There should be an elegibility test for voting

[run_to_win]

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

It was

[Dphins4me]

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

  You are grasping now & basically getting stupid with this.

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

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.

[SCFinfan]

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.

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

[Dphins4me]

Yes got an A. 

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

Go read a book on constitutional law.

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

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

 
  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?   

The very foundation of a democratic society is voting. 

  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.

Before the Civil War the United States Constitution did not provide specific protections for voting. Qualifications for voting were matters which neither the Constitution nor federal laws governed

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.

[Dphins4me]

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

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.

[run_to_win]

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

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.   

[bsmooth]

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.   

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.

[run_to_win]

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.

[SCFinfan]

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.

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?

[Frimp]

^^^

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.

[Dphins4me]

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

  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.

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.

   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.

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 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?

[run_to_win]

Because if the government is paying your bills, you shouldn't be able to vote.

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

[SCFinfan]

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.   

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.

     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.

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.

[bsmooth]

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.

How is the truth weak?

[Dphins4me]

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.

Agree.

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.

  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.

 

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.

I disagree, but thanks.

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.

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?


 

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.

  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.

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

  Fixed.  It was a copying paste error.