Are we obliged to provide enfranchisment to all?

[fakename]

I’m asking if the gov. must allow universal suffrage?

Does this include teens?

I’m not sure if this is a duty though, because monarchs were good and they certainly didn’t allow voting.

But another question: is the state obliged to allow its subjects to have some effect, even indirect, on public policy?

 

[IrishRush]

I’m asking if the gov. must allow universal suffrage?

Does this include teens?

I’m not sure if this is a duty though, because monarchs were good and they certainly didn’t allow voting.

But another question: is the state obliged to allow its subjects to have some effect, even indirect, on public policy?

Are you even from the U.S.?? Your question is posed in such a way that it sounds like you don’t have any idea how our laws work.
Voting is a right enjoyed by all citizens of legal age, except for some convicted felons.
Felons can’t vote because voting is a civil right and you forfeit certain rights, temporarily anyway, when convicted of a serious crime. The legal age is 18, so yes, teens are allowed to vote.
And states do not have subjects, they have citizens. There are no rulers in our states (though some governors don’t seem to agree) so there are no “subjects.”
And citizens cast votes in order to have an effect on public policy. The state’s “obligation” makes no sense in your question here. Public policy is (or should be) a direct result of the public vote or consensus, and if not directly from that then elected representatives theoretically will enact policy that represents the majority legal opinion of their constituents.
Where do you live, that you still refer to subjects and monarchs?

 

[fakename]

user "IrishRush":

Are you even from the U.S.?? Your question is posed in such a way that it sounds like you don’t have any idea how our laws work.
Voting is a right enjoyed by all citizens of legal age, except for some convicted felons.
Felons can’t vote because voting is a civil right and you forfeit certain rights, temporarily anyway, when convicted of a serious crime. The legal age is 18, so yes, teens are allowed to vote.
And states do not have subjects, they have citizens. There are no rulers in our states (though some governors don’t seem to agree) so there are no “subjects.”
And citizens cast votes in order to have an effect on public policy. The state’s “obligation” makes no sense in your question here. Public policy is (or should be) a direct result of the public vote or consensus, and if not directly from that then elected representatives theoretically will enact policy that represents the majority legal opinion of their constituents.
Where do you live, that you still refer to subjects and monarchs?

I’m asking a general political philosophy question, so I use language that can apply to all constitutions.

So is there an obligation for all constitutions to allow their members at least some indirect say?

 

[manualman]

Actually, I’m going to go out on a limb and say no. Democracy and representative republics can really only work if the majority of the populace has a decent level of education, engagement and commitment to Natural Law. Lacking this, democracy will eventually devolve into mob rule (an ugly thing - see French Revolution).

What we have in the West is entirely contigent upon imparting good education and at least a basic value set to the vast majority of the population. Those things are rapidly going down the tubes too. The next several decades are going to be tumultuous.

 

[Vouthon]

Everyone who is over the age of majority (generally 18) in a given nation, irrespective of their gender, race, religion or social class has the right to vote - that is to “share” in the governance of their country - universal suffrage.

“…Accordingly, the best form of government is in a state [republic] or kingdom, wherein one is given the power to preside over all, while under him are others having governing powers. And yet a government of this kind is shared by all, both because all are eligible to govern, and because the rulers are chosen by all. For this is the best form of polity …] democracy, i.e., government by the people, in so far as the rulers can be chosen from the people, and the people have the right to choose their rulers. Such was the form of government established by the divine Law …] it was a democratic government in so far as the rulers were chosen from all the people …] **All of the people should take some share in the government **for this form of constitution ensures peace among the people, commends itself to all, and is most enduring…”

*- Saint Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) *

Maurice de Wulf (a thomist philosopher, one of the pioneers of the historiography of medieval philosophy) back in 1922 in his book “Philosophy and Civilization in the Middle Ages” commented on this passage from the works of Thomas Aquinas:

“…Thomas, for himself, shows very marked preference for …] a form of government …] in which sovereignity belongs to the people…In this passage, written about 1250, the following political principles are affirmed [by Thomas Aquinas]: universal suffrage, the right of the humblest citizen to be raised to the highest power, the consecration of personal worth and virtue, a representative and elective [government], and the right of the people to delegate, to those who are most worthy of it, that sacred gift of God called power…The most perfect form of delegation of power is [thus] the elective system; for as Thomas writes in his commentary on the Politics of Aristotle, ‘election is a work of reason’…”

Saint Augustine of Hippo also affirmed universal suffrage:

“…If the people have a sense of moderation and responsibility, and are most careful guardians of the commonweal, it is right to enact a law allowing such a people to elect their own magistrates for the government of the commonwealth…”

- Saint Augustine of Hippo (354 – 430), De libero arbitrio

 

[fakename]

user "Vouthon":

Everyone who is over the age of majority (generally 18) in a given nation, irrespective of their gender, race, religion or social class has the right to vote - that is to “share” in the governance of their country - universal suffrage.

Okay, but doesn’t this present a view that makes the philosophers unabashedly pro-democracy even though these same philosophers have elsewhere approved of monarchy, which latter has no suffrage much less universal ones?

 

[Vouthon]

Okay, but doesn’t this present a view that makes the philosophers unabashedly pro-democracy even though these same philosophers have elsewhere approved of monarchy, which latter has no suffrage much less universal ones?

St Thomas Aquinas - like St Isidore of Seville and Polybius before him - believed that the best form of government was a “mixed government” - that is composed of an element of monarchy (a clear Head of State), aristocracy (officials/judges) and democracy (an elected assembly). He believed that sovereignity (or the law-making power) was derived from the people and that the leaders should be chosen by the people, from among the people and that all should be eligible both to elect leaders and to themselves govern.

Thomas called this ideal government, “government by the people”.

He was an advocate of “mixed government”, the predecessor to our modern separation of powers and parliamentary democracy, not “monarchy”.

Notice he says in a “state or a [constitutional] monarchy” the best form of government is “government by the people…democracy”.

He clearly would have been happy with either a republic or a monarchy, so long as it combined those three necessary elements.

The divinely inspired author of the First Book of Maccabees had high praise for the Roman Republic (of which he was a contemporary witness):

1 Maccabees 8

“…Now Judas heard of the fame of the Romans, that they were very strong and were well disposed towards all who made an alliance with them, that they pledged friendship to those who came to them, and that they were very strong …] The remaining kingdoms and islands, as many as ever opposed them, they destroyed and enslaved; but with their friends and those who rely on them they have kept friendship. They have subdued kings far and near, and as many as have heard of their fame have feared them. Those whom they wish to help and to make kings, they make kings, and those whom they wish they depose; and they have been greatly exalted. Yet for all this not one of them has put on a crown or worn purple as a mark of pride, but they have built for themselves a senate chamber, and every day three hundred and twenty senators constantly deliberate concerning the people, to govern them well. They trust one man each year to rule over them and to control all their land; they all heed the one man, and there is no envy or jealousy among them…”

(NRSV)

 

[fakename]

St Thomas Aquinas - like St Isidore of Seville and Polybius before him - believed that the best form of government was a “mixed government” - that is composed of an element of monarchy (a clear Head of State), aristocracy (officials/judges) and democracy (an elected assembly). He believed that sovereignity (or the law-making power) was derived from the people and that the leaders should be chosen by the people, from among the people and that all should be eligible both to elect leaders and to themselves govern.

Thomas called this ideal government, “government by the people”.

He was an advocate of “mixed government”, the predecessor to our modern separation of powers and parliamentary democracy, not “monarchy”.

Notice he says in a “state or a [constitutional] monarchy” the best form of government is “government by the people…democracy”.

He clearly would have been happy with either a republic or a monarchy, so long as it combined those three necessary elements.

The divinely inspired author of the First Book of Maccabees had high praise for the Roman Republic (of which he was a contemporary witness):

1 Maccabees 8

“…Now Judas heard of the fame of the Romans, that they were very strong and were well disposed towards all who made an alliance with them, that they pledged friendship to those who came to them, and that they were very strong …] The remaining kingdoms and islands, as many as ever opposed them, they destroyed and enslaved; but with their friends and those who rely on them they have kept friendship. They have subdued kings far and near, and as many as have heard of their fame have feared them. Those whom they wish to help and to make kings, they make kings, and those whom they wish they depose; and they have been greatly exalted. Yet for all this not one of them has put on a crown or worn purple as a mark of pride, but they have built for themselves a senate chamber, and every day three hundred and twenty senators constantly deliberate concerning the people, to govern them well. They trust one man each year to rule over them and to control all their land; they all heed the one man, and there is no envy or jealousy among them…”

(NRSV)

Questions: when you say monarchy, you mean that the gov. is somehow elected by the people through universal suffrage?

The romans didn’t have universal suffrage since not everyone was a citizen who was under the empire’s or republic’s control. Further, the vote was not extended to women surely. So how was rome a case of universal suffrage?

Didn’t Aquinas also call pure monarchy the most natural gov. And if monarchy is pure then it lacks universal suffrage or voting rights. So Aquinas couldn’t have always been in favor of suffrage right?

Finally 1) do you mean by “universal suffrage” the right of anyone to voice their opinion (w/o regard to the actual exercise of that voice) or 2) what is normally meant by universal suffrage? And also, if the Church was in favor of universal suffrage (as in universal voting) then she would be in favor of a specific political program namely popular democracy. But she is not in favor of any specific constitution. So is the Church in favor of universal voting?

 

[fakename]

Here’s and easier question:

Is it un-Catholic to not support universal suffrage (that is, the right of all to vote)?

 

[fakename]

Here’s an easier question:

Is it un-Catholic to not support universal suffrage (that is, the right of all to vote)?

anything on this?

 

[Vouthon]

anything on this?

I think it would be “un-Catholic” yes, since why would you want to limit universal suffrage, This would imply that you (and I don’t mean you personally I’m using it in a general sense) desire to take away this right from certain groups of people, either because of their gender, social class, religious profession or else. This would unfairly infringe upon the human dignity of certain groups of people, giving them absolutely no say in the running of their country.

In Christ there is neither male nor female (gender discrimination), Jew or Greek (racial and religious discrimination) or slave or free (social discrimination). Christ has broken down these barriers. This doesn’t imply that everybody is the same, but it does imply a basic equality amongst all people and the right for all persons to be treated fairly and in accordance with their dignity as human beings made in the image of God.

To prevent universal suffrage then, would in my opinion highlight an underlying prejudice on the part of the governing authorities towards certain groups of people among the public.

Certainly this is not defensible according to Catholic teaching, St Thomas aquinas stated quite plainly as above that: “***All ***of the people should take some share in the government”.

It should also be noted that Pope Leo XIII, in an encyclical on Catholicism in America, praised the “popular suffrage” (as he called it) which underlined the American Revolution and brought about the United States:

“…We traverse in spirit and thought the wide expanse of ocean …] To this We apply Ourselves with the utmost zeal and care; because We highly esteem and love exceedingly the young and vigorous American nation, in which We plainly discern latent forces for the advancement alike of civilization and of Christianity …] For when America was, as yet, but a new-born babe, uttering in its cradle its first feeble cries, the Church took it to her bosom and motherly embrace …] Nor, perchance did the fact which We now recall take place without some design of divine Providence. Precisely at the epoch when the American colonies, having, with Catholic aid, achieved liberty and independence, coalesced into a constitutional Republic the ecclesiastical hierarchy was happily established amongst you; and at the very time when the popular suffrage placed the great Washington at the helm of the Republic, the first bishop was set by apostolic authority over the American Church…”

- POPE LEO XIII LONGINQUA (ENCYCLICAL ON CATHOLICISM IN THE UNITED STATES), 1895

Now, in terms of voting, the US did not obviously have universal suffrage at this early stage, however it was an early antecedent to the idea since it was a popular revolution against Great Britain, that was supported by most of the population, who also popularly wanted Washington to lead the nascent country.

In fact, somewhat embarrassingly for a modern democracy, the US did not get complete universal suffrage until 1965 since many Southern states discriminated against African Americans. The UK got universal suffrage in 1928.

 

[fakename]

user "Vouthon":

I think it would be “un-Catholic” yes, since why would you want to limit universal suffrage, This would imply that you (and I don’t mean you personally I’m using it in a general sense) desire to take away this right from certain groups of people, either because of their gender, social class, religious profession or else. This would unfairly infringe upon the human dignity of certain groups of people, giving them absolutely no say in the running of their country.

In Christ there is neither male nor female (gender discrimination), Jew or Greek (racial and religious discrimination) or slave or free (social discrimination). Christ has broken down these barriers. This doesn’t imply that everybody is the same, but it does imply a basic equality amongst all people and the right for all persons to be treated fairly and in accordance with their dignity as human beings made in the image of God.

To prevent universal suffrage then, would in my opinion highlight an underlying prejudice on the part of the governing authorities towards certain groups of people among the public.

Certainly this is not defensible according to Catholic teaching, St Thomas aquinas stated quite plainly as above that: “All of the people should take some share in the government”.

It should also be noted that Pope Leo XIII, in an encyclical on Catholicism in America, praised the “popular suffrage” (as he called it) which underlined the American Revolution and brought about the United States:

“…We traverse in spirit and thought the wide expanse of ocean …] To this We apply Ourselves with the utmost zeal and care; because We highly esteem and love exceedingly the young and vigorous American nation, in which We plainly discern latent forces for the advancement alike of civilization and of Christianity …] For when America was, as yet, but a new-born babe, uttering in its cradle its first feeble cries, the Church took it to her bosom and motherly embrace …] Nor, perchance did the fact which We now recall take place without some design of divine Providence. Precisely at the epoch when the American colonies, having, with Catholic aid, achieved liberty and independence, coalesced into a constitutional Republic the ecclesiastical hierarchy was happily established amongst you; and at the very time when the popular suffrage placed the great Washington at the helm of the Republic, the first bishop was set by apostolic authority over the American Church…”

• POPE LEO XIII LONGINQUA (ENCYCLICAL ON CATHOLICISM IN THE UNITED STATES), 1895

Now, in terms of voting, the US did not obviously have universal suffrage at this early stage, however it was an early antecedent to the idea since it was a popular revolution against Great Britain, that was supported by most of the population, who also popularly wanted Washington to lead the nascent country.

In fact, somewhat embarrassingly for a modern democracy, the US did not get complete universal suffrage until 1965 since many Southern states discriminated against African Americans. The UK got universal suffrage in 1928

I’m assuming that you mean that pro-universal suffrage is a magisterial pronouncement?

In any case, how would you answer the observations of some, that some people are smarter or more committed to the community than others? Certainly these people could be out-voted if universal suffrage meant one-man one-vote and this would be a loss to the society.

Secondly, how would you answer the observation that the lesser people do have a modicum of necessary representation in the state via virtual representation?

Thirdly though, I think that people are equally undiscriminated against by God for reasons of nationality and race per se. But it is an absolute truth that God loves some people more than others; not all are equal in the sight of God.

 

[fakename]

And another question

themoralliberal.com/2012/02/06/thomas-aquinas-group-life-and-the-state/

The above link says, “Monarchy, in the opinion of Thomas, has the advantage of not scattering power and force. But he adds that circumstances must decide which is the best form of government at a particular moment in the political life of a nation. This gives his theory all the elasticity which could be desired.”

So is it really true that the right to vote is so morally essential that it cannot be given up?

Or is it subject to double effect in some-way & lower in importance with some other political goal?