The Republican Party Today

[clarksvol00]

Errors of fallible men do not invalidate good ideas from them.

No it doesn't, but I believe you said if it was good enough for them it's good enough you. Just because fallible men said it (apparently they didnt actually say it @RockyTop85 ) , doesn't make it a good idea.

 

[Majors]

Meanwhile the Democrat Party can't decide if there are only males and females, is flooding the nation with millions of uneducated, low skilled workers, and perpetuates racial animosity while continuing to pander to the LGBTQ community but sure Donald Trump is the problem.

Same party says to “trust science”.

 

[McDad]

Land ownership as a pre-requisite to voting was never in the constitution, but the thread has moved quickly so maybe he’s talking about something else.

It was debated but left out for the express reason that they didn’t think it could get ratified.

The practice was not uncommon prior to the ratification of the 14th amendment (and probably not that uncommon in some parts until 1964). Which provides good examples of what it would look like in practice. Absolutely floored that anybody would look at those examples and say “yup, works for me.”

Cc: @McDad

Thanks for the opportunity to clarify. I was referencing something I came across when I was researching and formulating my thoughts on the subject. Specifically from wiki:

Milestones of national franchise changes[edit]
Further information: Timeline of voting rights in the United States

• 1789: The Constitution grants the states the power to set voting requirements. Generally, states limited this right to property-owning or tax-paying white males (about 6% of the population).[14]
• 1790: The Naturalization Act of 1790 limited citizenship to "free white persons."[23] In practice, only white male property owners could naturalize and acquire the status of citizens, and the vote.[23]

 

[McDad]

No it doesn't, but I believe you said if it was good enough for them it's good enough you. Just because fallible men said it (apparently they didnt actually say it @RockyTop85 ) , doesn't make it a good idea.

It does to me. And since it is my opinion, it qualifies.

Many things which are part of our society and culture began as a notion of flawed people. Some of those ideas outlasted the corrupted thinking of the day.

I like the land ownership because land owners have a vested interest in what is best for the community in which they own land. It also allows for people who are retired from active employment an opportunity to continue to vote since they meet that particular qualification.

 

[McDad]

I have a problem with the idea of letting the federal government set any standards for voting beyond what is currently in the constitution and the constitution is pretty clear on how elections are conducted.

I am fine with that, too. In my world, the federal election would have the least impact in our day to day lives and should be the lowest bar of qualification.

 

[825VOL]

If we are going to be honest about things, our Constitutional Republic didn't even last 50 years. The Constitution was ratified in 1790 and it only took 49 years before we began chipping away at the foundations established by the Constitution.

In 1819 the Supreme Court ruled that Congress has "implied powers" in the McCullough vs Maryland case. This set the stage for the growth of the federal government that has increased exponentially since that time. McCulloch v. Maryland - Summary, Decision & Significance (history.com)

Imo, this also set the stage for the Civil War. As Congress's powers grew, they butted head with that States. I will not argue with anyone on here regarding what caused the Civil War, but we should all be able to agree that it involved the Federal government versus State's rights which at that time included slavery. An income tax was introduced to pay for the war: Abraham Lincoln imposes first federal income tax (history.com) The income tax was eventually found unconstitutional but that didn't stop Congress. They needed that money to pay for their ever-expanding role. So, they passed the 16th Amendment. This was not the design of the Constitution.

The moving away from the original intent of the Constitution did not stop there. The 17th Amendment further eroded the State's power. Yes, I am well aware of the corruption and issues with State legislatures electing Senators. Can you tell me State corruption was worse than the Federal Corruption we have now? In the 110 years since this amendment, most people have become oblivious to the role that individual States are supposed to play in our Republic.

We have become what our founders feared; a top-heavy Federal government that tries to control every aspect of the lives of everyone in every state. The king of England could never have dreamed of this much control over his subjects or the willingness of the subjects to comply without revolt.

 

[RockyTop85]

Do states currently conditions on the exercise of one's rights? If yes, is that dictatorship? I am curious because we tend to discuss constitutional rights on this forum a lot. And we are all aware of where exercise of those rights are conditional.

Not without the consent derived from ratification of the constitution and not outside the scope of the constitution. You have a vote, you have the ability to build coalitions, and avenues to amend the constitution. Take those away and the government has no reason to respect any of your other civil rights, certainly not to ever grant you the privilege of voting, so long as they continue to pacify members of the franchise. But don’t take my word for it, here’s Justice Gorsuch citing Clarendon and John Adams:

Together with the right to vote, those who wrote our Constitution considered the right to trial by jury "the heart and lungs, the mainspring and the center wheel" of our liberties, without which "the body must die; the watch must run down; the government must become arbitrary." Letter from Clarendon to W. Pym (Jan. 27, 1766), in 1 Papers of John Adams 169 (R. Taylor ed. 1977). Just as the right to vote sought to preserve the people's authority over their government's executive and legislative functions, the right to a jury trial sought to preserve the people's authority over its judicial functions. J. Adams, Diary Entry (Feb. 12, 1771), in 2 Diary and Autobiography of John Adams 3 (L. Butterfield ed. 1961); see also 2 J. Story, Commentaries on the Constitution §1779, pp. 540-541 (4th ed. 1873).

US v. Haymond, Supreme Court 2019 - Google Scholar

I used 'jurisdiction'. You are using state. I am saying jurisdictions place qualifiers on rights now and it seems to pass muster. Which means, to me, a state can place qualifiers on the (such as taxes paid) to exercise the right to vote.

I say this lacks nuance to the extent that it is erroneous. I think your prior attempt to use an overturned NYC ordinance as an example of how these things “pass muster” warrants a request for a more specific example to push back on.

 

[clarksvol00]

Thanks for the opportunity to clarify. I was referencing something I came across when I was researching and formulating my thoughts on the subject. Specifically from wiki:

Milestones of national franchise changes[edit]
Further information: Timeline of voting rights in the United States

• 1789: The Constitution grants the states the power to set voting requirements. Generally, states limited this right to property-owning or tax-paying white males (about 6% of the population).[14]
• 1790: The Naturalization Act of 1790 limited citizenship to "free white persons."[23] In practice, only white male property owners could naturalize and acquire the status of citizens, and the vote.[23]

N/M

 

[clarksvol00]

It does to me. And since it is my opinion, it qualifies.

Many things which are part of our society and culture began as a notion of flawed people. Some of those ideas outlasted the corrupted thinking of the day.

I like the land ownership because land owners have a vested interest in what is best for the community in which they own land. It also allows for people who are retired from active employment an opportunity to continue to vote since they meet that particular qualification.

I disagree and that's my opinion so it qualifies.

 

[EasternVol]

Farmer's need subsidies or most would cease to exist, millions of unskilled workers flooding the nation or someone choosing not to work who otherwise could and should is hardly a need by any stretch of the imagination

Does that first sentence mean you're for or against farm subsidies?

 

[RockyTop85]

Thanks for the opportunity to clarify. I was referencing something I came across when I was researching and formulating my thoughts on the subject. Specifically from wiki:

Milestones of national franchise changes[edit]
Further information: Timeline of voting rights in the United States

• 1789: The Constitution grants the states the power to set voting requirements. Generally, states limited this right to property-owning or tax-paying white males (about 6% of the population).[14]
• 1790: The Naturalization Act of 1790 limited citizenship to "free white persons."[23] In practice, only white male property owners could naturalize and acquire the status of citizens, and the vote.[23]

Naturalization implies that this pertained to immigrant aliens and the wiki for the specific law seems to support that as well.

Naturalization Act of 1790 - Wikipedia

Despite that, I’m still floored that you’re advocating to return to any model that included “free white persons” language.

I understand you’re not racially motivated and am not accusing you of that, but this is the same mechanism that enabled making people property until the 1860’s and kept them relegated to second class citizen status until the 1960’s. I don’t know how anybody can knowledgeably look at that model and say “more of that please.”

 

[McDad]

Not without the consent derived from ratification of the constitution and not outside the scope of the constitution. You have a vote, you have the ability to build coalitions, and avenues to amend the constitution. Take those away and the government has no reason to respect any of your other civil rights, certainly not to ever grant you the privilege of voting, so long as they continue to pacify members of the franchise. But don’t take my word for it, here’s Justice Gorsuch citing Clarendon and John Adams:



US v. Haymond, Supreme Court 2019 - Google Scholar

Going off line for a bit. if the convo is still active, i will reply to this.

Thanks to you, and everyone else who engaged in the discussion. It was really enjoyable.

 

[EasternVol]

If John has a bicycle, he's good. Oregon has a $15 bicycle tax.

Tyrants.

 

[K-town Vol Fan]

What about it? Want to point out the section that defines the right to vote shall not be infringed or where in the constitution it says Americans have an explicit right to vote?

Amendment 26.

 

[hog88]

Amendment 26.

Wrong, try reading it first.

 

[Orangeburst]

University program linking Christians, Republicans to Nazis granted DHS funds under 'anti-terror' initiative

 

[Sudden Impact]

Federal sales tax?

Petro = Gas & Diesel...There are other commodities that have Federal taxes on them that we do not see. Cigs??? Liquor.... excise taxes.

 

[hog88]

Petro = Gas & Diesel...There are other commodities that have Federal taxes on them that we do not see. Cigs??? Liquor.... excise taxes.

Yes there are a lot of hidden federal taxes.

 

[GroverCleveland]

I think we are all comfortable or accepting of current qualifications simply because they have been in effect long enough for us to not consider them. I don't see much difference in new qualifications since the number of people prohibited in having a voice at some level of governance would be infinitesimal.

How about "if you're able-bodied and living at home with your parents you cannot vote."

 

[AM64]

After the last 6 and especially after the last 2 presidential elections I really can't understand how anyone thinks more people voting is a good idea.

The Constitution sets a couple of minimum requirements to run for congress - 25 years of age and 7 years a citizen. What I can't see is why we feel anyone younger or anyone having been a citizen for less time is sufficiently endowed with the wisdom and a sense of what the country means to be in a position to elect anyone to federal office. That should be the first step in limiting the number of voters and regaining the sense of responsibility that should be attached to the process.

 

[AM64]

Do some farmers cheat the system? Absolutely just like anything else in life but if the market determined prices for nearly every commodity with maybe the exception of beef and pork, most things would be almost unaffordable if it is made from corn or wheat. Both of those commodities are almost unaffordable to plant now and require massive amounts of fertilizer

Not requiring ethanol in our gas would fix a part of that problem.

 

[GroverCleveland]

I'm wondering why that makes you inherently worthy of voting.

To be sure, Tennessee does allow a form of this. If one owns at least 50% of a substantial property (value restriction or something to prevent the "owning one square foot") in a city within the county they live then one may vote in that city on city elections only. So for instance, I vote in Cleveland on city mayor, city school board, etc, even though I live in the county.

 

[AM64]

Hey, people want to throw up farm subsidies all the time and equate them to welfare or other entitlement programs so I think they should have the opportunity to live in a subsidy free market.

A lot of people will never understand who the real recipient of farm subsidies is unless the subsidies are stripped and hunger for real sets in.

 

[GroverCleveland]

So was the three-fifths compromise.

Just to be sure, you realize that compromise was by the North, not the South. The South wanted slaves counted at 100%...just were not going to allow them to vote...

 

[Majors]

Meanwhile the Democrat Party can't decide if there are only males and females, is flooding the nation with millions of uneducated, low skilled workers, and perpetuates racial animosity while continuing to pander to the LGBTQ community but sure Donald Trump is the problem.

“Advocating” for women while staying silent or worse encouraging a trans beating a female in sports.