiss it whenever the question of formal education ever came up.

Speaking of education, please edit your statements for clarity and spelling.

The question of ignorance is not about how well educated you may or may not be, but of how well versed you are in the workings of our government and how much you pay attention to the world around you when it comes time to vote. Does a person see the picture they paint or do they see what is painted for them by a biased news media.

Now that I’m off my soap box, I will allow any other esteemed Gentlemen from any other Great State to stand up and be heard.

Billyd

03-11-2009, 06:25 PM

Well, since the Gentleman from the Great State of Arizona and the Gentleman from the Great State of Texas have chimed in, let me just add, that when you play in the deep end of the pool, there is a chance that one of the sharks will find a way to take a chunk out of your hide and I am quite sure that when the Gentlemen from North Carolina checks in, he will also have a lesson in vocaulary for the newbie.

Cadet, you will find that when and if you ever put on that uniform and swear that oath, that those that have been around awhile don't give a rat's patoot what you think. They will be focused on mission accomplishment and taking care of the people that accomplish the mission. Those whom you have chosen to chastise for using polite, respectuful language have served, many for 20+ years and have more time in the crapper than you do on G-d's green Earth.

03_SHOOTER

03-11-2009, 06:57 PM

Mr. Chairman, as the kind and gracious Gentlemen from the Great States of Arizona, Texas, and Florida have for the time being completed their statements, I wish to expound on my position on this particular subject.

Please stop talking like lawyers or politicians. "Getlemen this... esteemed that".
YOU ARE NOT ON CSPAN stop talking differently just to impress people it's annoying. Speak in normal every day english, not some upity form of speech.

Cadidiot, while we may not be on CSPAN, we are very close friends (JohnP and I have known each other for longer that your sorry festering boil on the butt of humanity has even been alive), HairyEyeball and I are also quite close, and BillyD and the others have EARNED our respect, which is something that you are not even close to achieving. Now, while I realize that you are merely the product of the modern Publik Skuul Establushmint, and therefore incapable of comprehending anything more complicated that urinating without getting it all over the floor, the wall, or yourself, so it would behoove you to follow JohnP's admonition to SDASTFU before you irritate us and we decide to make you our "special project".

Ok now that thats out, once you restrict people who are ignorent. Who's next? Where do stop? Do you then have only people with college eduaction, then people with only a degree in political science? Once you start when do you stop?

The only restrictions in this Forum are that Cadets request, and have permission granted, prior to posting here, and your post is a primary reason for this rule. This is the "Big boys room", and as such requires at a minimum a basic familiarity with some of the more advanced concepts of American Civics, and while here you are expected to be able to intelligently add to the conversation. To this point you have most egregiously failed to demonstrate the maturity, knowledge, attention to detail (the rules requiring that Cadets request permission prior to posting in this Forum are posted quite clearly in the Cadet Forum), grasp and ability to convey a thought without looking like you still use the big crayons, or even common courtesy necessary for the topics being discussed herein. These failures on your part only serve to verify the general feeling that in certain cases (yours being a glaring exemplar) the egregious amounts of money that are forcibly extricated from our pockets for the purposes "educating" our young are completely wasted and that some (such as yourself) would have been far better served by being removed from the classroom and installed as a ditch digger, poultry worker, or some other mindless employment where an IQ anywhere above room temperature is not only not required, but is strongly advised against.

Billyd

04-20-2009, 01:27 PM

As to paying taxes, sorry guys and gals, but if you get back an amount equal to or greater than what you paid in taxes, sorry, but you have not contributed to the upkeep of the nation. Paying taxes is one of those evils that we endure and those that pay taxes should have a say in how the country is run. If you don't pay taxes, talk to us when you pay them.

If you are on the public dole, guess what, you do not have the right of suffrage. You want to register to vote, be prepared to show a pay-stub.

Sorry to revive an old thread, but it seems that I am not the only person that believes this. This was posted to the website of the local fishwrap today.

http://www.nwfdailynews.com/opinion/vote_16786___article.html/taxes_country.html

When this country was born, one of the grievances was taxation by the British without representation. Now we have completely turned around and have representation without taxation.

With almost half of income earners not paying any taxes, we have politicians voted in by people who don't contribute to the government but benefit from its handouts. These non-taxpayers have a vested interest in voting in politicians who have a vested interest in supplying benefits to those who voted them in. So more and more people will have the government take money from those who have "too much" and give it (minus the government take) to themselves.

How long can this last?

Voting is a privilege, and, like many others, should be restricted. Only those who pay taxes should have the privilege to vote. Those who don't contribute to the running of the country should not have a say in how it is run.

Many people pay taxes during the year, but because of deductions and tax credits they wind up paying no taxes. No taxes, no vote! Millionaires who have no taxable income - no vote! If you're 18 and in the military, you pay taxes and can vote. If you're 18, going to school and living off Mommy and Daddy - no vote! If Uncle Sam is your sugar daddy - no vote!

Besides putting the control of the country in the hands of those most affected and encouraging others to contribute, this would eliminate the recruitment of non-income voters, which eventually will destroy this country. Of course, I'm not holding my breath.

Follow the link to see what others in this community are saying about it. I would ask that prior to responding, please take the time to read the ENTIRE thread to avoid repeating arguments already presented.

JohnP

04-20-2009, 02:23 PM

Sorry to revive an old thread, but it seems that I am not the only person that believes this. This was posted to the website of the local fishwrap today….

Please don’t apologize; this is a subject that we can’t beat to death. This should elicit responses from our cadet members as well as our “Grey Wolves.”

Let me add to your conjectures; the following is the “List of Rights” for every Texas Voter:

As a registered voter in Texas, you have the right to:

1. A ballot with written instructions on how to cast the ballot.
2. Cast your vote in secret and free from intimidation.
*3. Receive up to two more ballots if you make a mistake while marking the ballot.
4. Ask the polling place official for instructions on how to cast the ballot (but not for suggestions on how to vote).
*5. Bring an interpreter to assist you as you qualify to vote if you do not understand the English language.
*6. Help to cast your ballot if you cannot write, see the ballot, or understand the language in which it is written.
7. Bring written materials into the voting booth to assist you as you cast your ballot.
8. Report a possible voting rights abuse to the Secretary of State (1.800.252.8683) or to your local election official.
9. Cast a provisional ballot if your name does not appear on the list of registered voters or you do not have proper identification.
10. Vote once at any early voting location during the early voting period within the territory conducting the election.
11. File an administrative complaint with the Secretary of State concerning violations of federal and state voting procedures.

As you read in the opening of this thread, I made some statements regarding the legalities of this issue. After further study and contemplation I wish to go on the record and say that it is time to change the rules of the Texas Voter’s Rights. Specifically, Items 3, 5 and 6, which have been emboldened and marked with an asterisk.

#3 - 2 or more ballots? You’re kidding me right? Can a person make 3 or more mistakes? If this were school you would fail the class and told to come back next semester, after further training.

# 5 – Bring an interpreter…if you do not understand the English language? You have got to be sh***ng me! Is it not a requirement anymore to read and write in English in order to get you citizenship or even graduate from the publick edumakashun cistern? Why don’t we put little pictures next to the boxes?

#6 – I can understand not seeing the ballot, if you’re blind, however, unable to write, or understand the language in which it was written. As in the previous statement, pictures anyone?

This is enough to make a tough man spit. I am now a proponent of a National Test in order to vote. The addition to the questions initially written by 03_Shooter should be:

1. Can you read this without assistance?
2. Did you have a job?
3. Did you bring a copy of your pay stub showing taxes being taken out (or Retirement Paperwork)? or
4. Do you have a copy of last years taxes showing you paid taxes(or a married filed jointly addendum)?

If the answers to these questions are No then please exit the polling area!

03_SHOOTER

04-20-2009, 07:55 PM

OK, so we have a consensus on the Voters test, and it's looking more and more like actually being a PRODUCTIVE tax paying citizen is gaining ground. Now, all we have to do is get our elected mis-representatives inside the rabbit hole to adopt our logical, well thought out plan, and then insert your earplugs, because the Dim-O-Craps are going to scream bloody murder!!!

Billyd

04-21-2009, 07:43 AM

03_SHOOTER

04-21-2009, 12:58 PM

Shhh, be vewy, vewy quiet. I'm hunting Liberals

BTW, what is the bag limit on Liberals?

To paraphrase our little brown friends in "Blazing Saddles";

"Bag limits? We don't need no stinkin' bag limits!"

JohnP

04-21-2009, 01:10 PM

To paraphrase our little brown friends in "Blazing Saddles";

"Bag limits? We don't need no stinkin' bag limits!"

The question is, "Do we have enough ammo?"

Q: What do you get when you offer a Liberal a penny for his thoughts?
A: Change.

Q: How do you confuse a Liberal?
A: You don't. They're born that way.

Q: Why is it good to have a Democrat passenger?
A: You can park in the handicap zone.

Q: What's the difference between Elvis and a smart Liberal?
A: Elvis has been sighted.

A Democrat died and a friend went around collecting for a fund for his funeral. A woman was asked to donate ten dollars.
"Ten dollars?" she said. "It only takes ten dollars to bury a Democrat? Here's a hundred - go bury 10 of them!"

Q: What do you call a Democrat with an IQ of 130?
A: A foursome

Q: What is the definition of gross ignorance?
A: 144 Democrats.

Q: What is the Democrat doing when he holds his hands tightly over his ears?
A: Trying to hold on to a thought.

Q: Why do Liberals work seven days a week?
A: So you don't have to retrain them on Monday.

A Democrat found a magic genie's lamp and rubbed it. The genie said, "I will grant you one wish." He said, "I wish I were smarter". So the genie made him a Republican.

Q: What the difference between a Democrat and the rear end of a horse?
A: I don't know either.

Q: How is a Liberal different from a sewer rat?
A: Some people actually like sewer rats.

Q: Why do so many Liberals live in L.A.?
A: It’s the only city that is easy enough for them to spell.

Q: What's five miles long and has an IQ of forty?
A: A Democrat parade.

Q: What is it called when a Liberal blows in another Liberal’s ear?
A: Data transfer.
Q: How do you plant dope?
A: Bury a Democrat.

Q: What's the difference between a Liberal and a sack of manure?
A: The sack.

Q: What's the difference between God and a Democrat?
A: God knows He's not a Democrat.

This should make your day go better.:D