Changing the Voting Age

[Mr.Nick]

Too many reds is part of the reason
Than a large percentage of those reds and other people are not intelligent enough to even know why they're voting one way or another. They couldn't find there way out of a paper bag politically.

If you don't know where the Pacific ocean is you shouldn't vote. Would you agree?

No.

That is crazy talk.

So in your mind everyone ought to vote? Children. Mentally incompetent. Illegals. Tourists.
What a great idea. Not.

I remember during the "hope and change" thing back in 2008 the progressives were busy bringing retarded people to vote Obama from places that care for the mentally handicapped...

It was really unnerving to me.... Busing in mental patients and those who wouldn't know the difference between a fry or a TV being bussed in to vote Obama.

They may as well bussed in coma patients ...

Allegedly grown adults who are catatonic "have a voice too."

I found that to be so disrespectful..... Who in their right mind would find that ethical??? basically using a vegetable as a vote???

That is how low democrats will go to win an election.

 

[LoneLaugher]

No.

That is crazy talk.

So in your mind everyone ought to vote? Children. Mentally incompetent. Illegals. Tourists.
What a great idea. Not.

I remember during the "hope and change" thing back in 2008 the progressives were busy bringing retarded people to vote Obama from places that care for the mentally handicapped...

It was really unnerving to me.... Busing in mental patients and those who wouldn't know the difference between a fry or a TV being bussed in to vote Obama.

They may as well bussed in coma patients ...

Allegedly grown adults who are catatonic "have a voice too."

I found that to be so disrespectful..... Who in their right mind would find that ethical??? basically using a vegetable as a vote???

That is how low democrats will go to win an election.

You remember that, huh? Is that anything like how you remember dreams?

 

[Full-Auto]

So in your mind everyone ought to vote? Children. Mentally incompetent. Illegals. Tourists.
What a great idea. Not.

I remember during the "hope and change" thing back in 2008 the progressives were busy bringing retarded people to vote Obama from places that care for the mentally handicapped...

It was really unnerving to me.... Busing in mental patients and those who wouldn't know the difference between a fry or a TV being bussed in to vote Obama.

They may as well bussed in coma patients ...

Allegedly grown adults who are catatonic "have a voice too."

I found that to be so disrespectful..... Who in their right mind would find that ethical??? basically using a vegetable as a vote???

That is how low democrats will go to win an election.

You remember that, huh? Is that anything like how you remember dreams?

His memory is pretty accurate,

If you wish to challenge it, we would happily entertain your links..............

 

[The Rabbi]

No.

That is crazy talk.

So in your mind everyone ought to vote? Children. Mentally incompetent. Illegals. Tourists.
What a great idea. Not.

Yeah....that's EXACTLY what I said.

How often do the posts that begin with "So......" end in utter failure? I think it is a pretty high percentage.

I ddint claim that was exactly what you said. BUt it is the logical conclusion of your statements. If you deny the vote to tourists then you aren't allowing people to vote. And that's "Crazy talk" according to you.

 

[Mr.Nick]

So in your mind everyone ought to vote? Children. Mentally incompetent. Illegals. Tourists.
What a great idea. Not.

I remember during the "hope and change" thing back in 2008 the progressives were busy bringing retarded people to vote Obama from places that care for the mentally handicapped...

It was really unnerving to me.... Busing in mental patients and those who wouldn't know the difference between a fry or a TV being bussed in to vote Obama.

They may as well bussed in coma patients ...

Allegedly grown adults who are catatonic "have a voice too."

I found that to be so disrespectful..... Who in their right mind would find that ethical??? basically using a vegetable as a vote???

That is how low democrats will go to win an election.

You remember that, huh? Is that anything like how you remember dreams?

Red Mass Group:: Obama supporters force mentally handicapped to vote Obama.

It happened, there is even video of it on youtube...

 

[The Rabbi]

I remember during the "hope and change" thing back in 2008 the progressives were busy bringing retarded people to vote Obama from places that care for the mentally handicapped...

It was really unnerving to me.... Busing in mental patients and those who wouldn't know the difference between a fry or a TV being bussed in to vote Obama.

They may as well bussed in coma patients ...

Allegedly grown adults who are catatonic "have a voice too."

I found that to be so disrespectful..... Who in their right mind would find that ethical??? basically using a vegetable as a vote???

That is how low democrats will go to win an election.

You remember that, huh? Is that anything like how you remember dreams?

His memory is pretty accurate,

If you wish to challenge it, we would happily entertain your links..............

I have a feeling he won't be around too long.

 

[Full-Auto]

You remember that, huh? Is that anything like how you remember dreams?

His memory is pretty accurate,

If you wish to challenge it, we would happily entertain your links..............

I have a feeling he won't be around too long.

Bummer, because I am sandbagging.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Are conservatives who advocate literacy tests and property requirements ignorant of the Constitution, its case law, and Federal election law or simply in contempt of all three:

What does the Constitution say about the right to vote? The fifteenth amendment says “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.” The source of equal protection and substantive due process is also the text of the Constitution, but not so clearly stated. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment states: “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

While the due process clause, as it is known, speaks of “due process of law,” the Supreme Court interprets substantive content, or rights, from the due process clause. Substantive due process usually involves judicial recognition of a right not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, but nonetheless recognized as fundamental. The right to vote is a fundamental right (so too the right of privacy, the right to travel and first amendment rights), but this is so not just because of the importance of voting to our form of government, or the fifteenth amendment’s requirements, but also because the Supreme Court has decided that substantive due process includes the right to vote.

When a government regulation affects voting rights of a U.S. citizen, in violation of substantive due process or equal protection, the U.S. Supreme Court usually applies a standard known as “strict scrutiny.” For example, in Harper v. Virginia, 383 U.S. 663 (1966), the U.S. Supreme court made clear that any restrictions on voting must be viewed with close scrutiny and narrowly confined. The Court found a poll tax in violation of equal protection (the plaintiff was an individual voter), the court further stated that, as it relates to voting, classifications based on wealth, such as race, are disfavored. Therefore, charging a fee to vote constitutes invidious discrimination that violates equal protection. When it comes to voting, equal protection requires that once a state has provided the right to vote to a person, that right must be granted equally.

In another equal protection voting case, Kramer v. Union School District, 395 U.S. 621 (1969), the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed a New York law excluding school district residents otherwise eligible to vote in state and federal elections from voting in school district elections. In Kramer, individuals were allowed to vote ONLY if they owned, or leased, taxable real property within the district, or were parents with children enrolled in the local public schools. The court struck down the New York law by applying strict scrutiny, and explained that when a legislature denies the right to vote to some residents, the court will carefully scrutinize the legislation, applying the strict scrutiny test. The strict scrutiny test asks whether the exclusion (here, exclusion of renters of real property that lived in the district and paid state taxes) is necessary to promote a compelling state interest that is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. The court disagreed that the law was narrowly tailored to achieve the State’s interest of only allowing those “primarily interested” in the school district issues to vote on the matter. The State’s vote restriction excluded senior citizens and others living with children or relatives; clergy, military personnel, and others who live on tax-exempt property; boarders and lodgers; parents who neither own nor lease qualifying property and whose children are too young to attend school or whose children attend private schools. Even if, said the Court, the State’s interest is compelling, the regulation does not narrowly limit the exclusion of voters to achieve that interest, since it excludes many eligible voters who may be keenly interested in the issue while at the same time including disinterested persons.

Other issues raised in high profile U.S. Supreme Court voting cases include denials of voting rights, limited purpose elections (e.g., exclusion of certain voters from water storage district votes), disenfranchisement of felons, voting requirements (e.g., registration deadlines, party membership and the right to vote), race-based and ancestral disenfranchisement, and “one person one vote” (which deals with voting district boundaries). Whenever the right to vote is in some way limited or lost, there is a potential constitutional violation.
The Fundamental Right To Vote - Law Firm Knox, Brotherton, Knox & Godfrey Attorneys Charlotte, North Carolina

 

[LoneLaugher]

There is a video of someone selecting "Obama" for a mentally handicapped voter at a polling station?

The shit you people come up with.

 

[yidnar]

I know this will never happen. But I am 20. And 75% of the people my age should not be allowed to vote. They have no clue about the candidates. They have no clue about the issues. They have no idea what they're voting for. They vote with their @$$. I don't like this.

Would you settle for a qualifying written test?

only if liberals don't have gay sex questions on it !!

 

[The Rabbi]

Are conservatives who advocate literacy tests and property requirements ignorant of the Constitution, its case law, and Federal election law or simply in contempt of all three:

What does the Constitution say about the right to vote? The fifteenth amendment says “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.” The source of equal protection and substantive due process is also the text of the Constitution, but not so clearly stated. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment states: “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

While the due process clause, as it is known, speaks of “due process of law,” the Supreme Court interprets substantive content, or rights, from the due process clause. Substantive due process usually involves judicial recognition of a right not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, but nonetheless recognized as fundamental. The right to vote is a fundamental right (so too the right of privacy, the right to travel and first amendment rights), but this is so not just because of the importance of voting to our form of government, or the fifteenth amendment’s requirements, but also because the Supreme Court has decided that substantive due process includes the right to vote.

When a government regulation affects voting rights of a U.S. citizen, in violation of substantive due process or equal protection, the U.S. Supreme Court usually applies a standard known as “strict scrutiny.” For example, in Harper v. Virginia, 383 U.S. 663 (1966), the U.S. Supreme court made clear that any restrictions on voting must be viewed with close scrutiny and narrowly confined. The Court found a poll tax in violation of equal protection (the plaintiff was an individual voter), the court further stated that, as it relates to voting, classifications based on wealth, such as race, are disfavored. Therefore, charging a fee to vote constitutes invidious discrimination that violates equal protection. When it comes to voting, equal protection requires that once a state has provided the right to vote to a person, that right must be granted equally.

In another equal protection voting case, Kramer v. Union School District, 395 U.S. 621 (1969), the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed a New York law excluding school district residents otherwise eligible to vote in state and federal elections from voting in school district elections. In Kramer, individuals were allowed to vote ONLY if they owned, or leased, taxable real property within the district, or were parents with children enrolled in the local public schools. The court struck down the New York law by applying strict scrutiny, and explained that when a legislature denies the right to vote to some residents, the court will carefully scrutinize the legislation, applying the strict scrutiny test. The strict scrutiny test asks whether the exclusion (here, exclusion of renters of real property that lived in the district and paid state taxes) is necessary to promote a compelling state interest that is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. The court disagreed that the law was narrowly tailored to achieve the State’s interest of only allowing those “primarily interested” in the school district issues to vote on the matter. The State’s vote restriction excluded senior citizens and others living with children or relatives; clergy, military personnel, and others who live on tax-exempt property; boarders and lodgers; parents who neither own nor lease qualifying property and whose children are too young to attend school or whose children attend private schools. Even if, said the Court, the State’s interest is compelling, the regulation does not narrowly limit the exclusion of voters to achieve that interest, since it excludes many eligible voters who may be keenly interested in the issue while at the same time including disinterested persons.

Other issues raised in high profile U.S. Supreme Court voting cases include denials of voting rights, limited purpose elections (e.g., exclusion of certain voters from water storage district votes), disenfranchisement of felons, voting requirements (e.g., registration deadlines, party membership and the right to vote), race-based and ancestral disenfranchisement, and “one person one vote” (which deals with voting district boundaries). Whenever the right to vote is in some way limited or lost, there is a potential constitutional violation.
The Fundamental Right To Vote - Law Firm Knox, Brotherton, Knox & Godfrey Attorneys Charlotte, North Carolina

No, we are in contempt of the idea that just because someone can breathe makes them a citizen with the right to vote. The Framers held the same idea. What demagogues have done since that time is almost irrelevant.

 

[LoneLaugher]

You remember that, huh? Is that anything like how you remember dreams?

His memory is pretty accurate,

If you wish to challenge it, we would happily entertain your links..............

I have a feeling he won't be around too long.

Where do you think I'm going?

I have already grown fond of some of the people here...especially some of my new playthings on the right. Watching you guys deal with the reality of 2012 is enough motivation for me to stay. Who knows.....maybe I'll learn something.

Now.....excuse me. I gotta go bring some Obama pamphlets to the Humane Society. Got some intelligent breeds over there who might be able to get past a polling staffer.

 

[The Rabbi]

There is a video of someone selecting "Obama" for a mentally handicapped voter at a polling station?

The shit you people come up with.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6LbrDp8EiU]Mentally Disabled Man Forced To Vote For Obama - Voter Fraud - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Full-Auto]

There is a video of someone selecting "Obama" for a mentally handicapped voter at a polling station?

The shit you people come up with.

LOL Could you tuck that tall a bit faster. A whimper would really add to the drama.

 

[The Rabbi]

His memory is pretty accurate,

If you wish to challenge it, we would happily entertain your links..............

I have a feeling he won't be around too long.

Where do you think I'm going?

I have already grown fond of some of the people here...especially some of my new playthings on the right. Watching you guys deal with the reality of 2012 is enough motivation for me to stay. Who knows.....maybe I'll learn something.

Now.....excuse me. I gotta go bring some Obama pamphlets to the Humane Society. Got some intelligent breeds over there who might be able to get past a polling staffer.

The first thing you ought to learn is how to use periods in sentences.

You wont be around because you don't have the intellectual chops to hang here and defend your views. I've already posted a video that makes your post a laughingstock. Expect more to follow.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Are conservatives who advocate literacy tests and property requirements ignorant of the Constitution, its case law, and Federal election law or simply in contempt of all three:

What does the Constitution say about the right to vote? The fifteenth amendment says “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.” The source of equal protection and substantive due process is also the text of the Constitution, but not so clearly stated. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment states: “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

While the due process clause, as it is known, speaks of “due process of law,” the Supreme Court interprets substantive content, or rights, from the due process clause. Substantive due process usually involves judicial recognition of a right not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, but nonetheless recognized as fundamental. The right to vote is a fundamental right (so too the right of privacy, the right to travel and first amendment rights), but this is so not just because of the importance of voting to our form of government, or the fifteenth amendment’s requirements, but also because the Supreme Court has decided that substantive due process includes the right to vote.

When a government regulation affects voting rights of a U.S. citizen, in violation of substantive due process or equal protection, the U.S. Supreme Court usually applies a standard known as “strict scrutiny.” For example, in Harper v. Virginia, 383 U.S. 663 (1966), the U.S. Supreme court made clear that any restrictions on voting must be viewed with close scrutiny and narrowly confined. The Court found a poll tax in violation of equal protection (the plaintiff was an individual voter), the court further stated that, as it relates to voting, classifications based on wealth, such as race, are disfavored. Therefore, charging a fee to vote constitutes invidious discrimination that violates equal protection. When it comes to voting, equal protection requires that once a state has provided the right to vote to a person, that right must be granted equally.

In another equal protection voting case, Kramer v. Union School District, 395 U.S. 621 (1969), the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed a New York law excluding school district residents otherwise eligible to vote in state and federal elections from voting in school district elections. In Kramer, individuals were allowed to vote ONLY if they owned, or leased, taxable real property within the district, or were parents with children enrolled in the local public schools. The court struck down the New York law by applying strict scrutiny, and explained that when a legislature denies the right to vote to some residents, the court will carefully scrutinize the legislation, applying the strict scrutiny test. The strict scrutiny test asks whether the exclusion (here, exclusion of renters of real property that lived in the district and paid state taxes) is necessary to promote a compelling state interest that is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. The court disagreed that the law was narrowly tailored to achieve the State’s interest of only allowing those “primarily interested” in the school district issues to vote on the matter. The State’s vote restriction excluded senior citizens and others living with children or relatives; clergy, military personnel, and others who live on tax-exempt property; boarders and lodgers; parents who neither own nor lease qualifying property and whose children are too young to attend school or whose children attend private schools. Even if, said the Court, the State’s interest is compelling, the regulation does not narrowly limit the exclusion of voters to achieve that interest, since it excludes many eligible voters who may be keenly interested in the issue while at the same time including disinterested persons.

Other issues raised in high profile U.S. Supreme Court voting cases include denials of voting rights, limited purpose elections (e.g., exclusion of certain voters from water storage district votes), disenfranchisement of felons, voting requirements (e.g., registration deadlines, party membership and the right to vote), race-based and ancestral disenfranchisement, and “one person one vote” (which deals with voting district boundaries). Whenever the right to vote is in some way limited or lost, there is a potential constitutional violation.
The Fundamental Right To Vote - Law Firm Knox, Brotherton, Knox & Godfrey Attorneys Charlotte, North Carolina

That's the problem - case law..

A ham sandwich can indict a ham sandwich these days...

The Bill of Rights is quite clear.....

 

[Wry Catcher]

I know this will never happen. But I am 20. And 75% of the people my age should not be allowed to vote. They have no clue about the candidates. They have no clue about the issues. They have no idea what they're voting for. They vote with their @$$. I don't like this.

Sorry pal, 18 is old enough to die for our country, it's old enough for them to vote for or against the old men (and women) who send them into harms way.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I have a feeling he won't be around too long.

Where do you think I'm going?

I have already grown fond of some of the people here...especially some of my new playthings on the right. Watching you guys deal with the reality of 2012 is enough motivation for me to stay. Who knows.....maybe I'll learn something.

Now.....excuse me. I gotta go bring some Obama pamphlets to the Humane Society. Got some intelligent breeds over there who might be able to get past a polling staffer.

The first thing you ought to learn is how to use periods in sentences.

You wont be around because you don't have the intellectual chops to hang here and defend your views. I've already posted a video that makes your post a laughingstock. Expect more to follow.

Maybe you are used to dealing with people who don't demand proof of things.

The story and the vid don't show anyone doing anything. They are allegations and have not been substantiated. Was an investigation carried out? What was the result? Where does it say that the person accused was a progressive? Why did you start this line of BS with a plural statement?

You fail. Get used to it.

 

[Contumacious]

If you are considered mature enough to join the military and put your life on the line for the country at 18 then you are old enough to vote.

Incorrect

Individuals who join the military at this point in time do so in order to support the military industrial complex.

Secondly, since the US is operating as if it were a democracy where our rights are subject to majority rule it is important that voters have a clue about the issues.

.

 

[The Rabbi]

I know this will never happen. But I am 20. And 75% of the people my age should not be allowed to vote. They have no clue about the candidates. They have no clue about the issues. They have no idea what they're voting for. They vote with their @$$. I don't like this.

Sorry pal, 18 is old enough to die for our country, it's old enough for them to vote for or against the old men (and women) who send them into harms way.

That argument had some cogence when we had a draft. But today anyone who goes into "harm's way" does so of his own free will.
Fail.