who honestly has even said they will never have to work or pay for gas again.

are their people taped at Obama speeches saying this?

11/4/2008 8:58:59 AM

Quote :

"I think there should be. You have so many people voting who have no idea about how government works or who just get their information from the political ads on TV. "

they sure do know though they don't want Tax N Spend godless liberals elected though!

The idiots in this country that vote based on a lack of informed opinion are the types who allow people like Hitler come to power. If Billy Bob redneck truly understood George's W platform during the 2004 election and truly believed in his views than i have no problem.

11/4/2008 9:02:09 AM

^^I think it was on Rush the other day. I didn't hear it b/c I don't listen to that idiot, but like i say, I have family members who do and they told me about it. I mean its just as dumb (maybe not as awful) as people yelling terrorist at mccain rallies.

11/4/2008 9:08:22 AM

Quote :

"There is nothing unfortunate about the ability of ALL people having a voice in their governance."

I beg to differ.

11/4/2008 9:54:29 AM

^ GG.

This affects me in no way (aside from the fact that if the American public elects a shitbag, the whole world has to deal with it), but I definitely think there should be a test.

The only problem is, who will make the test/agree on what's included in it? Because this could never be agreed upon, and could never be "fair", a test could never be implemented.

11/4/2008 9:59:00 AM

Quote :

"people do not have a right to vote."

Sorry underPSI, you fail the test. Try again in 4 years.

11/4/2008 10:38:46 AM

^^ No, there's still another major problem even with a test that is perfectly fair. Politicians have a strong incentive to foster ignorance, illiteracy, and general slowness among demographics that historically vote against their party or policies. The way in which districts are manipulated should be proof enough that politicians are more than willing to screw with institutions if it gives them even a slight edge.

Say democrats were in charge for a good 16 years. While most of them would probably never do this overtly, the nastier and more devious amongst their ranks would have a lot of fun adjusting how federal money for schools was distributed. Any distribution formula or testing criteria or stipulation that could shift funding from rural school districts to inner city school districts would be pushed by the soulless few willing to play the long game of fucking with kids education.

Similarly, if republicans were in charge there would be some amongst them who would do all they could to see inner city schools founder and fail. While I'm not saying there would be a succesful vast conspiracy from either party, I think it's a terrible idea to create an incentive to fuck over the education systems for demographics that tend to support your opponents. It would be something some of them would try to do too, since slowly ruining the education of a generation of rural/urban voters would, when combined with competency tests, dramatically shift the electorate for one or two decades if executed well.

11/4/2008 10:48:50 AM

Quote :

"The irony here is that underPSI probably wouldn't be able to pass said test, given the level of understanding about our country he's displayed in this thread."

really? even though there are numbers of people posting in this thread and continue to post about how i'm wrong that as an American citizen you have a right to vote? see below:

Quote :

"Ok, let me clear this up for everyone. There is NO constitutional right to vote. "

i wasn't trying to start an argument or a debate. i was just asking for opinions since there are a lot of voters out there who are like this:

Quote :

"By the way, I'll leave you with this: my grandmother has alzheimer's and can't even remember the names of her children. yet she is allowed to vote, and does."

Quote :

"who honestly has even said they will never have to work or pay for gas again. are their people taped at Obama speeches saying this?"

and yes, she really believes that.

11/4/2008 11:06:59 AM

Two things:

1..

Quote :

"Quote : "who honestly has even said they will never have to work or pay for gas again. are their people taped at Obama speeches saying this?" and yes, she really believes that."

No, she clearly did not believe that. In the video the lady lays claim that she would not have to worry about her mortgage or gas if obama were president. This is comparable to those who are very well off and say they don't need to worry about their taxes if mccain is president. they don't need to worry about them, not they don't need to pay them. the two statements are not one in the same. The very fact that you could not understand the context and lack the necessary comprehension, underPSI is clear evidence of why you likely wouldn't be able to pass this test in the first place. I would find it far more believable that that a mccain supporter would believe they wouldn't have to pay for gas or mortgages since mccain has offered to buy up bad mortgages and renegotiate the terms of them as well as those within the right who believe "if we drilled a few little holes we'd have tons more oil than all those A-rab countries put together" (direct quote). Then again you were probably inclined to believe that the women would be willing to make such an ignorant statement since she was black and you already have a preordained bigotry which precludes you from making any rational conclusion about policy that affects the well being of all americans as a whole.


AND

2.

Quote :

"who allow people like Hitler come to power."

Godwin's Law



[Edited on November 4, 2008 at 3:59 PM. Reason : two things]

11/4/2008 3:57:26 PM

Absolutely not.

If we elect a bad government due to the voting power of stupid people, then the country should rightly go down the drain.

Also, this reminds me of Eugenics. I wonder which would be worse (or...better): a test to vote or a test to be a parent...

[Edited on November 4, 2008 at 4:26 PM. Reason : .]

11/4/2008 4:20:19 PM

To hear libertarians support a measure that would limit a person's right to vote 'unironically' is absolutely harmonious.

11/4/2008 4:24:23 PM

Quote :

"if republicans were in charge there would be some amongst them who would do all they could to see inner city schools founder and fail"

you mean like nclb or school vouchers?

11/4/2008 4:47:34 PM

Quote :

"Ok, let me clear this up for everyone. There is NO constitutional right to vote."

Seriously, though?

15th Amendment:

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

19th Amendment:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

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

24th Amendment:

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

26th Amendment:

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.


Again, you'd fail a basic voting test.

11/4/2008 4:53:04 PM

^ actually he's right, the above amendments don't explicitly give the right to vote to citizens but describe how it cannot be [i]denied[/b]

15th Amendment:
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied

19th Amendment:
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied

24th Amendment:
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote ...shall not be denied

26th Amendment:
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied

[Edited on November 4, 2008 at 4:59 PM. Reason : /]

11/4/2008 4:58:31 PM

on a different note, why will obama supporters riot and burn shit down if he looses?

I never understood that about liberals

[Edited on November 4, 2008 at 5:01 PM. Reason : 1]

11/4/2008 5:00:42 PM

^^ yes, but if the right to vote cannot be denied under those specific circumstances, then... and I know this is a stretch... that would imply that there is, in fact, a right to vote.

[Edited on November 4, 2008 at 5:11 PM. Reason : d]

11/4/2008 5:09:22 PM

Quote :

"don't explicitly give the right to vote"

Rights do not have to be explicitly declared.

The ninth amendment:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

11/4/2008 5:10:32 PM

It's up to the individual states but yes, my personal interpretation is that the right is implicitly guaranteed starting with the 14th amendment and reinforced by all of the above.

11/4/2008 5:11:16 PM

Let me start with the caveat that I'm on the fence about this one...mostly due to how difficult it would be to implement in a proper manner--not due to misgivings about the overall end.

Quote :

"To hear libertarians support a measure that would limit a person's right to vote 'unironically' is absolutely harmonious. "

Again, starting with a caveat. I'm neither a capital-L Libertarian nor a slave to libertarian ideology without actually claming the Label. I do lean in that direction--a "moderate libertarian", I suppose, although that unfortunately sounds oxymoronic. It's just that, given the state of the GOP, there isn't really a better label.

That said, I am not against government regulation, per se. For that matter, I don't believe that government regulation is necessarily contrary to libertarianism. To paraphrase Barry Goldwater (who was not a Libertarian, but will suffice for our purposes), the rightful purpose of government is to foster liberty. Every once in a while, government regulation is actually a good thing.

Tyranny of the majority is still tyranny, and with that in mind, restriction of voting to people who at least have a solid working knowledge of issues and their pros and cons, is not necessarily contrary to libertarianism (though poor implementation of it certainly would be, and that could prove difficult to avoid).

Quote :

"Seriously, though? 15th Amendment: 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. Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. 19th Amendment: The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. 24th Amendment: Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax. Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. 26th Amendment: Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age. Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. Again, you'd fail a basic voting test. "

Why do you think we have all of those Amendments, dealing with specific reasons for which restriction of voting is not permissible, and not just a simple Amendment stating that the right to vote shall not be restricted? The existance of those Amendments doesn't support your argument--it undermines it.

Furthermore, there is obviously not a universal right to vote. You can't vote if you're under the age of 18 (and even that is only established by a few decades), and you can't vote if you're a convicted felon. Denial of the right to vote because you are quantifiably ignorant and unqualified is not fundamentally different, in and of itself.



There are reasons to be wary of it or against it, and I'm not totally for it, but not because it's inherently a bad idea or not Constitutionally permissible (not that many of you who are against this idea give a shit about that other than when it's convenient for you, anyway).

11/4/2008 5:22:29 PM

The voting amendments are de facto recognition of the right to vote to anyone but the nit-pickiest of nit-pickers.

For the rest of you, running elections is a reserved power, and suffrage is a (NC) constitutional right in NC.

Want to guess what the Supreme Court would do if a state tried to deny suffrage based on religion? They'd cite the 15th Amendment in a heartbeat.


Plus, the fact that federal rights are denied to minors and convicted felons is nothing new. Are you saying there's no federal right to bear arms because convicted felons and minors can't buy guns?



[Edited on November 4, 2008 at 6:51 PM. Reason : ]

11/4/2008 6:41:00 PM

We already know what they did when people tried to use "literacy tests" and taxes. Preventing voting based on religion would not only involve the 15th ammendment but also the 1st.

[Edited on November 4, 2008 at 6:53 PM. Reason : ]

11/4/2008 6:52:39 PM

^^No, I'm saying that the federally recognized right to bear arms is not totally unrestricted, and neither is the right to vote.

also, nobody is talking about NC law, specifically.

^ obviously nobody is talking about a poll tax, and that's specifically unconstitutional. in addition, I don't think anyone on the "pro" side of this issue is advocating a literacy test as the litmus...not that the implications of such a test would be really comparable to what it was when it was enacted, anyway.

[Edited on November 4, 2008 at 6:56 PM. Reason : asdfasd]

11/4/2008 6:53:54 PM

Ah nope, nevermind. That was congressional act not supreme court decision.

[Edited on November 4, 2008 at 6:59 PM. Reason : ]

11/4/2008 6:54:58 PM

it would at least keep all these blacks from voting just cause a black guy's running

11/4/2008 6:56:26 PM

Well I wasn't arguing that the gov't can't restrict rights. I was arguing that it is a right, and that it shouldn't be denied simply because we think the average person is totally stupid.

There has to be a countervailing right at stake.

11/4/2008 6:57:35 PM

^^^ absolutely. given America's history regarding suffrage, it should be unpalatable to the courts. that doesn't mean that it's inherently wrong, illegal, unworthy of consideration, or beyond the realm of what could be upheld by the judicial system.

[Edited on November 4, 2008 at 6:59 PM. Reason : ^ very well, come back when you can address the arguments.]

11/4/2008 6:58:38 PM

^I actually can't find a supreme court decision regarding poll taxes or literacy tests. Maybe I'm just tired and bleary eyed, I thought I rememebred learning about one in high school

So yeah, without a supreme court decision the only thing banning tests is the (1965?) voting rights act. I don't think the prior one mentioned tests. That would make it arguably illegal, though some would argue the federal government does not have the power to enforce or enact a law like that.

Anyways, I think my previous argument is the one I'll stick with. Regardless of the constitutionality, which it looks like it may be under an intent-blind reading, it's still a fucking terrible idea for the reasons you, I and others have already stated.

[Edited on November 4, 2008 at 7:03 PM. Reason : ]

11/4/2008 6:59:56 PM

in addition to filtering out the garbage inputs to the system, it would totally change the face of politics and campaigns. there wouldn't be so many bullshit half-truths thrown around, and we wouldn't boil an entire Presidential election down to a couple of stupid buzzwords. Competance and nuanced grasp of issues would be more greatly rewarded, and more honest, forthwright dialogue with voters would be forced.

Some of the ignorant would become more self-aware and fix themselves; the rest could just be dragged along for the ride, as should be the case.

[Edited on November 4, 2008 at 7:07 PM. Reason : ^ it also wouldn't have to be implemented at a federal level. but yeah...good idea? ]

[Edited on November 4, 2008 at 7:08 PM. Reason : asdfasd]

11/4/2008 7:06:12 PM

I do remember a somewhat recent SC case stating that there was no inherent federal right to vote in regards to DC. Or something.

But seriously. It's more than implied. They'll support it as a right if ever a poll test was enacted in a state.

11/4/2008 7:06:57 PM

No, then it would be more than implied.

Right now, it's implied at most.

11/4/2008 7:08:14 PM

"The right to _______, shall not be denied"

I mean, come on. What more do you need? Sure, they're leaving the door open to other methods of infringement, but they're clearly acknowledging it as a right.


[Edited on November 4, 2008 at 7:12 PM. Reason : ]

11/4/2008 7:11:43 PM

US House of Representatives, Congressman Jessie Jackson Jr from Illinois has introduced an amendment to the constitution explicitly giving citizens 18 and older the right to vote.

link to the bill
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.J.RES.28:

text of the bill

Quote :

" `SECTION 1. All citizens of the United States who are eighteen years of age or older shall have the right to vote in any public election held in the jurisdiction in which the citizen resides. The right to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States, any State, or any other public or private person or entity, except that the United States or any State may establish regulations narrowly tailored to produce efficient and honest elections. `SECTION 2. Each State shall administer public elections in the State in accordance with election performance standards established by the Congress. The Congress shall reconsider such election performance standards at least once every four years to determine if higher standards should be established to reflect improvements in methods and practices regarding the administration of elections. `SECTION 3. Each State shall provide any eligible voter the opportunity to register and vote on the day of any public election. `SECTION 4. The Congress shall have power to enforce and implement this article by appropriate legislation.'."

Status of Bill:
Referred to the House Committee on Judiciary.

call your reps and have them approve this bill so you will have a right to vote in the Constitution.

I think if the issue was really pushed by the people, then the bill would have more support and would move through Congress. Its been stuck in this committee since 2006.


[Edited on November 6, 2008 at 1:32 AM. Reason : no ninja. ]

11/6/2008 1:30:26 AM

Quote :

"you do realize that initially not everyone had the right to vote, right? And the reason had nothing to do w/ racism. It had everything to do w/ ensuring that those who voted were actually smart enough to make a good decision."

So women and minorities were not smart enough to vote?

11/6/2008 1:37:49 AM

[typical tww answer]

since they can't drive very well and can't stay out of prison.

[/typical tww answer]

11/6/2008 2:03:27 AM

if the equal protection clause says we're all equal (more or less, coupled with the others) and the guarantee clause mandates republican (little r) governments, how doesn't that equate to the right to vote?

could someone help me to imagine a situation where elections don't occur

11/7/2008 3:46:36 PM

nobody is advocating the demise of elections! the intent would be to make our electoral process more effective and legitimate.

11/7/2008 5:27:40 PM

There is a ton of idiocy in this thread. I know you people were paying attention in 2000 right?? remember Bush V Gore in the supreme court? You remember, the decision that said explicitly that individual citizens do not have the right to vote in federal elections. Jesus its not even been 10 years yet. This has been posted before but just in case : http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html

11/7/2008 6:01:01 PM

^^ The road to hell is paved with good intentions. hardy-har-har.

If a poll test is implemented, it will filter out people who should be voting. I don't care how 'fair' it is, how non-partisan it is, who writes it--people who should be voting will be denied their opportunity.

Ultimately, it's neither your place nor mine to say someone's reasons for choosing a particular cadidate are legitmate.

11/7/2008 6:10:58 PM

like i said elsewhere, Duke's commission requires him do defend the Constitution, not (re)interpret it.

so, apparently the USMC affords him too much free time. he should be shooting enemies.

11/7/2008 7:35:54 PM

A poll test, if made perfectly, would vastly improve society as a whole and the quality of our representatives.

Unfortunately, it is completely and totally impossible to make a poll test that would perfectly filter out the people who should and should not be voting. And anything less than a perfect filter would be completely immoral and unfair, to say nothing of the constitutionality requirements.

11/7/2008 7:39:41 PM

ha, I'm not outside the bounds of the Constitution--and I think you'd have a tough case to make that I'm one to take liberties with the Constitution.

and again, the devil would be in the details, and I'm with a lot of you--it's questionable at best that it could be properly implemented, and even if a good plan for it could be put in place, it would still be a potential Pandora's box that might still be better left alone...

but the problem is not in the constitutionality or the overall principle.

11/7/2008 7:42:05 PM

Quote :

"So women and minorities were not smart enough to vote?"

ha. Minorities were not originally prevented from voting, IIRC. I'm not even sure that women were prevented from voting. it was just extremely difficult for them to qualify for it.

11/7/2008 8:20:44 PM

nm

[Edited on November 7, 2008 at 9:12 PM. Reason : ]

11/7/2008 9:06:58 PM

Quote :

"so, apparently the USMC affords him too much free time. he should be shooting enemies."

Shooting enemies my ass.

Mother fucker needs to field day.

Simple Green and KimWipes

11/8/2008 12:26:37 AM

Quote :

"Even if PSI is a raging racist, it doesn't make his question any less valid."

It emphasizes the fact that a "poll test" is exactly the sort of thing that has been tried over and over again by scum like him with a specific goal in mind, and it ain't keeping out people with Alzheimer's.

"Black folks' granddaddies couldn't vote, let's based the right to vote on that."
"Well, OK, that got shot down...black folks don't got any money, let's charge money to vote."
"G'ddamn! OK, then, black folks don't take tests real good, let's make people take a test to vote."

If you are a citizen, of age, who has not implicitly surrendered your right to participate in the social contract by your willing refusal to do your part (read: you're a goddamn felon), you do and should have the right to vote in this country.

11/8/2008 3:21:13 AM

and again, ad hominem does NOT make a point. You are attacking him for being a racist when no racist argument was made. I know you are connecting the dots here, but it is premature, and you know it.

11/8/2008 11:01:10 AM

I'd be down with some sort of simple question that anyone voting should know... like "who's our current president?" or "where is the capitol?" you'd be surprised how many would fail.

11/8/2008 12:53:44 PM