Nobody on welfare should be allowed to vote

[goldcatt]

And what that tells ya? States has power to change their system. As long they do it withing constitutional boundaries.

It's all aimed on controlling election. For instance, around 15 states allows 17 years old to vote in primaries if their 18th birthday comes before the election, while other states have restrictions on younger then 18 year old.

Can you tell me what those states gain by doing that?

The "as long as they do it within Constitutional boundaries" part is the key here. Going back to the thread topic, changing the system to require an unconstitutional poll tax or to deny anyone the right to vote based on class is not within their power.

They can take the right away completely and put it back in the hands of the State Legislature, and if that's what you're advocating then it's perfectly legal. But can you imagine what would happen?

Finally we're getting somewhere. I am talking about legality, you're talking about practicality and what if's?

You see, I don't know why Obama insist on voting rights for felons, unless he's looking at them as his constituents. We can't rationalize on just one right, in this case "right to vote" without looking on other rights. If felons paid their debt to society, why don't we give them back all rights they lost? How about giving back to felons rights to bare arms? Why only right to vote is questionable? Where do you draw that line?

In regarding of "constitutional boundaries", the first one is that Constitution doesn't give right to vote to anyone. It only says in it's amendments that certain groups cannot be denied to vote if they meet all criteria. It's left to the states to regulate it.

I haven't heard of Obama insisting on voting rights for felons. That is strictly a State issue. As are Second Amendment rights and other questions. It is up to the States to determine what they think are the proper penalties for criminal acts within the guidelines of the Constitution.

But you're wrong about the nature of the right to vote. It's an IF/THEN thing. IF the States determine they will allow their citizens to vote for Presidential electors, THEN that franchise is subject to the Equal Protection clause of the 14th. It's an all or nothing proposition, they cannot grant the right only to certain groups.

Equal protection of the laws is a fairly easy concept, it means just what it says. Laws must be applied equally to all or, since voting is considered a fundamental right, there had better be a darn good reason for it. Financial status or ability to pay a poll tax is not a good enough reason, and the law has been clear and settled on that for a long time.

 

[MaggieMae]

No. Read the bold part. It's self explanatory.

[Sigh...] Here is the self-explanatory part that you apparently keep missing:

"The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College." - SCOTUS, December 12, 2000

Individual citizens do NOT choose electoral delegates, which in a presidential election, is that political body that confirms the winner and loser of the popular vote, BY STATE.

Now, explain who has that power.

Electoral College delegates are selected by each state's convention delegates selected to represent their respective convention caucus.

About the Primary - Caucus - Convention System

 

[MaggieMae]

If we had really used the "one person, one vote" logic, Gore would have been president in 2000.

Because we still have the electoral college, THAT is the reason Bush Jr. won and the country got fucked over.

Besides, the electoral college was created because there were no airplanes or trains yet........just horses, and each town would send a representative that the TOWN ELECTED, to go cast the vote for president.

Sometimes, the person elected would vote for the person other than what they were told to.

Nope, get rid of the electoral college.

I disagree - partially - on Bush v. Gore. IMO, the Supreme Court was right in its analysis of the problem, but the majority applied the wrong remedy.

If once the State grants the right to vote for electors it becomes a fundamental right for equal protection purposes, then ordering the full recount with specific guidelines to safeguard the accuracy of the count should have been the next logical step. Bush v. Gore was a compromise done in haste and with a result that contradicts the precedent cited as the foundation of the decison, IMO.

I understand the pressure the Justices were under and the practical (and financial) problems that would have resulted for Florida if they'd done the right thing, but doing the wrong thing had its own set of consequences. It's long done and over with and there's nothing anybody can do to change it almost 10 years later. But the Justices themselves said it shouldn't be used as precedent for a reason.

That's also why Kerry didn't dispute the Ohio vote count. Another drawn-out battle in the courts would have ensued.

 

[Nosmo King]

"When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic" - Benjamin Franklin

Does this extend to all entitlement recipients? Those getting Social Security, Medicare, VA benefits?

Or do you just loathe the poor?

 

[ABikerSailor]

You know........the only people I've see "vote money for themselves" are the greedy pricks on Wall St. that lobbied to have the financial regulations taken away.

No........it's not the poor that are voting money for themselves, it's the rich.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Watch the wall street bankers negotiate sweet deals for themselves with both parties this fall to give themselves bailout money in the future for their failures.

They steal far more money in a year, imho, than the poor in the life of the Republic.

 

[AllieBaba]

I doubt that.

 

[Care4all]

i'd bet 10 bucks that at least 50% of the people collecting welfare, don't even vote!

I'd agree, except in the case of Obama.

even with obama.

about 20% of the lowest quin-tile in income adults....vote....normally....this includes working adults and welfare adults....

if they had a 100% INCREASE in turn out to vote, for obama....doubling their basic turnout, then still only 40% of them would be voting....

in addition to this, i mention....''on welfare''...as collecting welfare.

well, 50% of the people ''on welfare'', or there a bouts, are children....so although they get welfare stipends, they do not vote, because they are underage.

thus, my pretty secure financial bet!

 

[Patriot214]

If we begin making rules for why certain citizens should not be allowed to vote, then we will eventually create so many rules that no one could vote.

 

[MaggieMae]

Watch the wall street bankers negotiate sweet deals for themselves with both parties this fall to give themselves bailout money in the future for their failures.

They steal far more money in a year, imho, than the poor in the life of the Republic.

Something solid needs to come out of finance reform, but frankly I'm more in favor of an independent overseer and not put it in the hands of the feds. A big problem is that the same type of situation might not happen for another 10-15 years, and Americans have very short memories. After the S&L bailouts of the 80's, it wasn't ever supposed to happen again. Am I the only one who remembers that? So what happened between 1981 and 2008?

 

[nraforlife]

"When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic" - Benjamin Franklin

or who derives their principal income from Government employ, receives a government business subsidy, owes money on a fed guaranteed student loan, has receive MORE in social secuity/medicare than paid in SS taxes.

 

[jillian]

"When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic" - Benjamin Franklin

or who derives their principal income from Government employ, receives a government business subsidy, owes money on a fed guaranteed student loan, has receive MORE in social secuity/medicare than paid in SS taxes.

so the red states shouldn't be voting, eh? you know, given they take more than they pay to the feds.

ny on the other hand pays more than it gets

 

[Care4all]

Watch the wall street bankers negotiate sweet deals for themselves with both parties this fall to give themselves bailout money in the future for their failures.

They steal far more money in a year, imho, than the poor in the life of the Republic.

Something solid needs to come out of finance reform, but frankly I'm more in favor of an independent overseer and not put it in the hands of the feds. A big problem is that the same type of situation might not happen for another 10-15 years, and Americans have very short memories. After the S&L bailouts of the 80's, it wasn't ever supposed to happen again. Am I the only one who remembers that? So what happened between 1981 and 2008?

maggie, the SAVINGS & LOAN CRISIS (also a home crash) was 1988/1989 i believe? that's 20 years....2 different president bush's

 

[HUGGY]

Watch the wall street bankers negotiate sweet deals for themselves with both parties this fall to give themselves bailout money in the future for their failures.

They steal far more money in a year, imho, than the poor in the life of the Republic.

Something solid needs to come out of finance reform, but frankly I'm more in favor of an independent overseer and not put it in the hands of the feds. A big problem is that the same type of situation might not happen for another 10-15 years, and Americans have very short memories. After the S&L bailouts of the 80's, it wasn't ever supposed to happen again. Am I the only one who remembers that? So what happened between 1981 and 2008?

maggie, the SAVINGS & LOAN CRISIS (also a home crash) was 1988/1989 i believe? that's 20 years....2 different president bush's

I agree 100% snl was way better in the 80's

 

[JakeStarkey]

I do believe most Republicans states receive more from the feds than they send to DC. Hmmm . . . according to some then, the citizens of these states should not vote.

 

[nraforlife]

................
so the red states shouldn't be voting, eh? ..........................

Are you deliberately obtuse or just plain stupid?

 

[goldcatt]

................
so the red states shouldn't be voting, eh? ..........................

Are you deliberately obtuse or just plain stupid?

The Electoral College means Presidents are directly elected by the States not the People, dingleberry.

So if a State receives more than it pays in, by your logic it should not have Electors. Dumb, dumb, dumb.

But thanks for playing.

 

[nraforlife]

BTW folks if that little red/blue map had been coded to consider ONLY transfer payments aka a subsidy to an individual or corporation states like New York would come off as getting a much better return on their tax dollar. As it is when the Feds spend tax dollars in Washington or Oregon to keep local loggers from working that HARDLY helps the folk of those States yet the stupid graphic in the OP counts said spending as a gain to those States. The REAL gainers from said expenditure of course are the green idiots of NYC who can then sleep well at night KNOWING they have reduced a logger & his family to poverty.

interesting link

http://www.census.gov/prod/2009pubs/cffr-08.pdf

 

[AllieBaba]

The idiots in DC & NYC don't give the loggers in Oregon a thought.

 

[Neubarth]

BTW folks if that little red/blue map had been coded to consider ONLY transfer payments aka a subsidy to an individual or corporation states like New York would come off as getting a much better return on their tax dollar. As it is when the Feds spend tax dollars in Washington or Oregon to keep local loggers from working that HARDLY helps the folk of those States yet the stupid graphic in the OP counts said spending as a gain to those States. The REAL gainers from said expenditure of course are the green idiots of NYC who can then sleep well at night KNOWING they have reduced a logger & his family to poverty.

interesting link

http://www.census.gov/prod/2009pubs/cffr-08.pdf

What you point out is part of the reason that this country is in such deep trouble. My campaign for President will have us Unify North America into one country(So we will have warm places to retire to when we are old.), retake our Panama Canal, take half of the Mississippi water flow and pipe it to the desert west to grow crops on previously arid land, exploit our resources, refuse to trade with Communist China, buy North American, exclusively, reform our courts and execute any and all felons (if you do not want to act civil in civilization, YOU ARE GONE), and tell the countries around the radical Islamic nations, "YOU DEAL WITH THAT PROBLEM!" Clean it all up. It is OK with us if you nuke them, just leave us out of it. The only way to deal with terror is to kill it. I ain't gonna waste my damn time talking to people who want to placate terrorists. Kill them all. Gangs in our cities are terrorists. They need to be killed as soon as they self identify. All criminals are terrorists. They need to be killed as soon as they self identify. We do not need crap like that in our gene pool.

Nobody will vote for me because that sound too damn radical, but that is what we need to do. I will go public with my campaign in a few weeks.