~Prisoners Voting~

[TheBrain]

Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

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.[1]

.

The 15th merely guarantees that no one will be turned down base on color , or past slavery. NO ONE actually has the right to vote.

Congressman Jesse L. Jackson, Jr.: Do Americans Have The Right To Vote?


One would think if that were the intent of the fathers they would have included it in the top10.

James Madison - THE FATHER OF THE CONSTITUTION (1787) CONSIDERED VOTING a RIGHT.


.
.

Not only does that document not say that every man has a right to vote, it is NOT part of the COTUS .

 

[FA_Q2]

The 15th merely guarantees that no one will be turned down base on color , or past slavery. NO ONE actually has the right to vote.

Congressman Jesse L. Jackson, Jr.: Do Americans Have The Right To Vote?


One would think if that were the intent of the fathers they would have included it in the top10.

James Madison - THE FATHER OF THE CONSTITUTION (1787) CONSIDERED VOTING a RIGHT.


.
.

Not only does that document not say that every man has a right to vote, it is NOT part of the COTUS .

Now you are being obtuse on purpose. No one said that the original intent was that voting was a right for all people. I even went as far as you did and said that the original intent was that voting was not a right. Today, it has been recognized that voting is a right as per the 15th. The bold, red part uses that EXACT word. There is no argument to be had. Voting is a right as per the 15th amendment.

I think I could make a pretty valid argument that the general population today while being more educated, is dumber than the general population back then to but that's another thread.

No, you could not. You could make the argument that the general voting populous was smarter than versus today and you would be right. Hence, the purpose of controlling the vote in the minds of the framers. Slaves were not generally well educated and made up a good chunk of the population not to mention the resistance to women learning. When half you population is not considered for good education you will have some issues.

The interesting part is that you seem to be okay with infringing on the right to vote. That speaks of big government intrusion if you ask me. Should something like that pass then who decides who get to vote? I surly do not trust our politicians to have that kind of power.

On a side note, in order to obtain citizenship in this country you need to ta a test. One of the questions on that test is:
What is your MOST important right as an American citizen?
The ‘approved’ and ‘correct’ answer – the right to vote….
I would say the freedoms outlined in the first, particularly the freedom of speech but what can you say..

 

[TheBrain]

James Madison - THE FATHER OF THE CONSTITUTION (1787) CONSIDERED VOTING a RIGHT.


.
.

Not only does that document not say that every man has a right to vote, it is NOT part of the COTUS .

Now you are being obtuse on purpose. No one said that the original intent was that voting was a right for all people. I even went as far as you did and said that the original intent was that voting was not a right. Today, it has been recognized that voting is a right as per the 15th. The bold, red part uses that EXACT word. There is no argument to be had. Voting is a right as per the 15th amendment.

I think I could make a pretty valid argument that the general population today while being more educated, is dumber than the general population back then to but that's another thread.

No, you could not. You could make the argument that the general voting populous was smarter than versus today and you would be right. Hence, the purpose of controlling the vote in the minds of the framers. Slaves were not generally well educated and made up a good chunk of the population not to mention the resistance to women learning. When half you population is not considered for good education you will have some issues.

The interesting part is that you seem to be okay with infringing on the right to vote. That speaks of big government intrusion if you ask me. Should something like that pass then who decides who get to vote? I surly do not trust our politicians to have that kind of power.

On a side note, in order to obtain citizenship in this country you need to ta a test. One of the questions on that test is:
What is your MOST important right as an American citizen?
The ‘approved’ and ‘correct’ answer – the right to vote….
I would say the freedoms outlined in the first, particularly the freedom of speech but what can you say..

Am I okay with infringing on people's "right" to vote? No, but I AM of the opinoin that there should be voting exams. Voting is something that should be EARNED. Being an uneducated boob doesn't cut it in my book.

And I disagree that the average person is smarter today than then. Our population is half retarded. Something like 50% of the population can't even locate their own state on a map. That's DUMB.

 

[FA_Q2]

Am I okay with infringing on people's "right" to vote? No, but I AM of the opinoin that there should be voting exams. Voting is something that should be EARNED. Being an uneducated boob doesn't cut it in my book.

I would actually agree but for one thing: it would be big government that designed and implemented such exams and I do not trust the government with such a matter as to decide who can vote and what the requirements are. That is a rather slippery slope. I have an issue with people that cannot pass a basic civics test or name the president that have the gall to go to the polls but I cannot see a good way around that.

Maybe it would be best if candidates did not have names but had their positions on the ballot. You would actually have to vote based on some real positions.

 

[Colin]

I think the UK is in a position where they are just afraid to say no to anyone, that country is right on the brink of allowing Shariah law anyways. I think once prisoners do their time they should be allowed to vote but not when they are still behind bars.

Wrong on both counts HG. The UK government does NOT want voting rights for prisoners. It is the European Court of Human Rights that is forcing us to change tack.

BBC NEWS | UK | UK Politics | Some inmates to get voting rights

 

[TheBrain]

Am I okay with infringing on people's "right" to vote? No, but I AM of the opinoin that there should be voting exams. Voting is something that should be EARNED. Being an uneducated boob doesn't cut it in my book.

I would actually agree but for one thing: it would be big government that designed and implemented such exams and I do not trust the government with such a matter as to decide who can vote and what the requirements are. That is a rather slippery slope. I have an issue with people that cannot pass a basic civics test or name the president that have the gall to go to the polls but I cannot see a good way around that.

Maybe it would be best if candidates did not have names but had their positions on the ballot. You would actually have to vote based on some real positions.

Oh , I agree about not trusting the government. But surely we could figure out SOME way to do something about morons voting.

 

[FA_Q2]

It is a REALLY nice thought. I work with an individual that cannot name the 3 brances of government. For me, it should be a simple civics test ala:
1. Name the three branches of government and their purpose?
2. How long does a president serve? A representative? A senator?
3. How many amendments (including the bill of rights) are there in the constitution?
…..
Simple really. I would not mind people having to name the underlying purpose of each of the first ten as well. Something like: the first protects, the second protects…

I can’t believe that people that have zero clue at how the government works have a say in who is running it. If you cannot determine what a president does (as most of the country cannot) then how are you going to be the one that hires them?