Who Should Have The Right To Vote?

[Care4all]

SAINTMICHAELDEFENDTHEM SAID:

“If you're a net consumer of government, you don't get to vote.”

Fortunately that's not your decision to make, or the decision of those who agree with you.

The right to vote is inalienable and fundamental, it can be neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution or man.

Otherwise, your ignorance of the Constitution and your contempt for the inalienable rights of your fellow citizens is noted.

Once again C_Clayton_Jones is WRONG.

If i could get the votes , I could certainly get a Constitutional Amendment taking your vote away.

it's not an easy task to get those votes though...

2/3's of congress voting yea, and 2/3rds of the Senate voting yea to it, and then you have to get 2/3'rds of the States to ratify the amendment as well.....

the chances are virtually none, of it ever happening...

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

SAINTMICHAELDEFENDTHEM SAID:

“If you're a net consumer of government, you don't get to vote.”

Fortunately that's not your decision to make, or the decision of those who agree with you.

The right to vote is inalienable and fundamental, it can be neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution or man.

Otherwise, your ignorance of the Constitution and your contempt for the inalienable rights of your fellow citizens is noted.

Once again C_Clayton_Jones is WRONG.

If i could get the votes , I could certainly get a Constitutional Amendment taking your vote away.

it's not an easy task to get those votes though...

2/3's of congress voting yea, and 2/3rds of the Senate voting yea to it, and then you have to get 2/3'rds of the States to ratify the amendment as well.....

the chances are virtually none, of it ever happening...

Of course that's true. I was merely pointing out that Jones's assertion that NO ONE could ever take away his vote is wrong. It would be difficult, but it can be done.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

SAINTMICHAELDEFENDTHEM SAID:

“If you're a net consumer of government, you don't get to vote.”

Fortunately that's not your decision to make, or the decision of those who agree with you.

The right to vote is inalienable and fundamental, it can be neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution or man.

Otherwise, your ignorance of the Constitution and your contempt for the inalienable rights of your fellow citizens is noted.

Once again C_Clayton_Jones is WRONG.

If i could get the votes , I could certainly get a Constitutional Amendment taking your vote away.

it's not an easy task to get those votes though...

2/3's of congress voting yea, and 2/3rds of the Senate voting yea to it, and then you have to get 2/3'rds of the States to ratify the amendment as well.....

the chances are virtually none, of it ever happening...

Incorrect. The states themselves can convene an Article Five convention. Congress is not needed to amend the Constitution. The states formed the Constitution and the states can change it.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

SAINTMICHAELDEFENDTHEM SAID:

“If you're a net consumer of government, you don't get to vote.”

Fortunately that's not your decision to make, or the decision of those who agree with you.

The right to vote is inalienable and fundamental, it can be neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution or man.

Otherwise, your ignorance of the Constitution and your contempt for the inalienable rights of your fellow citizens is noted.

Once again C_Clayton_Jones is WRONG.

If i could get the votes , I could certainly get a Constitutional Amendment taking your vote away.

it's not an easy task to get those votes though...

2/3's of congress voting yea, and 2/3rds of the Senate voting yea to it, and then you have to get 2/3'rds of the States to ratify the amendment as well.....

the chances are virtually none, of it ever happening...

Incorrect. The states themselves can convene an Article Five convention. Congress is not needed to amend the Constitution. The states formed the Constitution and the states can change it.

No, the states did NOT form the COTUS, the Continental Congress did, learn some ******* history.

Also, no Amendment has ever been ratified except through Congress.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

No, the states did NOT form the COTUS, the Continental Congress did, learn some ******* history.

Also, no Amendment has ever been ratified except through Congress.

No, the states formed the Constitution, which is why they had to ratify it.

And since like all Leftists you've never read the Constitution, you wouldn't know that the Constitution provides for an Article 5 convention by which the states themselves can change the constitution. Just because it's never been done yet doesn't mean it can't. When the states take back their country, that will be the end of your evil Leftist "utopia".

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

SAINTMICHAELDEFENDTHEM SAID:

“If you're a net consumer of government, you don't get to vote.”

Fortunately that's not your decision to make, or the decision of those who agree with you.

The right to vote is inalienable and fundamental, it can be neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution or man.

Otherwise, your ignorance of the Constitution and your contempt for the inalienable rights of your fellow citizens is noted.

Once again C_Clayton_Jones is WRONG.

If i could get the votes , I could certainly get a Constitutional Amendment taking your vote away.

it's not an easy task to get those votes though...

2/3's of congress voting yea, and 2/3rds of the Senate voting yea to it, and then you have to get 2/3'rds of the States to ratify the amendment as well.....

the chances are virtually none, of it ever happening...

Incorrect. The states themselves can convene an Article Five convention. Congress is not needed to amend the Constitution. The states formed the Constitution and the states can change it.

Incorrect.

The Constitution is the creation of all the people, independent of the states:

'It might be objected that because the States ratified the Constitution, the people can delegate power only through the States or by acting in their capacities as citizens of particular States. See post, at 2-3. But in McCulloch v. Maryland, the Court set forth its authoritative rejection of this idea:

"The Convention which framed the constitution was indeed elected by the State legislatures. But the instrument . . . was submitted to the people. . . . It is true, they assembled in their several States--and where else should they have assembled? No political dreamer was ever wild enough to think of breaking down the lines which separate the States, and of compounding the American people into one common mass. Of consequence, when they act, they act in their States. But the measures they adopt do not, on that account, cease to be the measures of the people themselves, or become the measures of the State governments." 4 Wheat., at 403.'

U.S. Term Limits Inc. v. Thornton 514 U.S. 779 1995 .

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

No, the states did NOT form the COTUS, the Continental Congress did, learn some ******* history.

Also, no Amendment has ever been ratified except through Congress.

No, the states formed the Constitution, which is why they had to ratify it.

And since like all Leftists you've never read the Constitution, you wouldn't know that the Constitution provides for an Article 5 convention by which the states themselves can change the constitution. Just because it's never been done yet doesn't mean it can't. When the states take back their country, that will be the end of your evil Leftist "utopia".

You ******* idiots are so stupid. If you're on the right and someone disagrees with you, they are leftists, and if you're on the left and someone disagrees with you they are rightards.

Here's a clue moron. I don't disagree with you on whether they states or Congress wrote the COTUS because of your political persuasion, I disagree because you are WRONG.

The Costitution was written by the Constitutional Congress, then RATIFIED by the states.

And the PEOPLE in those states didn't ratify shit, their state legislators did.

Ratification Dates and Votes - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

Idiot

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

SAINTMICHAELDEFENDTHEM SAID:

“If you're a net consumer of government, you don't get to vote.”

Fortunately that's not your decision to make, or the decision of those who agree with you.

The right to vote is inalienable and fundamental, it can be neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution or man.

Otherwise, your ignorance of the Constitution and your contempt for the inalienable rights of your fellow citizens is noted.

Once again C_Clayton_Jones is WRONG.

If i could get the votes , I could certainly get a Constitutional Amendment taking your vote away.

it's not an easy task to get those votes though...

2/3's of congress voting yea, and 2/3rds of the Senate voting yea to it, and then you have to get 2/3'rds of the States to ratify the amendment as well.....

the chances are virtually none, of it ever happening...

Incorrect. The states themselves can convene an Article Five convention. Congress is not needed to amend the Constitution. The states formed the Constitution and the states can change it.

Incorrect.

The Constitution is the creation of all the people, independent of the states:

'It might be objected that because the States ratified the Constitution, the people can delegate power only through the States or by acting in their capacities as citizens of particular States. See post, at 2-3. But in McCulloch v. Maryland, the Court set forth its authoritative rejection of this idea:

"The Convention which framed the constitution was indeed elected by the State legislatures. But the instrument . . . was submitted to the people. . . . It is true, they assembled in their several States--and where else should they have assembled? No political dreamer was ever wild enough to think of breaking down the lines which separate the States, and of compounding the American people into one common mass. Of consequence, when they act, they act in their States. But the measures they adopt do not, on that account, cease to be the measures of the people themselves, or become the measures of the State governments." 4 Wheat., at 403.'

U.S. Term Limits Inc. v. Thornton 514 U.S. 779 1995 .

Do you concede that your vote could be removed via Constitutional Amendment, however unlikely?

 

[candycorn]

Why stop at civics? We're $17B in debt; lets limit the vote to those with advanced finance degrees and can figure out which candidate has the best program? Knowing trivia (such as who is the Secretary of Veterans Affairs) means zilch in this climate.

Since most of these people will be in Obama's key demographic....do you feel comfortable with that? If not why not? It will limit the smartest people in the room to voting and isn't that the goal?

That statement alone would take away your right to vote if it were up to me.

No one side has most of the stupid people, or most of the smart people.

Whichever side your own is in the lead as far as stupid people go. Nice sidestep of the question however....why stop at Civics. Shouldn't the "most educated" have more say than someone else who isn't as smart?

Why don't you try reading the thread before you ask dumb questions. I've already stated that I am FOR a voter exam. My voter exam wouldn't exclude someone just because they are stupid overall though Candy, so there is hope for you to get to vote yet.

I did read it; your ideas are as silly as you are and have no place in an adult conversation.

The new idea is why not just give anyone with a Masters Degree in Economics a vote and we won't have to worry about the silly idea that if you can name the Secretary of Defense, you're somehow "qualified" to know whom has the best economic policy.

We're $17T in debt. Lets just let the brightest moneymen and women chart the course and pick our leaders?

I didn't propose that anyone should know who has the best plan for anything to vote moron.

Yeah, I never said you did.

I proposed that those who can prove they are some what engaged can vote.

Somewhat engaged means what? They can name some governmental figures, remember a few dates from history, know how a bill becomes a law? This means that they are going to be able to have any opinion germane to what is most important in today's election?

I seriously doubt that there are more than 200 people in this country who would be qualified to tell you who the best person to fix our economy is, so that would be a ridiculously stupid criteria.

Why?

We're $17T in debt. It's easily the most important issue facing our nation--or at least that is what you'll get if you ask people. Why not have them make the decision as opposed to who has the best hair cut.

Besides, my 6 year old child could figure out that are economy is fucked up because we spend more than we bring in in taxes. Should she get to vote Candy?

Harry Potter Forums bull Index page

^That is where you are qualified to debate, not here. Go away child.

Hey, it's you guys that want to bring back the poll tax and literacy tests. I'm just saying that if you're going to put up these artificial barriers to allowing citizens to vote, do so in a way that will actually benefit the country. As your 6 year old is probably miles smarter than your racist ass, I say let him/her vote for you. She couldn't do any worse.

 

[LoneLaugher]

We need more people here to attend Glenn Beck University. Those who have OBVIOUSLY have a deep understanding of the constitution.

 

[Care4all]

limiting groups of citizens from voting leads to a DICTATORSHIP, and nothing less.

cheers

 

[NYcarbineer]

SAINTMICHAELDEFENDTHEM SAID:

“If you're a net consumer of government, you don't get to vote.”

Fortunately that's not your decision to make, or the decision of those who agree with you.

The right to vote is inalienable and fundamental, it can be neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution or man.

Otherwise, your ignorance of the Constitution and your contempt for the inalienable rights of your fellow citizens is noted.

Once again C_Clayton_Jones is WRONG.

If i could get the votes , I could certainly get a Constitutional Amendment taking your vote away.

So what are the inalienable rights that RWnuts love to go on and on about?

 

[NYcarbineer]

"The purpose of government is to maintain a society which secures to every member the inherent and inalienable rights of man, and promotes the safety and happiness of its people. Protecting these rights from violation, therefore, is its primary obligation." - Thomas Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson didn't believe that every jackass breathing should be able to vote.

Thomas Jefferson also didn't believe that Americans should forever be bound to what he and others believed in the 18th century.

In fact, he mocked the idea.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

You cited them yourself.

No, I cited amendments that removed discrimination based on previous condition of servitude or gender, but that did not extend the right to vote to every jackass that breathes.

Section 2 of the 14th amendment specifically references the right to vote:

But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

You didn't actually read that, did you?

Obviously not.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You cited them yourself.

No, I cited amendments that removed discrimination based on previous condition of servitude or gender, but that did not extend the right to vote to every jackass that breathes.

Section 2 of the 14th amendment specifically references the right to vote:

But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

You didn't actually read that, did you?

If you want to dispute that the above establishes voting as a right, let's hear it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You cited them yourself.

No, I cited amendments that removed discrimination based on previous condition of servitude or gender, but that did not extend the right to vote to every jackass that breathes.

Section 2 of the 14th amendment specifically references the right to vote:

But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

You didn't actually read that, did you?

Obviously not.

You don't think the above declares voting to be a right? Make your argument. Fair warning, you may have trouble getting past the words 'the right to vote'...lol

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

You cited them yourself.

No, I cited amendments that removed discrimination based on previous condition of servitude or gender, but that did not extend the right to vote to every jackass that breathes.

Section 2 of the 14th amendment specifically references the right to vote:

But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

You didn't actually read that, did you?

Obviously not.

You don't think the above declares voting to be a right? Make your argument. Fair warning, you may have trouble getting past the words 'the right to vote'...lol

According to your post only white males above the age of twenty one are allowed to vote.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No, I cited amendments that removed discrimination based on previous condition of servitude or gender, but that did not extend the right to vote to every jackass that breathes.

Section 2 of the 14th amendment specifically references the right to vote:

But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

You didn't actually read that, did you?

Obviously not.

You don't think the above declares voting to be a right? Make your argument. Fair warning, you may have trouble getting past the words 'the right to vote'...lol

According to your post only white males above the age of twenty one are allowed to vote.

1. You're jumping into the middle of a dispute. The OP claims there is NO right to vote in the Constitution.

2. The right to vote clearly referred to in the 14th amendment has since been expanded to include non-white males and women.

Need I go on?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Section 2 of the 14th amendment specifically references the right to vote:

But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

You didn't actually read that, did you?

Obviously not.

You don't think the above declares voting to be a right? Make your argument. Fair warning, you may have trouble getting past the words 'the right to vote'...lol

According to your post only white males above the age of twenty one are allowed to vote.

1. You're jumping into the middle of a dispute. The OP claims there is NO right to vote in the Constitution.

2. The right to vote clearly referred to in the 14th amendment has since been expanded to include non-white males and women.

Need I go on?

Sure,knock yourself out.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You didn't actually read that, did you?

Obviously not.

You don't think the above declares voting to be a right? Make your argument. Fair warning, you may have trouble getting past the words 'the right to vote'...lol

According to your post only white males above the age of twenty one are allowed to vote.

1. You're jumping into the middle of a dispute. The OP claims there is NO right to vote in the Constitution.

2. The right to vote clearly referred to in the 14th amendment has since been expanded to include non-white males and women.

Need I go on?

Sure,knock yourself out.

What don't you understand? Are you still with the OP who says there's no right to vote in the Constitution?