There should be an elegibility test for voting

[Phishfan]

It was<

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.

[run_to_win]

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.

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.   

[Dphins4me]

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.

[SCFinfan]

  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.

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.

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 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.

[Dphins4me]

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.

 
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.

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?

  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 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.

  I will check it out.

[SCFinfan]

^^^

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.

[Dphins4me]

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

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

(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.

  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.

[Fau Teixeira]

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

[Dphins4me]

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.

The Right To Vote

The Constitution contains many phrases, clauses, and amendments detailing ways people cannot be denied the right to vote. You cannot deny the right to vote because of race or gender. Citizens of Washington DC can vote for President; 18-year-olds can vote; you can vote even if you fail to pay a poll tax. The Constitution also requires that anyone who can vote for the "most numerous branch" of their state legislature can vote for House members and Senate members.

Note that in all of this, though, the Constitution never explicitly ensures the right to vote, as it does the right to speech, for example. It does require that Representatives be chosen and Senators be elected by "the People," and who comprises "the People" has been expanded by the aforementioned amendments several times. Aside from these requirements, though, the qualifications for voters are left to the states. And as long as the qualifications do not conflict with anything in the Constitution, that right can be withheld. For example, in Texas, persons declared mentally incompetent and felons currently in prison or on probation are denied the right to vote. It is interesting to note that though the 26th Amendment requires that 18-year-olds must be able to vote, states can allow persons younger than 18 to vote, if they chose to.

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

[SCFinfan]

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

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

[Dphins4me]

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.