Should Welfare Recipients Be Allowed To Vote?

[Tom Clancy]

If you pay taxes no matter who you are or your economic situation of course you should be able to vote.

 

[Toro]

If you pay taxes no matter who you are or your economic situation of course you should be able to vote.

I'm a Canadian living in the US. I pay a lot of taxes. Should I be allowed to vote?

 

[snjmom]

If you pay taxes no matter who you are or your economic situation of course you should be able to vote.

I disagree. Plenty of non-citizens pay taxes. Citizens should be able to vote for their representation without any requirement other than adulthood and citizenship.


Another fine candidate for amendment.

 

[Tom Clancy]

If you pay taxes no matter who you are or your economic situation of course you should be able to vote.

I disagree. Plenty of non-citizens pay taxes. Citizens should be able to vote for their representation without any requirement other than adulthood and citizenship.


Another fine candidate for amendment.

So you don't think people who pay taxes that aren't Citizens shouldn't be able to vote? Not even in local elections?

 

[snjmom]

No. If they want the rights of citizenship, they need to become one.

 

[Tom Clancy]

No. If they want the rights of citizenship, they need to become one.

I still think Permanent Residents should be able to vote in Local Elections.

Why not?

 

[Publius1787]

Why would the founding fathers be against a tax on citizens to support poorhouses? Orphans and widows?

Because it was a violation of tha laws of nature and natures god. Take your pick. http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/ . As far as charity goes they considered to be private. Not public. Taking money from one by force and giving it to another isnt charity. If you read my op you will find out why they required you to have property to vote. http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/150398-should-welfare-recipients-be-allowed-to-vote.html

Benjamin Franklin: “When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic.”

Benjamin Franklin: “ I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth, I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.”

James Madison: “With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”

James Madison: “The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.”

James Madison: “If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions.”

James Madison: “That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest.”

James Madison: If there be a government then which prides itself in maintaining the inviolability of property; which provides that none shall be taken directly even for public use without indemnification to the owner, and yet directly violates the property which individuals have in their opinions, their religion, their persons, and their faculties; nay more, which indirectly violates their property, in their actual possessions, in the labor that acquires their daily subsistence, and in the hallowed remnant of time which ought to relieve their fatigues and soothe their cares, the influence [inference?] will have been anticipated, that such a government is not a pattern for the United States.

James Madison: A just security to property is not afforded by that government, under which unequal taxes oppress one species of property and reward another species: where arbitrary taxes invade the domestic sanctuaries of the rich, and excessive taxes grind the faces of the poor; where the keenness and competitions of want are deemed an insufficient spur to labor, and taxes are again applied, by an unfeeling policy, as another spur; in violation of that sacred property, which Heaven, in decreeing man to earn his bread by the sweat of his brow, kindly reserved to him, in the small repose that could be spared from the supply of his necessities.

James Madison: As a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights. Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions.

James Madison: It is sufficiently obvious, that persons and property are the two great subjects on which Governments are to act; and that the rights of persons, and the rights of property, are the objects, for the protection of which Government was instituted. These rights cannot well be separated.

Thomas Jefferson: "To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father's has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association -- the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, and the fruits acquired by it."

Thomas Jefferson: "I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."

Thomas Jefferson: “Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.”

Thomas Jefferson: It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please. Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It [the Constitution] was intended to lace them up straightly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect.

Thomas Jefferson: They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which may be good for the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as they sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please...Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straightly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect.

John Adams: “The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If ‘Thou shalt not covet’ and ‘Thou shalt not steal’ were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free.

John Adams: Each individual of the society has a right to be protected by it in the enjoyment of his life, liberty, and property, according to standing laws. He is obliged, consequently, to contribute his share to the expense of this protection; and to give his personal service, or an equivalent, when necessary. But no part of the property of any individual can, with justice, be taken from him, or applied to public uses, without his own consent, or that of the representative body of the people. In fine, the people of this commonwealth are not controllable by any other laws than those to which their constitutional representative body have given their consent.

 

[Father Time]

They have to obey the laws same as everyone else.

They pay taxes (sales taxes) same as everyone else.

They are still citizens.

So No.

 

[Cecilie1200]

What does the Constitution say about who can and cannot vote?

Which section? Initially, it was left up to the states, which generally restricted the franchise to male property owners. Only later was the Constitution amended to guarantee voting rights to others, so I don't think you can say, "You can't change the voting franchise because of the Constitution" when obviously, one only needs to change the Constitution itself to do it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Ahhhh...the ole' "Privilege vs. Right" schpiel.

Nice one!

I bet you believe that gun ownership is a right and not a privilege.

Am I correct?

Could have something to do with gun ownership being expressly guaranteed in the Constitution, and voting NOT enjoying that distinction.

 

[Cecilie1200]

This is not a road we would want to go down. If you start denying voting privileges to those who pay no income taxes then you could not morally justify charging them sales tax, gas tax, etc. (I know, it was covered in your OP.)

Why not? People don't pay taxes in order to secure their right to vote, which should be obvious by how few eligible people actually vote. They pay them - aside from the whole "going to prison" thing - to fund public services, which everyone uses, regardless of whether or not they vote.

Once you start that crap then you would have to deny people who rent the privilege to vote in local elections since most local governments are funded by property taxes.

"Have to"? WHY would we "have to" do anything of the sort?

While we're at it why not apportion representation to the amount of taxes you pay?

See what would be created by going down this road?

Seems to me you're imagining a required cause and effect that isn't indicated. The OP suggests one thing, and you leap ahead to insist that it would require a bunch of other things that are in no way indicated or required.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yes they should, but I would like to see a basic literacy test for voter registrations.

Why?

Because we all heard of mentally retarded people being told who to vote for. Remember Acorn?

That argument would apply to liberals too, then, but as far as I know, most of them can read. They don't THINK very well, but they can read.

 

[Cecilie1200]

What does the Constitution say about who can and cannot vote?

Its up to the states. Voting is a privilage, not a right.

No.

The Constitution specifically outlines a Republican form of government..or one of elected representatives:


This outlines the Electoral Congress:


This specifically grants the right to vote to everyone:



This gives the people the right to vote for Senators:

Amendment 17 - Senators Elected by Popular Vote. Ratified 4/8/1913. History

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

This gives women the right to vote.

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.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Hope that clears it up for you.

Interestingly enough, almost none of that stuff does what you think it does. "Representative government" doesn't necessarily require individual voting. In fact, one group of people representing the citizens in the federal government, Senators, were originally chosen by state legislatures instead of the individual people.

Likewise, just because the President and Vice President are chosen by ELECTORAL votes doesn't in any way specify or require the individual citizens to participate in those votes being cast. As I think we all know from the past few Presidential elections, many states don't require their electors to refer to the results of the general election when casting their electoral votes at all.

Meanwhile, the 15th Amendment doesn't actually "grant the right to vote", because it doesn't actually require any voting to take place (other than Representatives, which are previously mentioned in the Constitution). It actually guarantees only that IF any voting happens, it can't be restricted by people's race, color, etc.

Ditto for the 19th Amendment. IF there's going to be a vote, it has to include eligible females. Doesn't mean there HAS to be a vote.

Hope that clears it up for you.

 

[Tom Clancy]

If you pay taxes no matter who you are or your economic situation of course you should be able to vote.

I'm a Canadian living in the US. I pay a lot of taxes. Should I be allowed to vote?

If you're a Resident paying taxes, then In my opinion you should be able to vote in local elections.

 

[sitarro]

Why?

Because we all heard of mentally retarded people being told who to vote for. Remember Acorn?

That argument would apply to liberals too, then, but as far as I know, most of them can read. They don't THINK very well, but they can read.