Democrats push to amend Constitution so 16-year-olds can vote

[BlindBoo]

Going to the 86 file like the nationwide ban on gas stoves did. Just wad it up and pretend to shoot 3 pointers till it makes it in the basket.

 

[Polishprince]

While I agree this is something worth discussing on a board like this, my opinion is since I believe there is a zero chance of ever getting it to happen, I'm not going to worry over it very much.

Why would you think that? The Democrats have been able to get all sorts of crazy shit passed through the years.

If they think that this will improve their chances in elections, of course they will try and do it and might well succeed.

 

[White 6]

Democrats push to amend Constitution so 16-year-olds can vote

More than a dozen House Democrats this week proposed an amendment to the Constitution to allow 16-year-olds to vote in an apparent attempt to make it easier to enact left-leaning policies like gun control and pro-environmental measures.

Democratic Rep. Grace Meng of New York introduced a resolution that would do away with the 26th Amendment to the Constitution, which allows U.S. citizens to vote if they are at least 18 years of age. The resolution would replace that with new language that says: "The right of citizens of the United States, who are sixteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age."

Meng hadn’t released a statement on her proposal by early Thursday afternoon. But she released a statement in the last Congress, indicating a belief that lowering the voting age by amending the Constitution would let younger people have a say on many of the positions supported by Democrats.

"Our young people, including 16- and 17-year-olds, continue to fight and advocate for so many issues that they are passionate about from gun safety to the climate crisis," she said. "They have been tremendously engaged on policies affecting their lives and their futures."

When Democrats were in charge of the last Congress, they did nothing to advance Meng’s proposal. But groups that supported the idea of a lower voting age also indicated they like the idea because it will help advance left-leaning causes.

How about 27 instead? I mean if they can stay on their parent's insurance till 26 then they are not mature enough to vote.

That said I'm surprised it's not lower considering the left thinks a 4-year old can make a life changing decision on their gender.

I see no need for 16-year-olds to vote. They are clueless, whether they have the self awareness to know it or not. This goes nowhere. It has such a low likelihood of coming to fruition, one could be forgiven for thinking it, fake news to titillate the cult.

 

[Polishprince]

I see no need for 16-year-olds to vote. They are clueless, whether they have the self awareness to know it or not. This goes nowhere. It has such a low likelihood of coming to fruition, one could be forgiven for thinking it, fake news to titillate the cult.

No need for 18 year olds to vote either. They aren't considered mature enough to drink beer or smoke cigarettes, why should we put the fate of the country in their hands?

 

[surada]

I agree but it's worth pointing out how retarded the dems are.

It's Fox News. Lol

 

[Dr.Know]

Democrats push to amend Constitution so 16-year-olds can vote

More than a dozen House Democrats this week proposed an amendment to the Constitution to allow 16-year-olds to vote in an apparent attempt to make it easier to enact left-leaning policies like gun control and pro-environmental measures.

Democratic Rep. Grace Meng of New York introduced a resolution that would do away with the 26th Amendment to the Constitution, which allows U.S. citizens to vote if they are at least 18 years of age. The resolution would replace that with new language that says: "The right of citizens of the United States, who are sixteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age."

Meng hadn’t released a statement on her proposal by early Thursday afternoon. But she released a statement in the last Congress, indicating a belief that lowering the voting age by amending the Constitution would let younger people have a say on many of the positions supported by Democrats.

"Our young people, including 16- and 17-year-olds, continue to fight and advocate for so many issues that they are passionate about from gun safety to the climate crisis," she said. "They have been tremendously engaged on policies affecting their lives and their futures."

When Democrats were in charge of the last Congress, they did nothing to advance Meng’s proposal. But groups that supported the idea of a lower voting age also indicated they like the idea because it will help advance left-leaning causes.

How about 27 instead? I mean if they can stay on their parent's insurance till 26 then they are not mature enough to vote.

That said I'm surprised it's not lower considering the left thinks a 4-year old can make a life changing decision on their gender.

SURE if that happens, they have to register for the DRAFT and The DemonRats also want to lower the age of consent to 12 like Nigeria.

 

[Polishprince]

Can you lay out the connection between being on an insurance policy and voting?

If someone isn't responsible to take care of their own basic needs, why should they be entrusted with running the country?

 

[1srelluc]

It's Fox News. Lol

Meng The Merciless has been going on about it since 2018.

 

[White 6]

No need for 18 year olds to vote either. They aren't considered mature enough to drink beer or smoke cigarettes, why should we put the fate of the country in their hands?

There is a certain amount of truth, there. I am just not one for change if not required for a benefit that I can see. I come from the time when 18-year-olds could drink, the feeling being, if they were old enough to make and break contracts, marry, incur debt of their own responsibility and die for their country, they were entitled to have a beer if they chose. Sorry, most of you missed it.

 

[1srelluc]

I see no need for 16-year-olds to vote. They are clueless, whether they have the self awareness to know it or not. This goes nowhere. It has such a low likelihood of coming to fruition, one could be forgiven for thinking it, fake news to titillate the cult.

Not likely I grant you but how could it be "fake" when it was clearly brought up by the dems?

Perhaps you should choose your words more wisely or are you shilling for dems now?

 

[White 6]

Not likely I grant you but how could it be "fake" when it was clearly brought up by the dems?

Perhaps you should choose your words more wisely or are you shilling for dems now?

Lost of things, absolutely true have been touted as fake news, the made up term being basically useless. Just saying, the report was not worth my time reading, which is close to an accepted defintition of fake news possible if there were a definition. Fake news being in the eye of the beholder for beholder's reason or lack there of.

 

[$ecular#eckler]

While I agree this is something worth discussing on a board like this, my opinion is since I believe there is a zero chance of ever getting it to happen, I'm not going to worry over it very much.

That is exactly how the Democrats do it. They propose these things when they are "out of power," and ease you into knowing about the idea; then they pass it into promulgation when they have "the power."

 

[1srelluc]

Lost of things, absolutely true have been touted as fake news, the made up term being basically useless. Just saying, the report was not worth my time reading, which is close to an accepted defintition of fake news possible if there were a definition. Fake news being in the eye of the beholder for beholder's reason or lack there of.

It's you saying that it was "fake" when it's clearly not, no matter what your perception is.

Now if you said that the reporting on it was "red meat for the right" then that would have been fine because it's closer to the truth.

 

[Polishprince]

The fact that the idea might be unpopular now isn't a deterrent for Democrats to push it through. Homo Marriage was on the ballot in scores of locations and always failed- didn't stop the D's from pushing it through the Supreme Court. Same with this, perhaps.

 

[White 6]

It's you saying that it was "fake" when it's clearly not, no matter what your perception is.

Now if you said that the reporting on it was "red meat for the right" then that would have been fine because it's closer to the truth.

I think you got the point of my assessment of what constitutes fake news. It is why it was a stupid made up label in the first place.

 

[1srelluc]

I think you got the point of my assessment of what constitutes fake news. It is why it was a stupid made up label in the first place.

OK, fair enough.

 

[Richard-H]

So your president should not be allowed to vote?
Yeah, OK....I agree with you.

If it were up to me, no one over 65 would be allowed to hold public or corporate offices, and no one over 80 would be allowed to vote.

 

[pknopp]

When 16 year olds fight and die for this country then they can vote with my blessing.

I would agree with that.

 

[White 6]

If it were up to me, no one over 65 would be allowed to hold public or corporate offices, and no one over 80 would be allowed to vote.

You can chalk that one up to another young person's fantasy. Maybe you will grow up someday.

 

[pknopp]

Why would you think that? The Democrats have been able to get all sorts of crazy shit passed through the years.

If they think that this will improve their chances in elections, of course they will try and do it and might well succeed.

I would believe it because even when the Democrats had a majority it went nowhere and a Constitutional Amendment then would have to be passed by the states, and well, good luck.

Did that answer your question?