Voter qualification test

Status
Not open for further replies.
Okay, I'm no historian, but if I recall correctly, tests were given to all voters in the South to see if they could pass, and thereby vote. The problem was, people - excuse me, citizens - were given different tests based on the color of their skin. For example, a caucasian might be asked: Who was the first president of the United States? While an American of African descent might be asked: Who was the 12th Vice President of the US? There are probably a lot of people with US history degrees who couldn't pass those tests.

Also, I do believe that at the time of the signing of the Constitution, voting was restricted to white male land-owners. A concept that is considered (and thanks to Constitutional amendment) UN-Constitutional today. Voting is a right of all citizens, I just wish that so many who have no concept of what they are voting for would simply refrain, and those who do understand WOULD TAKE THE TIME TO DO IT! Whatever damage has been done can be undone, but if we can't even get half the citizens out there to vote, we'll destroy our own freedoms through our complacency. And all this talk I hear on TFL about a second revolution - Do you think anybody would show up to fight, if they're too lazy to make it to their local ballot box???

All right, I vented. I feel better...maybe. I'd feel a lot better if my fellow citizens would show me in the next election that just 1/3 of us care who is going to be our president for the next four years.
 
All legal US citizens should vote if they choose. We are not a pure Democracy, but a Constitutional Republic. If a majority votes to steal property or rights from a minority it is still unconstitutional and more importantly immoral. Unfortunately, we have Social Democrats in power in the Executive Branch who understand how to manipulate the masses they make dependent upon their programs and think the quality and equality of lives may be improved by force. Equally undesirable, we have Conservative Statists in Congress who believe human values and the salvation of our nation must be forged by force. Ironically, neither group has a problem with theft in the form of agressive taxation. Government is Force. Our Constitution is there to keep that Force at bay. Our private arms are the last line of defense between that Force and Freedom.
 
Logical to allow people to vote for candidates who will give them money from the public treasury? No. Constitutional? Yes. Our form of government is not a “logigarchy.” (can I get a copyright on that word, please?) It’s not the voters that are infringing on my rights by voting for these candidates, but the candidates themselves. If you can mount a campaign to prosecute these traitorous lawmakers, I will support it. Of course the ultimate campaign is the one that gets them kicked out at the ballot box, and places someone in the office that will live up to their oath to " . . . support and defend . . . "

Your last paragraph is repugnant to the Constitution because it prohibits people from voting because of the way they think. Specifically, if they think the federal government should give them our money, they can’t vote. Wouldn’t you agree it’s their right, under the Constitution, to think that way, even if you (and most others) think those thoughts are wrong?
 
Who talked about the demise of a democracy when the people discover that they could vote themselves money from the national cauffers?

------------------
John/az

"The middle of the road between the extremes of good and evil, is evil. When freedom is at stake, your silence is not golden, it's yellow..." RKBA!

http://www.countdown9199.com
 
Y'all arent reading my posts...or Im not making myself clear ;)

My objection is that they are supported by the Federal Government, using our tax dollars. I dont think its right that those who profit from feeding at the public trough, then demand more and more, via their vote. Yes, I see the point you are making..."thats what they think is right". But, its not the thought that makes it wrong. Its the conflict of interest. :(

Now, will someone please tell me why, exactly, those who are getting a handout are then calling the shots? Is that morally defensible? Or ethically? Was this the intent of the Founders?

We have created this whole mess, as a people, ourselves. We let the Income Tax stand in 1914, after it had been declared UnConstitutional six or seven times previously. The next time when we allowed FDR to sell us a bill of goods known as the "New Deal". Then again when we allowed LBJ to start his Subsidy of Poverty. And it has continued at a steady pace, these many years.



[This message has been edited by Grenadier2 (edited August 12, 1999).]
 
Ah . . . conflict of interest. Yes, I now understand the argument you are making.

I still don't agree with it, but I now understand it.
 
To Grenadier2, We are reading your posts and share your frustrations. Like John/az2, I agree that those who feed at the public trough will vote to increase the rate of slop. I'll go further to complain of the current administrations' version of motor voter to have acted as an amnesty for former illegal aliens who would register as democrats. My point is that the Constitution prohibits this transfer of wealth or percieved wealth from those that produce to those that wait and consume the wealth of others. I call that theft. If the acting agent is the Federal Government, they are still no less morally corrupt than the mafia. If the mafia has everybody scared to death in your neighborhood, who all implicitely "vote" for the status quo, what difference does it make if the mafia wins an election by garnering the support of those they protect. It is still about FORCE.
 
Deanf

Could you, maybe, explain why you disagree? Perhaps cite some examples, or maybe some specifics from The Constitution?

Not flaming, but when someone disagrees with me and then doesnt explain why, its a bit tough to see their point :)

G-Freeman,

As you will note, thats been in my argument as well :) It is theft, plain and simple. Perhaps a more salient direction for me to have headed would be to ask exactly what happened that we even need to ask what happened to our Republic?? :(

This thread is kinda cool...I wonder if the Virginia debates were like this? ;)
 
I have an idea. I want the government to send me $5000 tax free each month on the first of the month and never be late. Whats more I openly will pledge my vote to any politician who will support my proposition.


------------------
Better days to be,

Ed
 
Wow. Quite a squirmy can o' nightcrawlers I've opened here.

My original point still stands, though. If people don't understand how a Republic works, they oughta stay home on election day. Frankly, if I see any more "Get Out The Vote" ads next year aimed at slackers, I'm gonna start a "Sit Your Stoned Ass Back Down" campaign.

------------------
A vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil.
Vote Libertarian - For A Change.
 
I disagree because your proposal is unconstitutional. Here are some specifics from the Constitution:

The First Amendment. Freedom of speech. Courts have protected political thought and action specific to that thought, as protected free speech.

And then there's the Fifth Amendment. " . . . nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, . . ." Suffrage is an action essential to liberty, and therefore cannot be denied without due process of law (a criminal or civil trial.)

If you can somehow obtain standing in federal court, you could sue each and every person who receives a federal entitlement, with the goal of a ruling denying their voting rights.


Should these people vote? No. Do they have a right to vote? Yes. Should I defend that right? Yes. Why should I defend that right? Because someday someone may want to take away my right to vote, without due process of law.
 
Ok, thats a good start!

Firstly, suffrage is not a universal Right. America was founded on the principle of restricted and limited republican government. There is no such thing as a Right to vote. A true Right is that, which in its exercise, in no way compels others to act in a manner against their own self-interest.

The collectivist notion that voting is a "right" to be exercised by any parasite who demands his "fair share" is a deliberate assault on the very principle of unalienable rights and is specifically intended to compel others (the competent and the producers of wealth) to act against their own self-interests. True republican government necessitates restricting the franchise to qualified citizens.

Thats the way the system was designed, and it worked. Now that we have made voting universal....we can see our own demise on the horizon. Your Right to vote is far more likely to be taken away by the current system, than it ever was in the former one.

Keep in mind the principle that a ballot is a weapon, it can be used to protect Liberty or it can be used to deny it, and the universal rejection of democracy by the Founders as a legitimate system of governance.

Thats what Im on about, as the English say :)
 
So I should not necessarily be able to vote for or against the people that represent me, or want to represent me?

So let's say that I can't vote, because I can't pass the test. Does that also mean that I can't lobby my representatives with my views, and encourage them to vote this way or that?
 
There is a conflict of interest..

and given the current tax rate/unit earning power, the less well off have no incentive to not vote for more slop from the trough...

So, flat tax rate; those that receive also have to work like the WPA...labor, scut work...in order to keep costs down(administrative), there is no qualifying committee assigning jobs...i.e, unemployed PhDs don't get an easy office job...all get scut work and physical labor.

We rebuild infrastructure, the "welfare/test suckers" stack lumber, move concrete bric-brac, pick litter....bottom line, you will be dog tired when you get home. No free lunches no more.

Now they have an incentive not to vote for the teat. And the liberals lose favor, since a vote for them is a vote for hard labor at minimum wage. The market and intensified economy will absorb and pay for the decreased desire to suck the teat....you may do the same job but you'll get paid more in free market

Afterthought....alternative to scut/WPA is military....subject to all current military reqs in terms of education, etc....6 yr hitch, no outs, subject to UMJ

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!



[This message has been edited by DC (edited August 13, 1999).]
 
On lobbying, I dont know if they put much weight behind calls from non-voters...so thats a good question thats well beyond the purpose of my argument. Thats a different matter altogether.

"Representatives" actually representing what I sent them to DC for...that'd be a switch!

Besides, you know the answer to your first question...I answered it in my post above. If an Individual cant vote....then, I guess they couldnt vote. Kind of straightforward. :)

As I stated before, if we put the Feds back in their "extremely limited powers" box, 90% of the "disenfranchised" wouldnt be. :) Thats ultimately what I would like to see.

Real Freedom, being exercised by Free Americans, with a Federal Government that knows its place. No peasant socialism, no Nanny-state mentality, no "we are the world" group hug psycho-babble BS, no collectivist squandering of lives and money....just Freedom and Liberty.

Collectivists see Freedom as a threat. We (patriots)know better, yet let us not use collectivist methods in our pursuit of it.

The end result is only more collectivism and enforced egalitarianism . :(

Theres my cheery thought for the day! :) :) :) :)
 
To DC, I have played with the same fantasies. I think the flock of lawyers to follow these oppressed 'workers' would make it a cluster something. Pity thge poor guy who is required to accomplish something with these resources. A small national sales tax with the elimination of income tax appeals to my supply side instincts. I am in agreement with Grenadier2 again in that collectivist methods are best left to the professional egalitarians.
 
Ou entire political system is now a complete mob democracy. Lets all admit it and realize that we have 1 step left to go which is dictatorship which always follows a democracy which the Founders feared as much as a return to monarchy. They wanted voters to have a stake in the country and made sure one owned property before he could vote. The leaders of the era of the republic knew that as people acquired land they would become responsible citiZens and have a real stake in the nation. I know this is not correct talk in our "free nation" of today ,but who cares. And if the Founders saw a popularly elected Senate ,they would cringe for sure. This US Senate is so corrupt, it makes the old Roman Senate look good. Before 1913, the Senators were elected by the state legislatures and this was done SO THE SENATE COULD KEEP A EYE ON THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Mob democracy rules this venal Senate and dont ya love it so! By the way, the 17Th Amendment which gave us this wonderful democratic Senate was not ratified by the states. There is a good argument that this Senate since 1913 is illegal and all of its laws passed since that time are null and void. Mob demoracy sucks. Give me a constitutional republic any old day.
 
Am I correct to infer that some in this thread would return to a system where only property (land) owners could vote?

If so, I couldn't vote.

I am 30 years old, I am intelligent, I am respected in my profession, I make positive contributions to society through political activism and volunteerism.

Do you think I shouldn't be able to vote because I don't own property, even given all my positive qualities?
 
I wouldn't support restricting the vote to property owners - I've heard it suggested, but not here. Remember, income tax is a relatively new thing, unheard of at the time of the writing of the Constitution. If you work, you pay taxes, if you pay taxes, you should absolutely have the right to vote (remember that whole "taxation without representation" rhetoric?).

The Constitutional restrictions on voting were based on citizenship. Only citizens could vote, but only certain people could be citizens (as opposed to residents or denizens, I guess). Technically, a good lawyer could argue that there were NO restrictions on voting by US citizens. Today, the restrictions on voting are the same, it's the requirements of citizenship that have changed. For example, anyone born here or on a US territory or embassy grounds are US citizens, even if that's the only time they are ever within US borders - no matter whether they ever pay a dime of US taxes, own property in the US, or whatever.

Should we change the requirements for citizenship?
 
In a word: YES.

The current requirements for citizenship is the very incentive that has swarms of people illegally crossing (violating?) our borders to bear their children- anyone born on US soil is a citizen, regardless of the fact that his parents should never have been here in the first place. And, because that big ol' teat is there for the new citizen (as proxy to his parents) to suck at, of course when he grows up he will vote for those that will continue to keep the teat there and ever expanding. As each year goes by, the Federal Momma Pig gets more and more grotesquely fat, and more and more piglets run squealing to her to feed like the vicious parasites they are, and someday those who are living on the public dole will have a better standard of living than those who have private jobs. Then, they will have us. Remember that Liberals are socialists at heart- they want as many people as possible on that teat. That gives them control over us and justifies their remaining in power.

I believe that only those who have a genuine interest in the USA's welfare should have a say in the public debate. We are a Constitutional Republic, which means we elect representatives to gov't, and those whose interest doesn't go beyond reelecting people who give them handouts shouldn't enjoy the rights and privileges of our Republic. Do I favor restricting the voting franchise to certain classes- well, in a way. I believe only citizens should be allowed to vote (which has always been the case). What I do favor is changing the requirements of citizenship so that not just every schmuck born on a particular side of the border, or every smeghead who won't work, and every ignoramus who slept through history classes and can't even tell you what a Senator is, is a citizen.

I don't oppose someone voting for a different candidate than I did, all I ask is that all the "Duh, gimme munny" people with no interest beyond their own gratification be required to look past their own nose before exercising political force upon me. This would, of course, in no way change the fact that rights can't be taken away just because a majority wants it.

------------------
"Is fhe'arr teicheadh math na droch fhuireach"
-Sarabian Oomodo

If it isn't Scottish, it's CRAP!

A firearm isn't a weapon until it is used as such.


[This message has been edited by Jedi Oomodo (edited August 18, 1999).]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top