M
Maxply
Guest
Let’s find the smartest person in America, the richest person in America and the most religious person in America . . . and let them decide for us.
- Status
G
goofyjim
Guest
As long as this thread keeps going I will reiterate, every citizen of this country who has reached the age of 18 should be allowed to vote. He should not only be allowed but it should be his duty to do so.
W
whatevergirl
Guest
I agree with jim’s statement…every person who is a citizen, and 18+…should have the right to vote. I am surprised that some in this thread think differently…As Catholics, we are not to discriminate, and we believe everyone has a right to such liberties in countries where there is democracy.
A
awfulthings9
Guest
That is what I am asking - the focus of the thread. In general, though, people do make these distinctions all the time in life. An employer, for instance, might decide that someone who has served jail time, been fired from a previous job, who smokes (in some states), or who shows up underdressed to an interview has made bad decisions and is not suited for the job. I’m simply asking for discussion of whether this principle could be applied on the level of voting.
A
awfulthings9
Guest
You still haven’t answered my question of why you would limit this to citizens.
Also, you stated in another thread that you didn’t think it should be required that one has to vote. This post seems to contradict your other view.
A
awfulthings9
Guest
Not true at all. There are many areas in life where we should discriminate.
I wouldn’t hire a sex offender for a baby sitter.
I wouldn’t put a man in debt in charge of my finances.
I wouldn’t hire a felon to teach in my school.
Are you suggesting that people shouldn’t be help accountable for bad decisions simply because we are Catholic?
A
awfulthings9
Guest
Ah, hyperbole. Always a great way to make a reasonable point.
G
goofyjim
Guest
Do you really enjoy the devil’s advocate position because that’s all this can be. You never backed up with documented evidence the Supreme Court’s socalled decision that not everyone has the right to vote. The only ones who can’t be represented in this country are citizens of another country, duh.
M
magisterfaust
Guest
Where are we obligated to “listen” to the less fortunate? I’m obligated to help them to live in a comfortable way (but most importantly to help them to salvation), but is “listening” to them a requirement for this?
if your childhood was miserable and poor, you shoul have an empathy with the poor. People can become poor through circumstances beyond thier control. surely it is you Christian requirement to listen to them as well as help them live in a comfortable way.
A
awfulthings9
Guest
I never backed it up because nobody ever asked me to. Since you asked me to just now, here it is:
“…the individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States.” (Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 104)
And … did you really just use the word “duh”?
Wow. I mean, I’ve asked several times that we keep this conversation civil. Some of your posts are just outright mean.
Anyway, I’ve asked you twice now to justify why you would deny the “right” to vote to “undocumented workers”, as many call them now. For those who are just joining in, Goofyjim once opposed the “right” of criminals to vote. After a very small amount of Socratic questioning, I convinced him to change his mind on this obviously well-thought-out position. I did this as Devil’s Advocate without stating my official view on it. For some reason, though, you don’t want to engage in this conversation, Jim. Why not? Please explain why you would only let citizens vote. I happen to agree with you on this point, but I assume it is for very different reasons.
A
awfulthings9
Guest
My childhood was miserable and poor. Oftentimes our supper was a hotdog. One hotdog because dad could buy them cheap and most of his money went to his addiction. He wouldn’t take the dog out to go to the restroom during the day, and she regularly pooped next to my bed while I was at school. My bed, by the way, was in the living room, next to the television. I went to sleep with the sound of TV on much too late and the horrible smell of dog waste.
I have plenty of empathy with the poor.
Again, we have another poster who is trying to turn this into a personal thing. If you look through my posts (which you obviously haven’t), I have never once advocated that we discriminate against the poor simply because they are poor. The thread is an experiment to see if there are criteria by which we can determine, in a general way, if certain groups habitually make decisions that are destructive to their personal lives and would be destructive on a national level.
Some on this thread think that a criminal history would be such an indicator.
Goofyjim thinks that being an undocumented worker is such an indicator (though he won’t explain why for some reason).
Others think it might be linked to education or business ownership.
You may disagree, but let’s not make the assertion that I (or anyone else) has no empathy for the poor. I’m offended.
Why?surely it is you Christian requirement to listen to them as well as help them live in a comfortable way.
M
Miles_Mariae
Guest
Such blanket statements should be avoided. If deciding who should be able to vote, I will sure as anything discriminate against felons, for instance. Discriminating based on economic status, on the other hand, is absurd.
I agree that any adult in good legal standing should be allowed to vote, while maintaining my statement earlier that the poor are more likely to lack quality education in public policy. However, it is not the role of government to compel people to educate themselves - information comes at an opportunity cost which should be evaluated by each individual.
A
awfulthings9
Guest
Found one more piece of documentation for that “socalled” decision you challenged me on. It’s the Alexander v. Mitena Supreme Court case in 2000, which I refered to in the first page of the thread. Click here for the documentation.
You really thought I was making that up, didn’t you.
And yes, I really enjoy the devil’s advocate position. Most others do, to, because it challenges us to think beyond our suppositions. I hope you can learn to stop taking it so personal and stop responding in such a personal way and either add to the constructive dialog or allow the rest of us to do so without attacks, Jim.
A
awfulthings9
Guest
Thank you for the reasonable post, Miles Mariae. Since nobody else has really taken the invite to explain, could you expand on why you would discriminate against felons?
M
Miles_Mariae
Guest
I have to echo this sentiment. Name calling and repeating one’s opinions without any new argument does not contribute to sensible debate. Then again, it is human nature not to react well to criticism, so I will not take it personally if you call me names for this, as long as you will consider my advice
M
Miles_Mariae
Guest
These are some brief thoughts; I need to get back to my math homework
Under normal circumstances, every adult person has certain rights. Some are inherent to the dignity of the human person, such as life, liberty, and property. Others are by virtue of his membership in the political body - what we might call “society”. This includes the right to contribute to political decisions and have a voice in how the government is to be run.
These rights are unalienable under normal circumstances. However, under extraordinary conditions they may become forfeit. For instance, upon committing a heinous crime that deprives someone else of their rights, a criminal subjects himself to punishment and loses his otherwise inviolable rights.
This is intuitive. A felon loses the right to liberty, and is incarcerated. He loses his right to property, which may be confiscated to pay for damages and to satisfy the demands of justice. Occasionally, he may even lose his right to life, and receive capital punishment. Excepting perhaps the last one, which some believe to be debatable, these possibilities are not contrary to the notion of justice written on the human conscience. In fact, we would consider it strange if a criminal were *not *put into prison, and *not *fined for his actions.
Likewise, by breaking the contract of law, a person effectively cuts himself off from the society. Man has a duty towards his society, and when he fails to fulfill even the most necessary requirements (respecting basic rights of others in his society) he no longer retains the rights previously guaranteed by his membership. Most obviously, the right to participate in government does not apply to a person who has failed in his fundamental obligations to the political body.
A
awfulthings9
Guest
Well put. I agree.These are some brief thoughts; I need to get back to my math homework
Under normal circumstances, every adult person has certain rights. Some are inherent to the dignity of the human person, such as life, liberty, and property. Others are by virtue of his membership in the political body - what we might call “society”. This includes the right to contribute to political decisions and have a voice in how the government is to be run.
These rights are unalienable under normal circumstances. However, under extraordinary conditions they may become forfeit. For instance, upon committing a heinous crime that deprives someone else of their rights, a criminal subjects himself to punishment and loses his otherwise inviolable rights.
This is intuitive. A felon loses the right to liberty, and is incarcerated. He loses his right to property, which may be confiscated to pay for damages and to satisfy the demands of justice. Occasionally, he may even lose his right to life, and receive capital punishment. Excepting perhaps the last one, which some believe to be debatable, these possibilities are not contrary to the notion of justice written on the human conscience. In fact, we would consider it strange if a criminal were *not *put into prison, and *not *fined for his actions.
Likewise, by breaking the contract of law, a person effectively cuts himself off from the society. Man has a duty towards his society, and when he fails to fulfill even the most necessary requirements (respecting basic rights of others in his society) he no longer retains the rights previously guaranteed by his membership. Most obviously, the right to participate in government does not apply to a person who has failed in his fundamental obligations to the political body.
D
D317
Guest
awfulthings9, I think that it is kinda simple why ANYONE would deny the right to vote to undocumented workers (a.k.a. Illegal immigrants).
Its called the Constitution of the United States of America.
[sign]Amendment XXVI
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
[/sign]
Just some history.
A
awfulthings9
Guest
Yes. I know. I agree. I am aware of what the Constitution says.
Reading through the post, you would see that I’m trying to get to the rationale here with Goofyjim because it will relate to our bigger discussion. I don’t actually believe illegal immigrants should vote, and I’ve made that clear, but I’m working to point out a double-standard on his part.
I’ve hinted at this in several posts.
However, since you bothered to post it, let me ask if, since you are taking this ammendment so literally, does this mean that we have the right to deny someone a vote based on sexual preference? Or religion? Or financial status?
After all, your interpretation of this ammendment’s guarantee to “citizens” is such that it is simultaneously revoking it from non-citizens by silence, right? Even though it doesn’t specifically say that?
So, could I just as fairly read it just as literally in that, as it goes out of the way to guarantee citizens protection from having the vote revoked on account of age (and, in other amendments, race or gender), remaining silent on the other criteria I mentioned, that it is simultaneously, and by silence, granting the governments ability to revoke it? Even though it doesn’t specifically say that?
If the answer is no, could you explain the logic that creates the distinction? After all, your somewhat sarcastic response (“Just some history”) implies a certain ignorance on my part that suggests I probably need the explanation.
In Christ
G
goofyjim
Guest
If they are citizens we don’t have the right to take away their right to vote as explained in the Constitution. Are you going to stand there and ask them what their sexual preference is? Will they have to fill out a form declaring it? They could lie and noone would ever know. I am not buying your reasoning anymore. You are simply dragging this out to play the devil’s advocate and I don’t particularly like the devil or anyone who advocates for him.
- Status