The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

Possibly NSFW due to bad language, and a possibility that if your co-workers walked by and heard this, they might think you were a moron.

I don't want these people voting!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Wroj0FLvzs

Sure lets bring back all those poll taxes and other barriers that used to exsist to keep people from voting, especially poor minorities.

I'm glad there isn't a spelling test for voting.

Just WOW....  I knew these people existed but its so sad. 

I think keeping stupid people from casting their vote would be a positive thing.

It would be a positive thing, and I'd normally jump on top of the pile that is ridiculing the feeble-minded. The only problem would be figuring out who gets to determine where to draw the "You're too stupid" line...

Obviously it would never happen. They could make votes weighted.  guy with phd 5 votes, hick like in the video 1 vote, graduate college 3 votes. 

The problem is, on what basis does one decide who's stupid and who isn't?  It's an idea that might sound good in theory, but too readily exploitable in practice.

I have a fair share of Phd holders among my friends, and I wouldn't want any of those guys having 5 votes. ;D

Am I the only one this didn't shock? We can only hope they drink so heavy that they pass out and forget to show up at the polls.

I think there's a very good chance that "stupid people" are far less likely to actually vote than your average person.

Is she drunk or something?  She's slurring.

The driver of the motorcycle said something crazy.  It was silly speak.

It has to take some kind of skill to drive an atv with three people and a dog on it. :D

Stop making fun of my family!Mama cain't help it she didn't take her medicine that day.

Who read the title and didn't immediately know that this was going to be played? 

(http://nwfootball.net/politics/images/mckinney_racecard.gif)

But geez, the first response? 

I think it would be interesting to weigh votes to the amount of taxes paid.  People who pay no taxes get 1 vote so they're not disenfranchised.  The votes of people who pay huge amounts of taxes equal 100 votes.

Let the people paying the bills make the decisions.  I wonder if anything would be different.

Yes, you can see the driver with a beer at one point.

There can probably be an argument made that this is already happening. Lobbyists have cause a lot of problems.

yeah .. how dare someone refer to something that was common practice 50 years ago,.

forgive and forget right?

never mind that what was suggested by the idea first posted is very similar in concept .. never mind that it violates the constitution of this country .. someone brought up part of the seedy history of this country .. therefore they must be race baiting or they hate america ..

i wish sometimes people would try to understand history so we can avoid repeating the same errors we've made in the past as a society ..

what's next .. separate but equal marriage .. nah .. couldn't happen in this country ?

What is wrong with you?  The fact of the matter is poll taxes etc have been used to deny minorities the right to vote.  And any "test" would be used likewise. 

It is a dumb and unconstitutional idea.   

Damn Frimp..See I invite you over to my shack,that I call a house,and you go off and film my niegbors.....Post it on the internet....

Nope Phish....I'm not shocked at all......I see these people constantly,I'm surounded by them....

HAHA, wow you are really a GOP kool aid drinking tool. I would go into how this is a sad part of our history less than 100 years ago, but Fau covered it fairly well.
I will put in an order for your clownshoes on payday.

I finally got to take a look at this. (Boss was around ALL day.) This woman scares me.

How so? All I'm talking about is a simple test. Questions that everyone should have learned by the 7th grade. You go there, take the test, and if you don't pass, study up, and try again next time. There is a test for citizenship. Why not a test for the privilege of voting?

And before the race card gets played again, let me remind you that I was not the one who brought it up, and the people in this video are white, and more than likely will vote for McCain (who I voted for) if they can make it to the polls without getting a DUI.

If I'm correct, I think that NO absolute bars can be put on voting without a compelling reason to explain them.  For instance, I think that one can be barred from voting in a local election if you don't own property there... don't take my word for it though. 

Poll taxes are for sure unconstitutional.  Literacy tests, while not explicitly unconstitutional, either face heavy scrutiny or are outright barred by the Voting Rights Act.

A concise way of putting it may be this:

Restrictions on access to the electoral process must survive exacting scrutiny; restrictions can be sustained only if it furthers a vital governmental interest which is achieved by means which do not unfairly or unnecessarily burden a minority party's or individual candidate's interest in continued availability of the political opportunity.

  One rule for eligibility should be if you are living off the Gov. then you do not have the ability to vote.  If you cannot be a contributing member to the country then you do not have a say in it.

BTW.  Does everyone not know that we do not have the RIGHT to vote.  No where does it say that American has the right to vote?

Lobbyist money is not the same as tax revenue.  Lobbyists are buying support, not funding the government. 

Yes, because a corrupt and unethical businessman who makes $20 million per year should definitely have much more say in our government (50 times more?) than a high school teacher who makes $40k.

Frightening stuff there, RTW...that's only about a half step removed from saying "sterilize all but the rich, so that the poor don't breed."

::)

I definately agree there...And, yes I did know that.

Someone suggests creating a more educated electorate and everyone automatically assumes that minorities won't make the cut. 

I'm not sure if I should laugh, be disgusted, or offer to loan you my sheet.   ::)

(http://www.seksueelgeweld.nl/prikbord/images/smiles/rofl.gif)

  Actually I'm not 100% on this, but I believe it might be much better if the general public could only vote for their district congressman, then the congressman would vote for everything else.

Maybe people might pay more attention to whom they elect.

Since the Video shows ingnorant rednecks....I thought this is where I should Put this...It's an Anti Obama Billboard in Southern Missouri,Showing Barack in turbin....
http://www.kspr.com/news/local/30727454.html (http://www.kspr.com/news/local/30727454.html)

(modified for better link)

i disagree .. i think it's written in the constitution that people have the right to vote .. i'll prove it to you now with facts:

US constitution:

article 1 section 2: The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several ...

ammendment 17, article 1: The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof...

article 1 section 4: The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Place of Chusing Senators.

So the US constitution establishes that senators and representatives will be elected by the people and also that the states get to define what that means

so now we look at the constitution of the state of florida:

article 6 section 1: Regulation of elections.--All elections by the people shall be by direct and secret vote. General elections shall be determined by a plurality of votes cast. Registration and elections shall, and political party functions may, be regulated by law

article 6 section 2: Electors.--Every citizen of the United States who is at least eighteen years of age and who is a permanent resident of the state, if registered as provided by law, shall be an elector of the county where registered.

this says that every citizen of the united states has the right to vote in any election as long as they are properly registered

what does proper registration mean ? .. according to the laws in the state of Florida .. the following:

title 9, chapter 97.041
(1)(a)  A person may become a registered voter only if that person:

1.  Is at least 18 years of age;

2.  Is a citizen of the United States;

3.  Is a legal resident of the State of Florida;

4.  Is a legal resident of the county in which that person seeks to be registered; and

5.  Registers pursuant to the Florida Election Code.

you might be wondering what the florida election code is .. it's a series of laws that describes the requirements and penalties regarding voting, registering to vote, filing to be on ballots, ballot initiatives, referendums .. etc

if you look at chapter 104 of the florida state law, you'll see that florida classifies the act of voting as a right

104.0515  Voting rights; deprivation of, or interference with, prohibited; penalty.--
(2) (3)  No person, whether acting under color of law or otherwise, shall intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce, any other person for the purpose of interfering with the right of such other person to vote or not to vote as that person may choose, or for the purpose of causing such other person to vote for, or not vote for, any candidate for any office at any general, special, or primary election held solely or in part for the purpose of selecting or electing any such candidate.


and if this is a bit much to follow ..

the united states constitution refers to the right to vote as a right in amendments: 26, 24, 19, 15 and amendment 9 states pretty clearly that just because a right isn't spelled out doesn't mean that it isn't an inherent  right

^^^

But it doesn't specifically say that we have the right to vote for president. And, it doesn't say that it is a right either.

The Constitution does call it a right. You may want to read the 15th Amendment, 19th Amendment, 24th Amendment, & 26th Amendment. They are use the teminology "right to vote".

This is why the Founders gave us the Electoral College.

15th -  prohibits each government in the United States to prevent a citizen from voting based on that citizen's race,[1] color, or previous condition of servitude

19th - prohibits each of the states and the federal government from denying any citizen the right to vote because of that citizen's sex.

24th - prohibits both Congress and the states from conditioning the right to vote in federal elections on payment of a poll tax or other types of tax.

26th - standardized the voting age to 18

All deal with voting, but none says anything each individual having the right to vote.  15th & 19th deal with not being able to deny something the right to vote.  However, no where in the United States Constitution does it say we have a "Right to Vote"

Of course it does.  By saying that we cannot remove the "right to vote", you can infer that we have a "right to vote", or else we wouldn't have amendments protecting it.

Please read the Constitution sometime. Rather than listing rights what is says is what the government is not allowed to take away. It doesn't say we have the right to take a piss either, but I don't think any of us would say we don't have that right.

Your original stance was "Do you know that we do not have the RIGHT to vote", but yet your last post says "not being able to deny something (I hope you meant someone since you are into splitting hairs with language today) the right to vote".

I get you point, it is not spelled out, but no rights are as I mentioned above.

So in short we DO have the right to vote, although the Constitution does not word it that way.

 Yeap, now where does it say the people have a "Right"

 I cannot speak to state consitutions.  I'm talking US.  Many people believe the US constitution says we have a right & it doesn't.

  Inherent right?  Maybe, but no where does it say we have a right.

  Infer?  Yes, you can infer it, but I said no where does it specifically say we have a right to vote.

It does address not being able to deny someone the right to vote based on race, sex etc... but still no where is the right given to us in the Constitution.

You said that, after clarification. You originally said "We do not have the right to vote."

Well since our schools are not turning out masses of "more educated" people, especially in poor areas which just happen to have a higher percentage of minorities, you would see less of them being able to vote. I guess this appeals to you. You have a serious problem with anything involving race, since it is one of the fastest issues you consistently bring up. It seems to always be on your mind.

You might want to read it.   As for you lame analogy.  Trying taking a piss on Main St. USA, beside a policman & look at him & tell him you have a right to piss.  Let me know how that works out for you.

I'll be waiting for you to tell me that policeman arrested you.

All I basically was saying the "Right to Vote" is not given in the US Constitution.   It is implied that there is a right, but not given.  Not splitting hairs, just pointing out a fact that 99% of the US does not know. 

This makes no sense.     

 
 If someone said Phishfan, show me where the right to vote is given.

Where would you go to show them?

Show me where ANY right is given in the Constitution. It is written to explain what rights cannot be taken away. You cannot take away rights unless you already have them.

Why does it not make sense to you? The Constituion does not state any rights, but does state what rights cannot be taken away. So in short you are correct in saying the Constituion does not specifically SAY there is a right to vote. We do have the right to vote though because the Constituion spells out circumstances that do not allow the right to vote to be taken away (and it does say right to vote in the language while spelling that out).

   Why does it not make sense to you?   

I know the Constitution does not give you any right.  The "Bill of Rights" does that & even that does not give us the "Right to Vote"

Majority of people that you talk to believe that the US Constitution gives them the "Right to Vote"   It doesn't.  That was all I was saying.  We are not given the right to vote.    So go tell someone they do not have the right to vote & watch them tell you that they do & that the US Constitution provides them that right.

It addresses how you cannot deny someone that right, but no where is that right given.

Watch them talk about Amendments that say you cannot deny someone that right, but the simple fact is.  The right is never given.  We have the right of freedom of speech,  freedom of religion, the right to keep and bear arms, the freedom of assembly,  freedom to petition Etc... However, there is nothing saying " we have the right to vote"


That is all I was saying.

I got you a long time ago, and have said so. I am just now thinking that you got my point.

By they way my example of pissing isn't lame. We of course have societal rules. I cannot piss wherever I like, but I definitely have the right to piss. Just like I cannot go into Wal-Mart to cast a legal vote, but I do have the right to vote.

Article I

Section 2. The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature.

Amendment XVII

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. (Prior to this amendment state legislators; not the people elected senators)


Amendment 14 Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. 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.

Amendment XV

Section 1. 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 race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Amendment XIX

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.

Amendment XXIII

Section 1. The District constituting the seat of government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct:

A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a state, but in no event more than the least populous state; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the states, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a state; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.

Amendment XXIV

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.

Amendment XXVI

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age.

Same thing as before.  No right to vote.

Talks about how you cannot deny someone the right to vote based on race, sex etc..., but there is nothing in any of those that says we have a right to vote.

In the BOR it lays out our rights are citizens of the US & there is not right to vote in it.

reread the first section that says "choosen by the people"  that is voting. 

  I know, but who are the people? 

   When the Constitution was written, only white male property owners had the vote.   Back then that was who the people were.     Today, its everyone over 18 & a US citizen.  Tomorrow it could(should) be something else.

Try as you might, the Constitution does not give us the right to vote.   No where will you find that it says "You have the Right to vote"

It will say, you cannot deny someone the right to vote based on whatever.  The BOR lays out our rights as citizens & voting is not one of them.

Have you ever taken a class on the Constitution?  Did you pass?

The constitution clearly states the only reason you can deny someone the right to vote is if you commit a felony.  If the right can only be denied under one specific situation than it is a right. 

It's not in their long term interest.   Schools are funded by the number of students they house, not the quality of education they provide.

"Leave no child behind" is just another way of saying "hold them all back to the pace of the least motivated/lowest achieving."  That's just the latest example.  Google "A Nation at Risk: if you're not already familiar with it.


I'm not sure exactly what Frimp meant by "eligibility test" but I don't see it having much to do with public education.  I think you'd have to do a lot more than fix public education to help the people in the video that he was specifically referring to. 


You're right.  I have a serious problem assuming people are different solely based on skin color. 

I am familiar with No Child and the fact it started in Houston while Bush was govenor. Also it has come out that they schools were lying to make the program seem more effective, but it is too late as it has become entrenched into our schools like a leech.

While the No Child left behind act failed big time, I'm surprised that you of all people were against it. Was it just because a Republican put it out? Most conservatives hated it. But, it goes well with the new deal, and the great society. Bush did that hoping that he could appeal to the entitlement mind set of liberals.

The teachers union was against it from day one and they are about as liberal as you get.

I'll take your word on that, as I don't know much about unions. But, we agree that it was a bad bill. Why do we agree on that?

Because it took our underachieving schools and actually made them worse. YEAH US.

I agree. It basically made bad schools equal to good schools. The result...stupid kids.

Ok, we agree on that. It needs to change with a huge overhaul. Now, lets work on other things...

How about the fact that the economic crisis that we are in was caused by the government. Why should we trust them to fix it after they fucked it up so bad that they want to take OUR money to fix it when WE had nothing to do with it in the first place?

No I do not trust them, but I do not know what real choices we have currently to solve this mess.

This is the first step to solving it. Lets stop bickering, and solve the damn thing. The answer is the first 3 words of OUR constitution. "WE THE PEOPLE"

Our constitution wasn't written for the government. It was written for us. WE are the ones who can fix this. We have to demand that our reps and senators do NOTHING more for these government funded pet projects. No more bailouts. Honestly, it would be best if the whole thing hit rock bottom, so we could start over. Sure, it would be hard. But, we as a country have been through worse. President Bush said that we are not in a recession. There should be an * by that statement. We had growth the last quarter thanks to the stimulus checks. It is a false number.

Call your rep and senators. Tell them to stop all these bailouts (there are more coming) Bailouts only postpone the outcome of the problem, and the 700 billion dollar bailout isnt even doing a good job of that. Demand it. Tell everyone you know to do the same thing. You want change? You can vote the career violators out. The change is in you and me. We The People. We are the change, and we are the only ones who can fix the situation that our country is in right now.

Just remember...Government is what got us here. More government is not the answer.

None of my current state reps at any level were ones I voted for. I also did not vote for either of the two major candidates for president in 04.

  Have you?  Did you? 

One simple question.

Show me the words "Right to Vote" written that defines it as a right? If I'm so wrong that you feel that you can start to insult me then it should not be that hard to show me where I'm wrong.  You continue to give me "Elected by the people"  That is not saying its a right.  The "People" have changed through out the centuries.

Our rights given to us by the BOR have not changed.  You know the ones, freedom of
religion, speech Etc....

 Now you can take it as an implied right & they use the word right to vote when talking about denying someone the ability to vote.  Not denying that.

 I understand what you are saying & why I say its an implied right I'm saying no where can it be found written that we have a right to vote.  Those words do not exist other than in the minds of some uninformed US Citizens..

Again I say.  Prove me wrong by showing me the statement that "US Citizens have a right to vote."

It doesn't say it.  But it doesn't have to say it.  Many of our rights are given to us, without being spelled out as "You have the right to ..."  Legal speak is complicated and much of law and rights are inferred through amendments, precedence, etc.

  Thanks, it does not say it.

They can change who can vote at any point.  If the majority in the House & Senate believe you have to be 25 Yrs old to vote, then the "Rights" as some have said we all have is taken away from 18 to 24 Yr olds & there is no law preventing them from doing so.  All they would have to do is amend the Constitution, as they have done in the past.

They have changed who has these so called rights throughout the history of the United States.  So therefor it is not a right.

However, the rights given to us as freedom of religion cannot be changed by a majority vote of the House & Senate.   Anything trying to do so would be unconstitutional.

The right to vote is preservative of all rights, and shouldn't be taken from anyone except if there exists a compelling reason to do so. 

Living off the Government is a compelling reason for me.  You do not work & allow the Gov to support you then from where I sit, you should not have a say in how or who runs it.

Plus, proving you are drug free, smoke free & alcohol free while living off the Gov., but that is another issue.

ok seriously .. read what you just wrote ..

for the right to vote "all the would have to do is amend the constitution"

on the other hand you write that trying to modify the right to freedom of religion would be unconstitutional ..

so which is it ?

all they would have to do to take away freedom of religion is to amend the constitution too

we could be a dictatorship with a king and prisons for anyone that says the word "bandwagon" while wearing a purple shirt  if they amend the constitution to make it so

by your definition we have no rights at all because all that needs to happen is a constitutional amendment

Most likely because there were assessments involved.  The teacher's union, No Excellence Allowed, hates the thought of teachers being held to standards.

Once taken, there needs to be a compelling reason to give it back as well.

The Governor of Washington, who realizes she may not get a 2nd term, is urging that we allow current felons to vote.  We're not talking about felons who have fulfilled their sentence and stayed out of trouble as they merely need to petition for re-enfranchisement.   She's wants 'em all to vote. 

Are you implying that members or our federal government are afflicted with DSS (Do Something Disease)?  Say it ain't so!!!

The only things standing in the way of our public school system returning to an elite level are culture and politics.  No amount of money will fix it, but throwing money at problems is all we know how to do. 

Yes got an A. 


Go read a book on constitutional law.

I am not going to waste time discussing this with someone who is apparently no more educated than the folks in the video. 

The very foundation of a democratic society is voting. 

The thing is I thought deregulaton got us here. There was no governmental oversight.

(http://209.85.117.199/1250/23/0/e820//e820.gif)

It was governmental regulations that got us here.  Banks didn't want to make bad loans.  Carter's "Community Reinvestment Act" (CRA) forced them to.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivmL-lXNy64 

2004 C-Span hearings calling for more regulation/oversight:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs&

  You are grasping now & basically getting stupid with this.


I know you think you are being smart here, but basically you are correct.

We have freedom of speech, but yet you do not have 100% freedom.  There are things you cannot say without legal repercussions.

*Shrug* Well, call your senator then.  There's a reason the country's a democracy.

Good, then it should be very easy for you to show me where in the constitution it is written "voting is a right given to the citizens of the US."  Should not be hard for someone who claims to have gotten an A.

I challenge you to find it..

I'll point blank say.  Look as you might, you will never find it written that voting is a right.  You will find ( In Amendments ) where it says you cannot deny someone the right to vote based on race, sex etc...& you can infer from that it is a right.  However, you cannot find it listed anywhere in the constitution where a voting right was given to all the people of the land

Why?  I could read it ten times over & it will never say, voting is a right.

 
  Insult me all you want, in fact it flatters me.  I know that when insults start to come out then it is the first sign of losing.   If you cannot beat them on the ground of the discussion, then belittle them as a person..

You are not going to waste anymore time, because you are getting schooled by someone who did not take a class in constitutional law & it must be embarrassing.

Did you have a picture of your teacher with a ferret shoved up his arse?   ;D

  Yes it is set on voting, however whom can vote has changed throughout the history of the US.  As I pointed out earlier.  At one time only white male land owners could vote.  If voting is a right given to us by the US Constitution ( As you say )  to all US citizens then answer me this if you will waste a few more seconds. 

Why were women not voting then?  Why did Blacks have to fight for the ability to vote?

Why the need for the 15th, 19th, 24th & 26th Amendments, since you say voting is a given right?

"The people" is not clarified in the Constitution.


Wait a minute here.  Its a right given to us by the constitution, but yet there was a need for 4 Amendments to clarify whom could vote.

If only you had been around back in the day when women were not allowed to vote, then you could have pointed out, just how the constitution provides them the right, even though no where in the constitution does it give that right.

It will do no good, because they are easy votes for the Democrats. 

Its those evil rich people that is the reason they are poor.  Not the fact you refuse to work.

However, us loving Dem. raise the taxes on those evil people, so vote for us.

What was that Charles Barkley quote again?  "Poor People have been voting for Democrats for the last 50 years, and they are still poor."

It makes perfect sense though.  If a political party has a solid hold on a certain voting bloc, the last thing it wants to see is that group somehow disappear (i.e., in this case, have the poor get "un-poor").

If the definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over in the hope that it will somehow produce different results, then maybe poor people are poor because they're insane?  The good news is, thanks to the $850,000,000,000 bailout, mental health is now covered by medicaid.   :P

So what about the voters who keep voting religiously for GOP cnadidates no matter how bad they are? Guess they are not insane? Oh yeah that would be naming yourself.

I'm sorry, but that was weak.  I'm even a little bit embarrassed for you.  You should have left this slam dunk for sunstroke. 

I've done very well under GOP candidates.  ;)  Poor people have not done well under Democratic candidates.

I don't have a clue what you're saying here.  However, to sum up:

Voting is a right.  It is denominated in certain forms by the constitution and its subsequent amendments.  Any sort of blockade to a citizen's right to vote, without a compelling reason on the other side, is a violation of constitutional rights. 

You said "living off the government" is a compelling interest to you.  Would you care to tell me why you think it's strong enough interest to override one's right to vote?

^^^

Because if the government is paying your bills, you shouldn't be able to vote. Welfare sponges don't give up anything to receive the money. Maybe they should have to give something up as incentive to get themselves OFF welfare.

  Basically the Dems. have poor people believing they are there to help them not be poor, by giving them money from the hard working people of the land.

Its easy vote for the Dems on elections.

   Now it is with the passing of amendments that define more clearly who can vote.

If voting is a right given by the constitution, then why did we need the amendments to address who could vote?  Why were women denied their constitution right until 1920?  Surely someone in the Yrs prior would have noticed that it was their constitution right.   

All I've ask is show me where in the constitution that voting is declared a right.  I've had a ton of posters say it is a right, but not one has produced the link to the constitution that declares voting a right.

  I can find where it says you cannot deny someone the right to vote based on race, sex etc...in amendments but no where is is actually written that voting it a right.

    Because if you are taking a hand out from the Gov & from the people who are supplying the Gov with the money to provide to you, then you should have no say in how the Gov is ran.  If you do not want to be a contributing member to this society, then you get no say in an election.

My kids do not get a say in my house, because they are not the ones going to work & paying the bills.  Same concept.   Go to work & be able to vote.  Stay home & play/party then take what is given & be happy.  Remember its their choice to stay home & not go to work.

Now, do not take me wrong.  I'm not saying for someone who just got on welfare to get back on their feet.  I'm talking the lifers.  I'm willing to give someone a Yr to get their life back in order & also prove they are not on drugs.  The Gov should not be willingly giving money to people to help support their drug, smoke or alcohol habit.

Why should someone who is on welfare have a right to say whether taxes should be raised on someone else?

Here is an example.  Obama wants to raise taxes on the people making over 250K.  Now, why should someone who is taking a hand out be able to get this guy elected?

Kinda like back a few years ago Cal. was voting on raising taxes on people making over 1 million.  Why should anyone making less than 1 million have a vote on that subject?

In business wouldn't this be called a "conflict of interest". 

Well, the constitution has an amendment system built into it so it can flex and vary over time as certain things change.  As Marbury v. Madison said, the Constitution is not a legal code which explains (or even attempts to explain) every contingency and possibility all within its text.   The Framers weren't omniscient and they knew they weren't, so we have the ability to amend the constitution as time passes to react to the times.

Now, for a bit more depth:  The right of the people to vote for their government is in the federal constitution. Right in the beginning, actually; U.S. Const. art. I, sect. 2, cl. 1.: The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature.

So, the right to choose the members of the Federal H.o.R. was always in the Constitution from the very beginning. Eventually the people also received the ability to vote for the President and Senate. Of course, in the beginning of our country's history, the Constitution was only meant to control and limit the federal gov't, so all state elections, both in their substance and procedure, were dominated by the constitutions of the several states.  What the status of the individual citizens of any state was during that time is anyone's guess. Call your local historian.

So, the right to vote is certainly a constitutional right (meaning that it's in the physical text of the constitution before you even get to the amendments).  It's a right that's been expanded significantly by amendments, but it's still a directly constitutional right, with or without amendments.


Well, I think this is as logical and good a reason as any other.  The way I see it, we're dealing with two seminal values on either side of this argument.  On the one side is the right to exclude others from your property (your hard-earned, well-deserved money).  On the other hand is the idea that we should help our fellow man who has hit a spate of bad luck.  Both are commendable concepts.  The trouble, in my estimation, is all about where the middle ground lies.  I think all sides agree we should help the unfortunates who end up poor through no other reason than bad luck  (say someone's house burns down) or through misdeeds having been wreaked upon them (say someone set their house ablaze, and it burned down).  That, therefore, should be the starting point. How do we make a system that helps the truly unfortunate, without wasting money on those who are life-long users and abusers. I don't have any answers here.  At root, I do think it's good that the government is involved and helps people. I furthermore think it's good when the government gives money to religious and secular humanitarian organizations which also do such charity work (though of course, usually giving public money to any religious organization brings up questions about separation of church and state, though I don't think it's a problem if the gov't has a legitimate secular purpose in giving the money to an individual church).  I do think, however, that the federal gov't has shown an almost pathological ability to waste the people's money.  So, to me, I think you'd have to do away with the greed, vice, and generalized laziness of our political classes if you wanted to make a perfect system which would never get used and never waste money.  Seeing as that will never happen, I'm ok with just refining the system we have now.  I don't think doing away with it entirely (which is what I think you're proposing) is unreasonable though.

You have me quoted as saying something I didn't say, so I won't answer that part of your post.

How is the truth weak?

Agree.

  This is no different albeit more in depth than before from others.   "chosen every second year by the people" does not lay out a right.

 Today the people is anyone over 18 & a US Citizen.  Tomorrow it could change.  Rights do not change.

  I disagree, but thanks.

Is that a roll of the Gov in the form it was designed?    Isn't that my responsibility to decide if I want to give my pay to help my fellow man?


   It far easier if the Gov would want it to work.

If you can put a card into an ATM in Cal. & take money out of your account in Tenn then its hard for me to believe a system is not out there to rid us of abuse.

The private sector would be able to get a system in place, because they have limited funds.

This is what concerns me to health care.


  Fixed.  It was a copying paste error.

I see nothing wrong with saying reasonable loans need to be made. These did not cause the bank to lend out more money than people were actually qualified for. That was done by greedy people making money off how large a loan they could offer. Hell they tried doing it to me and I bought a house before this boom happened. If a person can afford a certain loan value, nothing is wrong with giving them a loan. The problem is the bankers approved people for more than they could afford in order to make more money themselves.

Of course there is nothing wrong with reasonable loans being made.  In this interview HUD Secretary Cuomo states that loans mandated under Clinton's new policies WILL default at a higher rate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivmL-lXNy64

I don't think greedy LENDERS was a huge problem.  Giving away money is not good business.  However, greedy loan officers and mortgage brokers surely contributed.  Very few mortgage companies actually lend the money and carry the debt.  Most just sell the loans. 

I just heard about one broker who overstated a customer's income by 800%, WITHOUT HER KNOWLEDGE, so she qualifed for the loan necessary to purchase a house.  A small part of that is "buyer beware" - she was probably so excited to get her dream house that she didn't read the contract thoroughly enough to figure out how someone making $4,000/month was going to make $19,000 monthly payments. 

The retail mortgage broker earns his/her commission when the contract is signed and does not have to pay it back years later when the mortgage goes into default.

Mortgage fraud has been a booming business for the past decade or so.  Just ask any underwriter.   

  Its called upselling.  My sister is law is a former branch manager of a bank & it was part of their expectations ( Down from headquarters ) to get people to take loans & then also get them more than they needed.

If someone applied for a 25K loan if you can get them approved for 50K then that means more money for the bank.

I got a home equity loan to purchase my car & only needed 25K, but I got approved for 60K.  It helped my sister in law meet her expectations for the month.  It did not matter that I only took the 25K, but the banks hope I will see that extra money & use it for other things.  I didn't because I do not like paying interest.

A couple of times a month they would have to stay late for what they called "Call parties" where they would call up people & try to get them to take more money than they needed.

If a employee was not meeting their expectations then they were dismissed as under performing employees.

Just a little insight on how the game was played, so you really cannot blame the employees since they were simply trying to keep their jobs.

You first say "chosen every second year by the people" doesn't lay out a right: it certainly does.  The Federal Constitution is a "granting" document, meaning that whatever rights it enumerates (or those rights "implicit" in the text) are granted to whomever happens to get them. If the Constitution says "HoR members are chosen every second year by the people, then it grants the people the right to vote. It's literally that simple.

You then say rights don't change.  Let me ask then: who was right when it came to abolishing the slave trade? If rights don't change, then the abolitionist movement was incorrect: slavery had always existed in the US, it's written into the constitution, and it had been a part of the country from the start.  So, do the descendants of former slaves still not have any rights, or do they?

I think there's a problem with both extremes: that either rights are completely unchanging or that they change at the slightest nudging of the people. That's why I'm a natural rights person.  I think there are some natural rights which always exist, but ebb and flow based upon context.  If you're interested, you should check out some of John Finnis' work.


It is and it isn't: there are two "hard truths" about a republican form of democracy like ours.  (1) If the majority doesn't agree with you, you lose.  (2) You don't make the decisions, you only choose who gets to make the decisions.  As such, the majority has disagreed with you that it SHOULD play robin-hood and engage in wealth shifting. I don't find it agreeable either, but I don't think it's an evil.

 
We are not going to come to a common ground on this simply because viewing "Choosen by the people" as a right is something I do not take it as.  Its way to vague & knowing they can change whom the people are at any time, to me proves its not a right.

  For the most part they have not change.  We do not have 100% rights as in freedom of speech.   You cannot slander someone & expect freedom of speech to protect you.   When I say rights have not changed I'm saying in the basic form.

First, show me where in the constitution it is a right to own slaves?

  I will check it out.

^^^

The right to own slaves can be cobbled together from a multitude of Constitutional clauses.  The most obvious reference to slavery is the infamous "Importation and Migration Clause." (art. I., sect. 9, cl. 1)

It reads:

The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.

You may say "I don't see the word slavery in there." Fine, but read between the lines. Importation of "such persons"?  Who is "imported" to the states? Nowadays there are such things as H-1B visas for talented aliens who domestic companies wish to bring in, but back in 1791 no such visas existed.  Therefore, the importation of "such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit" can only mean slavery. Furthermore, the word "importation" reeks of commercial connotations. To me, it is unavoidable that this passage is talking about slavery. 

You may still say that you don't think it confers a right. Consider the following clause, which is a bit more well known:

The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

Notice that the constitution describes habeas corpus (HC) as a privilege. Nowhere does the constitution say it is a right, nor does it grant HC to the people... but it is sheer lunacy to think that this section does anything but grant the people a right to petition the courts for writs of habeas corpus.  Alberto Gonzales, when testifying before congress, famously tried to construe this passage as "not granting a right of habeas corpus."  Senator Schumer absolutely annihalated him on it. This passage definitely grants a right to the people to petition for writs of habeas corpus, and by the same reading, so does the passage preceeding it grant a right to the people to import slaves.
----

You say the language of "chosen by the people" is too vague for you to construe it as a right.  Fine, but answer me two questions then. 

(1) You already agreed that the Constitution is written in nonspecific, general terms. Why do you look for clarity and specificity here?

(2) If you don't take that clause as granting the people a right to vote for (at least) a certain section of government, what do you take it as granting, if anything? If you reject my interpretation, well and good, but offer me something else then so that I can understand how you take it.

Because our rights were spelled out in the BoR.  Voting is not in there.

  It just says "Chosen by the people"  The people can be anyone they determine it to be. 

Two hundred years ago they granted white male land owners the ability to vote.  Today its US Citizen & the age of 18.   Tomorrow?

There is nothing concrete about our right to vote.

the right to vote has always and only ever been expanded . .not contracted .. if that isn't precedence i don't know what is

Correct, the ability has never been contracted, but there is not a clear definition that it is an actual right to be found anywhere.

Not ever wondered why the right to speech, religion, assembly, keep and bear arms, petition, search and seizure, cruel and unusual punishment, self-incrimination, speedy trial, but no right to vote.


Things not in the constitution & something to look at & basically what I'm saying:
http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#vote

I don't think we're gonna get anywhere.

We're not, simply because I do not view " Chosen by the people " as a given right.  The fact the people have changed throughout history is one reason why & the fact states are the ones that actually determine who can vote is another.


Have to agree to disagree.