Should Welfare Recipients Be Allowed To Vote?

[Publius1787]

What a great idea!

Mebbe we can bring back poll taxes while we're at it?

*Sarcastic tone*

Qute response but no analysis? No debate? Nothing I said up there seems wrong to you? Other than the obvious fact that you disagree with me? You can use sarcasm all you want and I cerainly did not advocate for poll taxes but you have contributed nothing to this thread or why you oppose my position.

So do you think welfare recipients should be able to vote?

The constitution does give citizens the right to vote. Is the constitution wrong?

The constitution only says that people cannot be denied the right to vote on the ACOOUNT of race, sex, above 18, etc. Voting has always been a privilage. If the sole qualification to vote was citizenship then felons must be allowed to vote too. And we dont let them do that. Atleast in most states.

 

[Publius1787]

I think he really wants to throw out the entire constitution and start from scratch.

Huggy and High Gravity have this fool's number.

Explain to me how the constitution would be violated!

It WAS explained.

Denying the right to vote based on payment of taxes violates the 24th.

Denying the right to vote based solely on financial status violates Section 1 of the 14th. P&I, DP, EP, take your pick.

What's so difficult to understand?

If your going to take the 14th amendment in that manner then you also must admit that there would be no one on welfare. For liberty cannot be denied as well. And taking liberty from one to give a nonexistant privilage to another is forbidden. Thats a double edged sword you just opened up.

 

[goldcatt]

Explain to me how the constitution would be violated!

It WAS explained.

Denying the right to vote based on payment of taxes violates the 24th.

Denying the right to vote based solely on financial status violates Section 1 of the 14th. P&I, DP, EP, take your pick.

What's so difficult to understand?

If your going to take the 14th amendment in that manner then you also must admit that there would be no one on welfare. For liberty cannot be denied as well. And taking liberty from one to give a nonexistant privilage to another is forbidden. Thats a double edged sword you just opened up.

GTFO. Who are you really?

 

[Publius1787]

It WAS explained.

Denying the right to vote based on payment of taxes violates the 24th.

Denying the right to vote based solely on financial status violates Section 1 of the 14th. P&I, DP, EP, take your pick.

What's so difficult to understand?

If your going to take the 14th amendment in that manner then you also must admit that there would be no one on welfare. For liberty cannot be denied as well. And taking liberty from one to give a nonexistant privilage to another is forbidden. Thats a double edged sword you just opened up.

GTFO. Who are you really?

The truth of my response is evedent in yours.

 

[goldcatt]

If your going to take the 14th amendment in that manner then you also must admit that there would be no one on welfare. For liberty cannot be denied as well. And taking liberty from one to give a nonexistant privilage to another is forbidden. Thats a double edged sword you just opened up.

GTFO. Who are you really?

The truth of my response is evedent in yours.

You mean you're serious?

Where do you get that reading of the 14th, then?

And what "liberty" are you talking about? The 14th addresses fundamental substantive rights of of life, liberty and property. What substantive liberty is being taken without due process in order to give it to another as a "nonexistant privilage"?

And what does that have to do with disenfranchising half the adult citizens in this country in violation of the 24th?

 

[shintao]

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:



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.

The vote cannot be denied ON THE ACCOUNT of race, sex, age above 18, etc etc... My GOD there are some idiots in the world! If you cant comprehend english then you have no place interperiting the constitution. And this comes from a guy (me) who is a horrible speller.

Did you think the world was free of idiots? Or is it you are afraid to be labeled an idiot because you can't spell or comprehend English? No sense being upset. You want to debate the issue, but you have no right to select and pick and chose who you debate with here. However I think there is a place far below to engage in a debate with someone else if you chose. Chill!!!

 

[rdean]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTwpBLzxe4U[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnK84mM5N-o[/ame]

If those on welfare weren't allowed to vote, Republican's disastrous policies wouldn't be a problem. There would be too few to vote.

 

[Publius1787]

GTFO. Who are you really?

The truth of my response is evedent in yours.

You mean you're serious?

Where do you get that reading of the 14th, then?

And what "liberty" are you talking about? The 14th addresses fundamental substantive rights of of life, liberty and property. What substantive liberty is being taken without due process in order to give it to another as a "nonexistant privilage"?

And what does that have to do with disenfranchising half the adult citizens in this country in violation of the 24th?

Exactly. That in conjunstion with the 6th Amendment. Welfare is a specific privilage for thoes who meet an economic criteria and not offered to anyone else. You must forcibly seaze property away from one citizen in order for another to gain a privilage. Furthermore, the person who's money is seized for the benfit of others is getting absolutly no "just compensation" for his lost property. The right to own property is a "liberty" or a "right". To receive property from another through the force of government is a privilage. If you are to take the 14th Amendment that way you mustthe other. By the 14th amendment, if the privilage of voting is equal, liberty must be equally defended as well. But then again, if the fourteenth amendment applied to the privilage to vote then the 15th, and 17th amendments would have never been necessary huh?

 

[Publius1787]

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:



This gives women the right to vote.


Hope that clears it up for you.

The vote cannot be denied ON THE ACCOUNT of race, sex, age above 18, etc etc... My GOD there are some idiots in the world! If you cant comprehend english then you have no place interperiting the constitution. And this comes from a guy (me) who is a horrible speller.

Did you think the world was free of idiots? Or is it you are afraid to be labeled an idiot because you can't spell or comprehend English? No sense being upset. You want to debate the issue, but you have no right to select and pick and chose who you debate with here. However I think there is a place far below to engage in a debate with someone else if you chose. Chill!!!

Hey, I made fun of my own spelling.

 

[Toro]

A Conflict of Interest?

Acting under the assumption that taxation without representation is wrong, isn’t representation without taxation wrong as well? In a time when 47% of households pay absolutely no tax at all,

I stopped reading right there.

Everybody pays tax.

They pay sales tax, property tax, excise tax, tariffs, etc.

 

[Toro]

As for the OP, yes, everyone should be able to vote if they are a citizen.

 

[Publius1787]

A Conflict of Interest?

Acting under the assumption that taxation without representation is wrong, isn’t representation without taxation wrong as well? In a time when 47% of households pay absolutely no tax at all,

I stopped reading right there.

Everybody pays tax.

They pay sales tax, property tax, excise tax, tariffs, etc.

You know whats funny? If you had read further, specifically after the first two paragraphs, you would have found that issue addressed.

 

[Toro]

A Conflict of Interest?

Acting under the assumption that taxation without representation is wrong, isn’t representation without taxation wrong as well? In a time when 47% of households pay absolutely no tax at all,

I stopped reading right there.

Everybody pays tax.

They pay sales tax, property tax, excise tax, tariffs, etc.

You know whats funny? If you had read further, specifically after the first two paragraphs, you would have found that issue addressed.

Can you back your claim?

 

[Intense]

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

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

I would disagree with you there. Let's distinguish between Voice through Vote, and Theft through Vote. Let's distinguish between living within the rule of law, and living outside of it. We have protected Rights, Voting is one of them, It can be forfeited through Conscious Action, that results in conviction, or even in relation to mental health issues. A Competent Adult has a Right to Voice and Vote. You don't want to change that and create a Caste System.

What the Legislature has a right to impose on us with other peoples money is another issue. We need boundaries to the abuses to property rights, ignoring those boundaries has brought us to where we are today. All Laws should be impartial to person and position, no exceptions, no exemptions. If it is too draconian, check your premise, something is wrong with the legislation at the root level if it does harm. When Tyranny results, what does it matter that it is born of a majority of Idiots or a minority of idiots? In the end it is still Tyranny, still doing harm, and still at was with Justice.

You want educated and responsible Voters, Members of Society, Educate and teach responsibility. We are all in it together, drinking the same water, breathing the same air. We each have a relationship to Society, We both give and take. In all that, Each remains his or her own property, at least in a just Society.

 

[Toro]

Ah, here it is.

That didn't take long.

Even if the discussion is restricted to federal taxes (for which the statistics are better), a vast majority of households end up paying federal taxes. Congressional Budget Office data suggests that, at most, about 10 percent of all households pay no net federal taxes. The number 10 is obviously a lot smaller than 47.

The reason is that poor families generally pay more in payroll taxes than they receive through benefits like the Earned Income Tax Credit. It’s not just poor families for whom the payroll tax is a big deal, either. About three-quarters of all American households pay more in payroll taxes, which go toward Medicare and Social Security, than in income taxes.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/business/economy/14leonhardt.html

And that is net federal tax. That does not include sales taxes, tariffs, state taxes, property taxes, etc, and various other fees such as drivers licenses.

So, do you want to ask that question again without the fallacy? Should the <2% who pay no tax be allowed to vote? Yes. All citizens should be allowed to vote. The "no taxation without representation" does not work in reverse.

 

[goldcatt]

The truth of my response is evedent in yours.

You mean you're serious?

Where do you get that reading of the 14th, then?

And what "liberty" are you talking about? The 14th addresses fundamental substantive rights of of life, liberty and property. What substantive liberty is being taken without due process in order to give it to another as a "nonexistant privilage"?

And what does that have to do with disenfranchising half the adult citizens in this country in violation of the 24th?

Exactly. That in conjunstion with the 6th Amendment. Welfare is a specific privilage for thoes who meet an economic criteria and not offered to anyone else. You must forcibly seaze property away from one citizen in order for another to gain a privilage. Furthermore, the person who's money is seized for the benfit of others is getting absolutly no "just compensation" for his lost property. The right to own property is a "liberty" or a "right". To receive property from another through the force of government is a privilage. If you are to take the 14th Amendment that way you mustthe other. By the 14th amendment, if the privilage of voting is equal, liberty must be equally defended as well. But then again, if the fourteenth amendment applied to the privilage to vote then the 15th, and 17th amendments would have never been necessary huh?

Votiing is not considered a liberty right under the 14th? Alert the presses.

But that's not what I asked you.

What do you know about Section 1 of the 14th and Due Process? You're talking about "liberty" but confusing it with the "right" to own property - which does not technically exist. Nobody has the "right" to own anything.

The property you happen to own would be protected from seizure without due process as a property right, it has nothing to do with liberty rights - but it can be taken with procedural Due Process of law, subject to Equal Protection. That would be, oh, as just one example shall we say empowered by the 16th Amendment for the Federal income tax, collected by a process authorized by Congress or via its delegated authority, and the code stipulating what is to be paid applied equally to all regardless of class or status. No violation there, and no "liberty" implicated at all.

What the Federal government then chooses to do with the funds it collects via a constitutionally authorized process, using legal and uniform procedure and applied equally to all citizens and residents, is then placed in the public treasury to be used as Congress dictates by law. There are no restrictions save that it must pass constitutional muster. We're not talking about Robin Hood waylaying rich people in Sherwood Forest here.

The 6th has absolutely nothing to do with anything, unless you're in the custody of law enforcement. If that's the case, what are you doing posting on here? And what does removing Senate selection from the State legislatures to a popular vote have to do with restricting suffrage to taxpaying landowners?

And the way you studiously ignore the 24th, I get the feeling you never quite got that far in your pamphlets.

So....what say ye?

 

[shintao]

I stopped reading right there.

Everybody pays tax.

They pay sales tax, property tax, excise tax, tariffs, etc.

You know whats funny? If you had read further, specifically after the first two paragraphs, you would have found that issue addressed.

Can you back your claim?

Hmm, I asked the same question yesterday. And cited that there would be no way to prove it, so the statement is false.

 

[goldcatt]

For those who have never read it, the 24th in all its glory:

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

U.S. Constitution - Amendment 24 - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

(Emphasis added)

If you don't like the 24th, here's what the US Supreme Court had to say about the 14th's Equal Protection clause and voting rights based on affluence in Harper v. Virginia:

We conclude that a State violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment whenever it makes the affluence of the voter or payment of any fee an electoral standard. Voter qualifications have no relation to wealth nor to paying or not paying this or any other tax. 4 Our cases demonstrate that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment restrains the States from fixing voter qualifications which invidiously discriminate.

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

 

[Publius1787]

You mean you're serious?

Where do you get that reading of the 14th, then?

And what "liberty" are you talking about? The 14th addresses fundamental substantive rights of of life, liberty and property. What substantive liberty is being taken without due process in order to give it to another as a "nonexistant privilage"?

And what does that have to do with disenfranchising half the adult citizens in this country in violation of the 24th?

Exactly. That in conjunstion with the 6th Amendment. Welfare is a specific privilage for thoes who meet an economic criteria and not offered to anyone else. You must forcibly seaze property away from one citizen in order for another to gain a privilage. Furthermore, the person who's money is seized for the benfit of others is getting absolutly no "just compensation" for his lost property. The right to own property is a "liberty" or a "right". To receive property from another through the force of government is a privilage. If you are to take the 14th Amendment that way you mustthe other. By the 14th amendment, if the privilage of voting is equal, liberty must be equally defended as well. But then again, if the fourteenth amendment applied to the privilage to vote then the 15th, and 17th amendments would have never been necessary huh?

Votiing is not considered a liberty right under the 14th? Alert the presses.

But that's not what I asked you.

What do you know about Section 1 of the 14th and Due Process? You're talking about "liberty" but confusing it with the "right" to own property - which does not technically exist. Nobody has the "right" to own anything.

The property you happen to own would be protected from seizure without due process as a property right, it has nothing to do with liberty rights - but it can be taken with procedural Due Process of law, subject to Equal Protection. That would be, oh, as just one example shall we say empowered by the 16th Amendment for the Federal income tax, collected by a process authorized by Congress or via its delegated authority, and the code stipulating what is to be paid applied equally to all regardless of class or status. No violation there, and no "liberty" implicated at all.

What the Federal government then chooses to do with the funds it collects via a constitutionally authorized process, using legal and uniform procedure and applied equally to all citizens and residents, is then placed in the public treasury to be used as Congress dictates by law. There are no restrictions save that it must pass constitutional muster. We're not talking about Robin Hood waylaying rich people in Sherwood Forest here.

The 6th has absolutely nothing to do with anything, unless you're in the custody of law enforcement. If that's the case, what are you doing posting on here? And what does removing Senate selection from the State legislatures to a popular vote have to do with restricting suffrage to taxpaying landowners?

And the way you studiously ignore the 24th, I get the feeling you never quite got that far in your pamphlets.

So....what say ye?

The 24th Amendment: The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State (Qualifier) by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

Where does it say you cant deny the vote on dependence status? Where does it say that you cant be denies the vote if you accept government assistance? And not being taxed at all is not a failure to pay a tax.

And property is a right to which I have explained here >> http://www.usmessageboard.com/3193658-post3.html

I dont want to get to far in to property because it takes away from this thread. But since I have tied in the relevence here and having explained the 14th Amendment and the 5th amendment (I meant the 5th Amendment), you cannot possibly justify any tax that taxes anyone at a higher percentage than the rest. Especially without compensating them with a service that applies directly to them by funding the essential services of government that defend our liberties. Taking money away from one citizen and giving it to antoher does not do this and thus there is no compensation.

 

[Publius1787]

For those who have never read it, the 24th in all its glory:

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

U.S. Constitution - Amendment 24 - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

(Emphasis added)

If you don't like the 24th, here's what the US Supreme Court had to say about the 14th's Equal Protection clause and voting rights based on affluence in Harper v. Virginia:

We conclude that a State violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment whenever it makes the affluence of the voter or payment of any fee an electoral standard. Voter qualifications have no relation to wealth nor to paying or not paying this or any other tax. 4 Our cases demonstrate that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment restrains the States from fixing voter qualifications which invidiously discriminate.

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

It doesent sat that you cannot restrict thoes who recieve government handouts from voting. And not being taxed at all is not a failure to pay a tax.