bendog
Diamond Member
And those people do pay taxes on goods and rent purchased with dollars they earned.
Should Welfare be a Disqualification for Voting?
- Thread starter Publius1787
- Start date
And those people do pay taxes on goods and rent purchased with dollars they earned.
The T
George S. Patton Party
Parties ARE destroying this Republic...that is for sure. I like the idea...names only NO party next to the name. MAN! Would it put the moocher class in a tizzy?On the other handI've heard Hannity's man on the street one to many times. Maybe we should have a voter test?
And how fun would that be? Just coming up with a voter test?
I'd love to see a small test that demonstrates that people understand the basic workings of government and the Constitution. After all? Aren't legalized aliens taking tests to demonstrate knowledge before they are granted citizenship? We have citizens born here that could care less about anything except what the TAXPAYER will give them through politicians and their vote buying schemes for power.
I'd love to see a true test. I "in the words of a great American" YOU BETTCHA " See who you are voting for?
No colors. Real deal. No Party line beside them. Whoa geeze some fun.
Only their names.
Darkwind
Diamond Member
- Jun 18, 2009
- 41,868
- 30,371
- 3,615
By extension, those who do pay taxes, and end up owing taxes at filing time, are hardly to blame for taking tax advantages that are written into the law.
It works both ways.
How about low wage workers? The ones that pay no taxes (according to most right wingers on here) because they qualify for the EIC?
And they also qualify for assistance even though working. You know, food stamps, heat assistance, housing vouchers etc.
Should poor working people be allowed to vote? You know they mostly vote Democratic.
And they also qualify for assistance even though working. You know, food stamps, heat assistance, housing vouchers etc.
Should poor working people be allowed to vote? You know they mostly vote Democratic.
Well no shit. Feel free to point out where I said other wage earners SHOULDN'T TAKE advantage of the tax code. I pencil whip the shit out of my taxes. Don't you?
But nice try to deflect. Why you do that? Couldn't think of a better response to what I said?
Truthmatters
Diamond Member
- May 10, 2007
- 80,182
- 2,276
- 1,283
- Banned
- #126
not letting poor people vote?
is that your freedomy plan?
so all you have to do is make people poor and you can kept them from voting huh?
Truthmatters
Diamond Member
- May 10, 2007
- 80,182
- 2,276
- 1,283
- Banned
- #127
Supreme Court denies RNC bid to end voter fraud consent decree - Los Angeles Times
Supreme Court denies RNC bid to end voter fraud consent decree
January 14, 2013|By David G. Savage
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court has refused to lift a 30-year consent decree that bars the Republican National Committee from targeting racial and ethnic minorities in its efforts to end fraudulent voting.
The justices without comment turned down an appeal from RNC lawyers who said the decree has become “antiquated” and is “increasingly used as political weapon” by Democrats during national campaigns.
what you need to find more ways to cheat people out of their votes to steal elections ?
Supreme Court denies RNC bid to end voter fraud consent decree
January 14, 2013|By David G. Savage
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court has refused to lift a 30-year consent decree that bars the Republican National Committee from targeting racial and ethnic minorities in its efforts to end fraudulent voting.
The justices without comment turned down an appeal from RNC lawyers who said the decree has become “antiquated” and is “increasingly used as political weapon” by Democrats during national campaigns.
what you need to find more ways to cheat people out of their votes to steal elections ?
Seawytch
Information isnt Advocacy
Means testing for voting went out scores of years ago.
Truthmatters
Diamond Member
- May 10, 2007
- 80,182
- 2,276
- 1,283
- Banned
- #129
the right doesn't like Democracy anymore
Publius1787
Gold Member
- Jan 11, 2011
- 6,211
- 679
- 190
- Thread starter
- #130
Someone didn't read the op.
The T
George S. Patton Party
Publius1787
Gold Member
- Jan 11, 2011
- 6,211
- 679
- 190
- Thread starter
- #132
That's an easy question to answer. Simply abide by the US constitution and don't exceed the powers under Art 1 Sect 8. Indeed, it was a welfare program that busted article one open to personal/corporate gain.
Darkwind
Diamond Member
- Jun 18, 2009
- 41,868
- 30,371
- 3,615
The entire lefts paradigm is that those who pay taxes are evil for taking advantages of the tax code. Even so far as to label them as "subsidies"....
Since you more often than not come down on the side of the left, I thought I'd just point out that it works both ways.
Truthmatters
Diamond Member
- May 10, 2007
- 80,182
- 2,276
- 1,283
- Banned
- #134
The introduction of this new principle of representative democracy has rendered useless almost everything written before on the structure of government; Thomas Jefferson
Publius1787
Gold Member
- Jan 11, 2011
- 6,211
- 679
- 190
- Thread starter
- #135
If voting was a right then why make subsequent amendments to clarify that right? Because it's a privilege. As said before, the Amendment you seek is the 24th. If the 14th amendment did what you say it does then there wouldn't be a necessity to adopt the following voting amendments. Also I think you consider the word "account." It is indeed amazing how many people on the left do not understand the US Constitution.
Last edited:
Truthmatters
Diamond Member
- May 10, 2007
- 80,182
- 2,276
- 1,283
- Banned
- #136
I will take Jefferson over you any time T
Darkwind
Diamond Member
- Jun 18, 2009
- 41,868
- 30,371
- 3,615
I am always an advocate of the Constitution. Even if it is at My own personal expense. I understand the long term win over the short term personal gain.
However, I needed to clarify what was being asked. Far to many people on this forum, and in this country, advocate that the right or even the GOP should not be permitted to vote.
My contention is simple. If you cannot vote the way that you feel best fits your personal beliefs and needs, then no one would be permitted to vote at all.
What would be the point of having a Constitution if that were the case?
I simply require that people act within the rule of law and the framework of the Constitution.
Truthmatters
Diamond Member
- May 10, 2007
- 80,182
- 2,276
- 1,283
- Banned
- #138
Voting rights in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Voting rights in the United States
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The issue of voting rights in the United States has been contentious throughout United States history. Eligibility to vote in the U.S. is relevant at both the federal and state levels. Currently, only American citizens can vote in U.S. federal elections.[1] Who is (or who can become) a citizen is governed on a national basis by federal law. In the absence of a federal law or constitutional provision, each state is given considerable discretion to establish qualifications for suffrage and candidacy within its own jurisdiction.
Originally, the U.S. Constitution did not define who could vote and was simply built around a concept of rights of "person", with voting not explicitly included in the rights. When the country was founded, in most states, only non-Negro men with real property-usually of at least 50 acres- (land) or sufficient wealth for taxation were permitted to vote.[citation needed] Women could vote in New Jersey, provided they could meet the property requirement, and in some local jurisdictions in other northern states. Men and women of color could also vote in these jurisdictions, provided they could meet the property requirement. Freed slaves could vote in four states. Unpropertied men and women, including slaves, were largely denied the franchise. At the time of the American Civil War, most white men were allowed to vote, whether or not they owned property. Literacy tests, poll taxes, and even religious tests were used in various places, and most white women, people of color, and Native Americans still could not vote.[2]
The United States Constitution, in Article VI, section 3, states that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." The Constitution, however, leaves the determination of voting qualifications to the individual states. Over time, the federal role in elections has increased through amendments to the Constitution and enacted legislation, such as the Voting Rights Act of 1965.[3] At least four of the fifteen post-Civil War constitutional amendments were ratified specifically to extend voting rights to different groups of citizens. These extensions state that voting rights cannot be denied or abridged based on the following:
Birth - "All persons born or naturalized" "are citizens" of the U.S. and the U.S. State where they reside (14th Amendment, 1868)
"Race, color, or previous condition of servitude" - (15th Amendment, 1870)
"On account of sex" - (19th Amendment, 1920)
In Washington, D.C., presidential elections (23rd Amendment, 1961)
(For federal elections) "By reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax" - (24th Amendment, 1964) (For state elections) Taxes - (Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966))
"Who are eighteen 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" (26th Amendment, 1971).
In addition, the 17th Amendment provided for the direct election of United States Senators.
The "right to vote" is not explicitly stated in the U.S. Constitution except in the above referenced amendments, and only in reference to the fact that the franchise cannot be denied or abridged based solely on the aforementioned qualifications. In other words, the "right to vote" is perhaps better understood, in layman's terms, as only prohibiting certain forms of legal discrimination in establishing qualifications for suffrage. States may deny the "right to vote" for other reasons.
For example, many states require eligible citizens to register to vote a set number of days prior to the election in order to vote. More controversial restrictions include those laws that prohibit convicted felons from voting or, as seen in Bush v. Gore, disputes as to what rules should apply in counting or recounting ballots.[4]
As described below, voting rights reforms have significantly expanded access to the ballot for women, non-whites, non-Protestants, those who lack wealth, and those 18–21 years old. However, the ranks of elected officials remain disproportionately white, wealthy, male, and older. For example, the 112th Congress (2010-2011) was 83% male, 8% black and 6% Hispanic (compared to 13% and 16% of the population as a whole), and the average age of Senators was 62 years and Representatives was 57 years (compared to a national median age of 37).[5] And their median net worth was $913,000 which is roughly 9 times greater than the median net worth of all U.S. households.[6]
A state may choose to fill an office by means other than an election. For example, upon death or resignation of a legislator, the state may allow the affiliated political party to choose a replacement to hold office until the next scheduled election. Such an appointment is often affirmed by the governor.[7]
Voting rights in the United States
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The issue of voting rights in the United States has been contentious throughout United States history. Eligibility to vote in the U.S. is relevant at both the federal and state levels. Currently, only American citizens can vote in U.S. federal elections.[1] Who is (or who can become) a citizen is governed on a national basis by federal law. In the absence of a federal law or constitutional provision, each state is given considerable discretion to establish qualifications for suffrage and candidacy within its own jurisdiction.
Originally, the U.S. Constitution did not define who could vote and was simply built around a concept of rights of "person", with voting not explicitly included in the rights. When the country was founded, in most states, only non-Negro men with real property-usually of at least 50 acres- (land) or sufficient wealth for taxation were permitted to vote.[citation needed] Women could vote in New Jersey, provided they could meet the property requirement, and in some local jurisdictions in other northern states. Men and women of color could also vote in these jurisdictions, provided they could meet the property requirement. Freed slaves could vote in four states. Unpropertied men and women, including slaves, were largely denied the franchise. At the time of the American Civil War, most white men were allowed to vote, whether or not they owned property. Literacy tests, poll taxes, and even religious tests were used in various places, and most white women, people of color, and Native Americans still could not vote.[2]
The United States Constitution, in Article VI, section 3, states that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." The Constitution, however, leaves the determination of voting qualifications to the individual states. Over time, the federal role in elections has increased through amendments to the Constitution and enacted legislation, such as the Voting Rights Act of 1965.[3] At least four of the fifteen post-Civil War constitutional amendments were ratified specifically to extend voting rights to different groups of citizens. These extensions state that voting rights cannot be denied or abridged based on the following:
Birth - "All persons born or naturalized" "are citizens" of the U.S. and the U.S. State where they reside (14th Amendment, 1868)
"Race, color, or previous condition of servitude" - (15th Amendment, 1870)
"On account of sex" - (19th Amendment, 1920)
In Washington, D.C., presidential elections (23rd Amendment, 1961)
(For federal elections) "By reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax" - (24th Amendment, 1964) (For state elections) Taxes - (Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966))
"Who are eighteen 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" (26th Amendment, 1971).
In addition, the 17th Amendment provided for the direct election of United States Senators.
The "right to vote" is not explicitly stated in the U.S. Constitution except in the above referenced amendments, and only in reference to the fact that the franchise cannot be denied or abridged based solely on the aforementioned qualifications. In other words, the "right to vote" is perhaps better understood, in layman's terms, as only prohibiting certain forms of legal discrimination in establishing qualifications for suffrage. States may deny the "right to vote" for other reasons.
For example, many states require eligible citizens to register to vote a set number of days prior to the election in order to vote. More controversial restrictions include those laws that prohibit convicted felons from voting or, as seen in Bush v. Gore, disputes as to what rules should apply in counting or recounting ballots.[4]
As described below, voting rights reforms have significantly expanded access to the ballot for women, non-whites, non-Protestants, those who lack wealth, and those 18–21 years old. However, the ranks of elected officials remain disproportionately white, wealthy, male, and older. For example, the 112th Congress (2010-2011) was 83% male, 8% black and 6% Hispanic (compared to 13% and 16% of the population as a whole), and the average age of Senators was 62 years and Representatives was 57 years (compared to a national median age of 37).[5] And their median net worth was $913,000 which is roughly 9 times greater than the median net worth of all U.S. households.[6]
A state may choose to fill an office by means other than an election. For example, upon death or resignation of a legislator, the state may allow the affiliated political party to choose a replacement to hold office until the next scheduled election. Such an appointment is often affirmed by the governor.[7]
Publius1787
Gold Member
- Jan 11, 2011
- 6,211
- 679
- 190
- Thread starter
- #139
Democrats made elections about money when they busted up article one section eight under the guise of the "general welfare." Now government corruption, cronyism, and power is at an all time high. Indeed, the bigger the government gets the more elections become about money. You may thank FDR!
The T
George S. Patton Party
There is NO RIGHT in the Constitution to vote in a FEDERAL ELECTION.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
How many of you post here mostly just to be social?- Started by Anomalism
- Replies: 12
-
Trump says 'if anything' he forced Israel's hand on Iran attack timing, says Iran was going to strike US first- Started by Pastelli
- Replies: 2
-
-
House kills effort to release all Congressional sexual misconduct reports.- Started by pknopp
- Replies: 0
