Should The Senate Go Back To Being Elected By The State Legislatures?

[Toro]

If voting was an unaleinable natural right then everyone in the world would have the right to vote in american elections by no other virtue other than being on american soil. If voting was a right please show me where in the constitution is this right guarenteed to everyone. If voting is a right then states could not forbid felons from voting.

If life were an inalienable right, we wouldn't have the death penalty.

Ever hear of due process?

If a right is inalienable, it can't be taken away.

Speaking of due process, inalienable rights do not apply to everyone, as you imply above regarding voting. That's how we are able to keep people at Gitmo for years.

 

[rightwinger]

If voting was an unaleinable natural right then everyone in the world would have the right to vote in american elections by no other virtue other than being on american soil. If voting was a right please show me where in the constitution is this right guarenteed to everyone. If voting is a right then states could not forbid felons from voting.

Amendment 19 - Women's Suffrage. Ratified 8/18/1920. History

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 sex.

Says nothing about privledge

It says that voting cannot be denied ON ACCOUNT OF (fill in the blank). Which means that the states can deny voting privilages but not for that purpose. Are you really this stupid?

Do you expect a serious response to that?


Voting is a right of all US citizens. The constitution goes to great pains to identify it as a RIGHT. And yes you can raise silly objections that prisoners can't vote and someone from another country can't vote and dogs and kittens can't vote

 

[Cecilie1200]

Don't you think there is a conflict of interest in politicians voting for war if they have nothing personal on the line? It's my taxes going to fund a war I may or may not believe in. Why the heck should I be expected to fund a war in which some politician has nothing at stake?

Dumb point.
1. Who would sit in his place?
2. Do you really want people who dont want to serve in the military?
3. Those of us, like myself, who do serve know the risk were taking
4. Your taxes fund the constitutionaly sanctioned powers of congress, of which, war is one of them.
6. Many polititions have family, sons, or daughters, currently serving (vouluntairly) in the war they voted for.

What your advocating for is that a polititions son be taken by force to serve against his will by virtue of his fathers vote. Whereas I am advocating for those who pay the governments bills not to be forced to pay for more services because those who dont pay the bills want an extra welfare program to force more money away from those who earned it to those who havent. You see the difference? You advocate force and I advocate freedom. Which is often the core difference between liberals and conservatives.

It is the dumbest comparison ever.
When the country goes to war everyone has something at stake. Politicians have their careers at stake.
This is unlike taxes where people who do not pay can vote themselves more and more benefits from people who pay, being in the majority.
Total red herring of an argument.

Not to mention that, believe it or not, politicians are human beings, too. They may too often be venal and self-absorbed (and whose fault is THAT, but the people who elect them and then apathetically let them get away with it?), but they ARE human beings, and no more immune to the horrors of having thousands of their fellow citizens sent off to war than any other human being would be.

 

[The Rabbi]

Please show me where in the constitution that it mentions race or sex in regards to voting. Voting rights were subject to the descression of the states. Besids, your fictional strawman wont work here. Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


And whats the point of having two popularly elected bodies? The point was so that both the state and the people can have a say in the federal government. But now, thanks mostly to the 17th Amendment, the 10th amendment is virtually void and the federal governement can tax the citizens of a state and use the peoples money to bribe legislative behavior that the state may deem not in its best interst. Obamacare is a perfect example.

May I also point out that putting the make-up of the Senate back in the hands of the state legislatures would ALSO have the effect of forcing the voters - apathetic creatures that they naturally are - to start paying more attention to who ends up in their state legislature and why. Making people more informed and more involved (and I don't mean "involved" in the leftist sense of "pulling the lever for the guy who promises the most goodies") is usually a good thing.

forced democracy always works out so well.

Yeah. Just ask the Japanese or South Koreans.

 

[Cecilie1200]

you do realize that oil paintings aren't the same as photographs, right?



damn

And you realize he wrote that the painting is based on historical fact, right?
Oh no. That would require you to read and understand something, obviously beyond you. So go ahead and just insult me and we'll move on.

the historical fact it's based on is that washington did actually cross the delaware.

you people are really incredible.

i'm not sure which is funnier-thinking an oil painting is evidence that blacks and women crossed the delaware with washington or the notion that glenn beck is an *expert* on anything.

you rock!

For the record, while the painting (obviously) takes a great deal of artistic license, it is based on more historical fact than just "Washington crossed the Delaware".

Like the character said to be James Monroe, the rower by Washington's knee, who is a person of color, is said to be a man named Prince Whipple. Though Prince Whipple was an African who served in the Revolution, there is no documentation to state that Prince Whipple was present at the crossing. There were many people of color present at the crossing as the Marbleheader unit from Massachusetts was a well integrated group of seafaring men. They took the lead role in rowing General Washington and his troops across the River. - What's wrong with this painting?

So yes, there WERE black people present in Washington's army when crossing the Delaware. About documented women present during the crossing, not so much. There's a long history of women disguising themselves as men throughout military history, so it's certainly possible, but documented history tells us that the known women with the army, as well as children and extra baggage, were sent to Newtown, PA.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Should The Senate Go Back To Being Elected By The State Legislatures?

Most of us know that the U.S. Senate used to be elected by the state legeslatures. The founding fathers did this on purpose so that the states would have a say in government. Of course, this was done away with via the 17th amendment despite the fact that the U.S. House of Represenatives was allready the peoples house which was popularly elected. To date, all congressmen are elected via popular vote and we now have a federal government that caters to popularism at the expense of the 10th Amendment in the Bill of Rights. Today the federal government raises taxes on the states and forces the states to pass laws that the federal government cannot constitutionaly make them do in order to get their money back, an extortion that no doubt our founders wanted to prevent. Moreover, the Supreme Court Justices, Treaty's, and other nominations and Senate duty's are carried out by a popularly elected body opposite the wishes of the founding fathers. Furthermore, in light of the current health care law (Obamacare) being contested by 25, if not currently more, states, would this have been prevented if the states had a say in the federal government as they used to? For those who wonder what happened to the 10th amendment, look no further than the 17th. Should The Senate Go Back To Being Elected By The State Legislatures?


Article 1 Section 3: The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof

The 17th Amendment: The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof

The 10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
YouTube - ‪Thomas DiLorenzo - The 17th Amendment‬‏

How dare the government cater to the people! Those powers are reserved for the people!

Seriously guys? 18 of you want Senators to be nothing more than spoils of war for the ruling legislative party? Have you seen what the state legislatures have done to the state budgets in the past decade?

I would doubt the average intelligence of a state legislator is higher than the average intelligence of a voter.

Why would you assume more intelligence for the people who choose state legislators than for the legislators they choose? I think the current condition of state legislators can easily be traced back to the fact that they've lost importance in the minds of the voters by virtue of the switch to popular votes for Senators. It's too easy to blow off state elections and just focus on the federal ones. Put control of the Senate back in the hands of the states, and I'll bet you see a lot more attention paid to whose in state government.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Seriously guys? 18 of you want Senators to be nothing more than spoils of war for the ruling legislative party? Have you seen what the state legislatures have done to the state budgets in the past decade?

I would doubt the average intelligence of a state legislator is higher than the average intelligence of a voter.

As though the intelligence of federal Senators elected by the same people would be any higher?

It wouldn't matter, they wouldn't give a shit about you anyway because you would no longer be their constituent.

As if they do NOW?

Unlike leftists, I don't WANT my elected officials to "care" about me. They're not my therapist or my minister or my husband, and that's not their job. Their job is to act in the best interests of - in the case of Senators - their state and the nation in general, in accordance as much as possible with the wishes of the voters. WHY they do so, what their motivation in doing so is, is not a matter of great interest to me one way or the other. Highly principled zealots in the service of the country or self-absorbed seekers of another elected term; whatever gets 'em to do the right thing.

 

[Oddball]

Seriously guys? 18 of you want Senators to be nothing more than spoils of war for the ruling legislative party? Have you seen what the state legislatures have done to the state budgets in the past decade?

I would doubt the average intelligence of a state legislator is higher than the average intelligence of a voter.

As though the intelligence of federal Senators elected by the same people would be any higher?

It wouldn't matter, they wouldn't give a shit about you anyway because you would no longer be their constituent.

I'd be a constituent of my members of my state legislature and governor.

Do you think before making such absurd posts, or is this a steam of consciousness thing?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Please show me where in the constitution that it mentions race or sex in regards to voting. Voting rights were subject to the descression of the states. Besids, your fictional strawman wont work here. Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


And whats the point of having two popularly elected bodies? The point was so that both the state and the people can have a say in the federal government. But now, thanks mostly to the 17th Amendment, the 10th amendment is virtually void and the federal governement can tax the citizens of a state and use the peoples money to bribe legislative behavior that the state may deem not in its best interst. Obamacare is a perfect example.

May I also point out that putting the make-up of the Senate back in the hands of the state legislatures would ALSO have the effect of forcing the voters - apathetic creatures that they naturally are - to start paying more attention to who ends up in their state legislature and why. Making people more informed and more involved (and I don't mean "involved" in the leftist sense of "pulling the lever for the guy who promises the most goodies") is usually a good thing.

forced democracy always works out so well.

Life always forces us to do things. Sorry if this is the first you've heard about it. You may think being an apathetic slacker who lets the governance of their state slide on by without notice is freedom from that force, but it just means you're being pushed in ways less noticeable. Right now, voters are being pushed, all unknowing, in the direction of treating state elections as though they're marginal and superfluous, to allow those who support that system to benefit from it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

May I also point out that putting the make-up of the Senate back in the hands of the state legislatures would ALSO have the effect of forcing the voters - apathetic creatures that they naturally are - to start paying more attention to who ends up in their state legislature and why. Making people more informed and more involved (and I don't mean "involved" in the leftist sense of "pulling the lever for the guy who promises the most goodies") is usually a good thing.

forced democracy always works out so well.

Yeah. Just ask the Japanese or South Koreans.

As if we didn't wind up with this country and its system of government in the first place because our founding generation was forced to rise up and fight for it. For that matter, the original rights and representative democracy we came from, under the Magna Carta, ALSO came about because THAT generation of people were forced into a position where they had to rise up and fight for it.

As individuals, we might be able to get away with blowing off participation in our own governance. As a group, over time, such behavior will inevitably put us in a position where we are forced to get re-involved. Better it happen now than under more extreme conditions down the road.

 

[Publius1787]

Says nothing about privledge

It says that voting cannot be denied ON ACCOUNT OF (fill in the blank). Which means that the states can deny voting privilages but not for that purpose. Are you really this stupid?

Do you expect a serious response to that?


Voting is a right of all US citizens. The constitution goes to great pains to identify it as a RIGHT. And yes you can raise silly objections that prisoners can't vote and someone from another country can't vote and dogs and kittens can't vote

Yes. Go ahead with your serious response. Please show me the error of my ways. Then learn to read english, correct your mistake, and come to realize that the constitution only says "Voring cannot be denied ON THE ACCOUNT OF (fill in the blank). Which means that voting can be denied on other counts. Truth hurts doesent it?

 

[Publius1787]

If life were an inalienable right, we wouldn't have the death penalty.

Ever hear of due process?

If a right is inalienable, it can't be taken away.

Speaking of due process, inalienable rights do not apply to everyone, as you imply above regarding voting. That's how we are able to keep people at Gitmo for years.

If you take away the rights of others then you are punished by having rights taken from you in a court of law. The founders knew this when it came to voting. Thats why they did not want people with no property voting to take property away from those who do have property. Which is todays democrat party platform. To redistribute property through popularism so that the have nots can benefit from plundering the haves to ensure more political power. Whenever force is involved a crime is being commited. Thats why the founders wanted taxation to only pay for those services that benefit the general (not the specific) welfare and for this to honestly play out that those who dont pay for it dont vote for it. Unaleinable means that no one has the right to vote away the liberty of another. Voting is not a right its a privilage AND I CHALLENGE TO FIND IN THE CONSTITUTION WHERE IT SAYS OTHERWISE. I can point to plenty of examples that it says, AND THE SUPREME COURT SUPPORTS THIS DESCISION, that voting privilages are descided by the states. Oh, and rights are refered to in our founding documents as unaleinable not inaleinable. Though both meant practicaly the same thing.

If the right to vote is unaleinable then why does the constitution say on a number of occasions that, Voting cannot be denied ON THE ACCOUNT OF (fill in the blank) . Because voting is and has always been a privilage.

 

[Toro]

Ever hear of due process?

If a right is inalienable, it can't be taken away.

Speaking of due process, inalienable rights do not apply to everyone, as you imply above regarding voting. That's how we are able to keep people at Gitmo for years.

If you take away the rights of others then you are punished by having rights taken from you in a court of law. The founders knew this when it came to voting. Thats why they did not want people with no property voting to take property away from those who do have property. Which is todays democrat party platform. To redistribute property through popularism so that the have nots can benefit from plundering the haves to ensure more political power. Whenever force is involved a crime is being commited. Thats why the founders wanted taxation to only pay for those services that benefit the general (not the specific) welfare and for this to honestly play out that those who dont pay for it dont vote for it. Unaleinable means that no one has the right to vote away the liberty of another. Voting is not a right its a privilage AND I CHALLENGE TO FIND IN THE CONSTITUTION WHERE IT SAYS OTHERWISE. I can point to plenty of examples that it says, AND THE SUPREME COURT SUPPORTS THIS DESCISION, that voting privilages are descided by the states. Oh, and rights are refered to in our founding documents as unaleinable not inaleinable. Though both meant practicaly the same thing.

If the right to vote is unaleinable then why does the constitution say on a number of occasions that, Voting cannot be denied ON THE ACCOUNT OF (fill in the blank) . Because voting is and has always been a privilage.

Yeah I know. I get this. I understand the libertarian argument. I am not arguing the efficacy of the Democrat platform. What I am arguing is that even though these ideas of democracy were very progressive in the 1780s, societies evolve, and what seemed revolutionary 230 years ago is beyond antiquated today. That document was written for an agrarian nation, where land conveyed wealth. What is property today? In a post-industrial society, equating land ownership with the franchise does not reflect the productive capacity nor the wealth of this nation. Is property intellectual property? Is it ownership of a car? Or the clothes on your back? Why should a farmer - you know, a landholder who receives billions of dollars from American taxpayers, including from those who own no land - should have a vote whereas the young entrepreneur creating The Next Big thing living in a rental unit in Manhattan or Silicon Valley should not? The fact that the founders did not have the foresight to see that the wealth drivers of this nation would be those manipulating 1s and 0s is no slight on them. How would they know? But they created a document which was designed for another time. That does not mean that the universal truths from then do not apply now, but what it means is that applying an 18th century mindset to a modern society often fails. That's why the discussion of slavery is important in context. If your argument is "What did the founding fathers intend?" back then when interpreting legal questions today, you just can't brush off the fact that many of them owned slaves. Owning slaves doesn't make them bad people. You can only judge them based on the moral code of the day. But what it means is applying a strict literal interpretation of a document written with the mindset of 230 years ago creates all sorts of problems in a modern society because you can't selectively apply the standards of 230 years ago when you are a strict literalist.

Which reminds me - the idea that property owners are somehow more noble and won't screw everyone else through the political arena for their own personal gain is completely obliterated by the farm lobby, which continuously votes itself wealth transfers through subsidies and tariffs at the expense of society at large. Maybe the founding fathers didn't have to worry about things like ethanol mandates but property owners are just as venal at ripping off society as anyone else.

 

[rightwinger]

It says that voting cannot be denied ON ACCOUNT OF (fill in the blank). Which means that the states can deny voting privilages but not for that purpose. Are you really this stupid?

Do you expect a serious response to that?


Voting is a right of all US citizens. The constitution goes to great pains to identify it as a RIGHT. And yes you can raise silly objections that prisoners can't vote and someone from another country can't vote and dogs and kittens can't vote

Yes. Go ahead with your serious response. Please show me the error of my ways. Then learn to read english, correct your mistake, and come to realize that the constitution only says "Voring cannot be denied ON THE ACCOUNT OF (fill in the blank). Which means that voting can be denied on other counts. Truth hurts doesent it?

Expound...


The brilliance of your response is overwhelming. You still haven't gotten to the "Privledge" part

 

[Publius1787]

Do you expect a serious response to that?


Voting is a right of all US citizens. The constitution goes to great pains to identify it as a RIGHT. And yes you can raise silly objections that prisoners can't vote and someone from another country can't vote and dogs and kittens can't vote

Yes. Go ahead with your serious response. Please show me the error of my ways. Then learn to read english, correct your mistake, and come to realize that the constitution only says "Voring cannot be denied ON THE ACCOUNT OF (fill in the blank). Which means that voting can be denied on other counts. Truth hurts doesent it?

Expound...


The brilliance of your response is overwhelming. You still haven't gotten to the "Privledge" part

The supreme court supports my position in a time where the supreme court hardly supports any states rights position. The states have the ultamat say on the privilage to vote with exception to the constitutioanl restrictions in the later amendments. This is a matter of fact and not up for debate. There has never been a time in U.S. history where this has not been so.

 

[Publius1787]

If a right is inalienable, it can't be taken away.

Speaking of due process, inalienable rights do not apply to everyone, as you imply above regarding voting. That's how we are able to keep people at Gitmo for years.

If you take away the rights of others then you are punished by having rights taken from you in a court of law. The founders knew this when it came to voting. Thats why they did not want people with no property voting to take property away from those who do have property. Which is todays democrat party platform. To redistribute property through popularism so that the have nots can benefit from plundering the haves to ensure more political power. Whenever force is involved a crime is being commited. Thats why the founders wanted taxation to only pay for those services that benefit the general (not the specific) welfare and for this to honestly play out that those who dont pay for it dont vote for it. Unaleinable means that no one has the right to vote away the liberty of another. Voting is not a right its a privilage AND I CHALLENGE TO FIND IN THE CONSTITUTION WHERE IT SAYS OTHERWISE. I can point to plenty of examples that it says, AND THE SUPREME COURT SUPPORTS THIS DESCISION, that voting privilages are descided by the states. Oh, and rights are refered to in our founding documents as unaleinable not inaleinable. Though both meant practicaly the same thing.

If the right to vote is unaleinable then why does the constitution say on a number of occasions that, Voting cannot be denied ON THE ACCOUNT OF (fill in the blank) . Because voting is and has always been a privilage.

Yeah I know. I get this. I understand the libertarian argument. I am not arguing the efficacy of the Democrat platform. What I am arguing is that even though these ideas of democracy were very progressive in the 1780s, societies evolve, and what seemed revolutionary 230 years ago is beyond antiquated today. That document was written for an agrarian nation, where land conveyed wealth. What is property today? In a post-industrial society, equating land ownership with the franchise does not reflect the productive capacity nor the wealth of this nation. Is property intellectual property? Is it ownership of a car? Or the clothes on your back? Why should a farmer - you know, a landholder who receives billions of dollars from American taxpayers, including from those who own no land - should have a vote whereas the young entrepreneur creating The Next Big thing living in a rental unit in Manhattan or Silicon Valley should not? The fact that the founders did not have the foresight to see that the wealth drivers of this nation would be those manipulating 1s and 0s is no slight on them. How would they know? But they created a document which was designed for another time. That does not mean that the universal truths from then do not apply now, but what it means is that applying an 18th century mindset to a modern society often fails. That's why the discussion of slavery is important in context. If your argument is "What did the founding fathers intend?" back then when interpreting legal questions today, you just can't brush off the fact that many of them owned slaves. Owning slaves doesn't make them bad people. You can only judge them based on the moral code of the day. But what it means is applying a strict literal interpretation of a document written with the mindset of 230 years ago creates all sorts of problems in a modern society because you can't selectively apply the standards of 230 years ago when you are a strict literalist.

Which reminds me - the idea that property owners are somehow more noble and won't screw everyone else through the political arena for their own personal gain is completely obliterated by the farm lobby, which continuously votes itself wealth transfers through subsidies and tariffs at the expense of society at large. Maybe the founding fathers didn't have to worry about things like ethanol mandates but property owners are just as venal at ripping off society as anyone else.

Will respond to later. Taking the wife and kids to see King Fu Panda.

 

[Toro]

If you take away the rights of others then you are punished by having rights taken from you in a court of law. The founders knew this when it came to voting. Thats why they did not want people with no property voting to take property away from those who do have property. Which is todays democrat party platform. To redistribute property through popularism so that the have nots can benefit from plundering the haves to ensure more political power. Whenever force is involved a crime is being commited. Thats why the founders wanted taxation to only pay for those services that benefit the general (not the specific) welfare and for this to honestly play out that those who dont pay for it dont vote for it. Unaleinable means that no one has the right to vote away the liberty of another. Voting is not a right its a privilage AND I CHALLENGE TO FIND IN THE CONSTITUTION WHERE IT SAYS OTHERWISE. I can point to plenty of examples that it says, AND THE SUPREME COURT SUPPORTS THIS DESCISION, that voting privilages are descided by the states. Oh, and rights are refered to in our founding documents as unaleinable not inaleinable. Though both meant practicaly the same thing.

If the right to vote is unaleinable then why does the constitution say on a number of occasions that, Voting cannot be denied ON THE ACCOUNT OF (fill in the blank) . Because voting is and has always been a privilage.

Yeah I know. I get this. I understand the libertarian argument. I am not arguing the efficacy of the Democrat platform. What I am arguing is that even though these ideas of democracy were very progressive in the 1780s, societies evolve, and what seemed revolutionary 230 years ago is beyond antiquated today. That document was written for an agrarian nation, where land conveyed wealth. What is property today? In a post-industrial society, equating land ownership with the franchise does not reflect the productive capacity nor the wealth of this nation. Is property intellectual property? Is it ownership of a car? Or the clothes on your back? Why should a farmer - you know, a landholder who receives billions of dollars from American taxpayers, including from those who own no land - should have a vote whereas the young entrepreneur creating The Next Big thing living in a rental unit in Manhattan or Silicon Valley should not? The fact that the founders did not have the foresight to see that the wealth drivers of this nation would be those manipulating 1s and 0s is no slight on them. How would they know? But they created a document which was designed for another time. That does not mean that the universal truths from then do not apply now, but what it means is that applying an 18th century mindset to a modern society often fails. That's why the discussion of slavery is important in context. If your argument is "What did the founding fathers intend?" back then when interpreting legal questions today, you just can't brush off the fact that many of them owned slaves. Owning slaves doesn't make them bad people. You can only judge them based on the moral code of the day. But what it means is applying a strict literal interpretation of a document written with the mindset of 230 years ago creates all sorts of problems in a modern society because you can't selectively apply the standards of 230 years ago when you are a strict literalist.

Which reminds me - the idea that property owners are somehow more noble and won't screw everyone else through the political arena for their own personal gain is completely obliterated by the farm lobby, which continuously votes itself wealth transfers through subsidies and tariffs at the expense of society at large. Maybe the founding fathers didn't have to worry about things like ethanol mandates but property owners are just as venal at ripping off society as anyone else.

Will respond to later. Taking the wife and kids to see King Fu Panda.

Good for you. Enjoy.

 

[del]

May I also point out that putting the make-up of the Senate back in the hands of the state legislatures would ALSO have the effect of forcing the voters - apathetic creatures that they naturally are - to start paying more attention to who ends up in their state legislature and why. Making people more informed and more involved (and I don't mean "involved" in the leftist sense of "pulling the lever for the guy who promises the most goodies") is usually a good thing.

forced democracy always works out so well.

Yeah. Just ask the Japanese or South Koreans.

yeah, we've only had to stay there 60 years

 

[The Rabbi]

forced democracy always works out so well.

Yeah. Just ask the Japanese or South Koreans.

yeah, we've only had to stay there 60 years

But we've never had better sushi or kimchi in this country.

 

[American Legacy]

...the idea that property owners are somehow more noble and won't screw everyone else through the political arena for their own personal gain is completely obliterated by the farm lobby, which continuously votes itself wealth transfers through subsidies and tariffs at the expense of society at large. Maybe the founding fathers didn't have to worry about things like ethanol mandates but property owners are just as venal at ripping off society as anyone else.

There is nothing new under the sun. In the Founding Era, as in ours, various factions of the electorate voted their own interests. That is an unavoidable aspect of human nature which the Founders recognized. The Founders hoped that might be off-set to the degree possible by tying self-interest to the national interest. The surest way to do that is to ensure that voters have vested interest in the country (i.e. property). People who own property (which can be defined as more than just "land") are impacted to a greater extent than non-propertied people by the policies of the federal government. This isn't because propertied people can vote themselves the Treasury, but precisely because the Treasury is disproportionately derived from taxing these people. The rich pay a heavily disproportionate share of taxes. Such persons naturally take a keener interest in the goings-on of Congress (hence the lobbyists). The other side of the same coin is that people who are not paying taxes are able to vote themselves goodies from the treasury which Thomas Jefferson famously warned against. The problem is the increasingly large number of voters in this country who are disconnected from the responsibilities of citizenship but still have an equal voice at the ballot box. That is democracy and it's precisely what the Founders rightly feared our constitutional Republic might descend into thanks to the demogoguery of men of lesser character leading the masses of ill-informed mobs armed with their votes. Jackson was the first great example of this. The Progressive movement is the most lasting. LBJ's War on Poverty and the permanent welfare society and culture of entitlement it fostered is the latest incarnation. The only way to reversal the descent into the abys is to disenfranchise those who can abuse the system. If not limiting the franchise to property owners, at least limit it to tax payers with citizenship.