Should the poor be allowed to vote?

[awfulthings9]

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.

First off, Jim, “Devil’s Advocate” is a Catholic term, referring to a bishop (I think) who would propose counter-arguments against someone’s being named saint in order to make sure that the right person is being named.

Second, I never said, even once, that I would take away someone’s vote because of sexual preference. Read my post more carefully. I was pointing out the limitations in the language of the Constitution and specifically in D317’s interpretation of it. Once again, you are twisting my words to make a point.

right to vote as explained in the Constitution

Third, the Constitution nowhere “explains” that we all have the right to vote. If it does, I challenge you, as I’ve challenged everyone, to please point me to that section.

You won’t do that, of course, because I’m still waiting for you to answer my earlier challenge. This post marks the third time I’ve requested it. If you can’t defend your own view, please stop attacking everyone else’s. At least, as Devil’s Advocate, I’ve always explained my position. You’ve failed to back up parts of yours.

Here it is again: Why would you deny the “right” to vote to undocumented workers?

I hope everyone else realizes this is a personal challenge to Jim to explore his personal views on this overall subject and not a reflection of my actual views.

Incidentally, I’m perfectly fine letting this thread die out if nobody can buy my reasoning anymore. However, everytime it gets close, you pop back in and make an attack on one of my posts, and I have to defend it. You’ve said (somewhere around five times now), that you were done participating on this thread. Make good on this promise, and my tired reasoning goes away, too. Actually, post a reasonable opinion that doesn’t attack the poster and I’d be fine with that, too, but your attacks are unwarranted and deserve to be answered.

 

[goofyjim]

First off, Jim, “Devil’s Advocate” is a Catholic term, referring to a bishop (I think) who would propose counter-arguments against someone’s being named saint in order to make sure that the right person is being named.

Second, I never said, even once, that I would take away someone’s vote because of sexual preference. Read my post more carefully. I was pointing out the limitations in the language of the Constitution and specifically in D317’s interpretation of it. Once again, you are twisting my words to make a point.

Third, the Constitution nowhere “explains” that we all have the right to vote. If it does, I challenge you, as I’ve challenged everyone, to please point me to that section.

You won’t do that, of course, because I’m still waiting for you to answer my earlier challenge. This post marks the third time I’ve requested it. If you can’t defend your own view, please stop attacking everyone else’s. At least, as Devil’s Advocate, I’ve always explained my position. You’ve failed to back up parts of yours.

Here it is again: Why would you deny the “right” to vote to undocumented workers?

I hope everyone else realizes this is a personal challenge to Jim to explore his personal views on this overall subject and not a reflection of my actual views.

Incidentally, I’m perfectly fine letting this thread die out if nobody can buy my reasoning anymore. However, everytime it gets close, you pop back in and make an attack on one of my posts, and I have to defend it. You’ve said (somewhere around five times now), that you were done participating on this thread. Make good on this promise, and my tired reasoning goes away, too. Actually, post a reasonable opinion that doesn’t attack the poster and I’d be fine with that, too, but your attacks are unwarranted and deserve to be answered.

The Constitution says it all. Every 18 year old citizen has the right to vote. We cannot open it to noncitizens, otherwise the whole world would be involved in our election process. Let them handle politics in their own countries, not ours. The Supreme Court cannot make a Constitutional amendment unconstitutional once it is legally passed. Why do you want to keep the poor from voting, anyhow? Are we really afraid of their power to vote against the rich.

 

[awfulthings9]

The Constitution says it all. Every 18 year old citizen has the right to vote.

Where does it say that? Please quote the relevant part. It isn’t in there, Jim, which is why you keep avoiding quoting it.

We cannot open it to noncitizens, otherwise the whole world would be involved in our election process. Let them handle politics in their own countries, not ours.

Who said anything about the whole world? Why not those who actually reside in our country?

I know you won’t actually respond here, but let me propose a scenario - say you have a young, single mother of three. She is not a legal citizen because she cannot afford the fees associated. She truly values living in America, pays all appropriate taxes (undocumented workers do do this in some areas), and abides by the laws. A politician is running who will make it easier for her to become a citizen so she can fully participate in the country to which she has contributed with time and energy.

You would deny her a vote? If yes, why?

I could even go so far here as to try to paint you as the villian as you have tried to do with my hypothetical proposals by asking why you want so badly to only elect politicians who discriminate against immigrants. If you want an example of where you do this, see exibit A.

I won’t do that, though, because I’m sure you are a stand-up guy who takes things a little too seriously.

The Supreme Court cannot make a Constitutional amendment unconstitutional once it is legally passed.

The Supreme Court can rule on the interpretation of an amendment. And it did. Twice. In addition, amendments, themselves, can be amended. It has happened with the prohibition of alcohol. Maybe you don’t like it. That doesn’t change reality.

Why do you want to keep the poor from voting, anyhow? Are we really afraid of their power to vote against the rich.

This quote is the aformentioned Exibit A. You know full and well the thoughts behind my hypothetical proposal because you’ve been a part of this thread from the beginning and I’ve explained them several time. You know that I have said over and over that I do not want to keep the poor from voting, but am rather conducting a discussion to see if there are certain identifiers of bad decision making among groups of people.

Yet, you still make a post like this? Please respond to the actual ideas I present, instead of putting up strawmen and attacking them.

I’ve read quite a bit of your posts from other threads, and your game plan is very cosistent in all of them. If anyone disagrees with you, you go out of your way to villify him. On another thread, you refered to earlier posters as heartless and hatefull. On this one, you’ve called ideas stupid and senseless.

I offered you an olive branch in an earlier post, but you continue with the attacks and continue to make a hypothetical thread a personal war.

 

[Nino]

Not quite…America is not a free nation…we are more and more turning towards a fascist state…so many words are no longer allowed to be used…try not paying your property taxes on your re-assesed home …see who really owns your home…no one on welfare should be allowed to vote…for their vote is sure to go for a person promising them even more dips in the public drinking pot. So many europeans have come over leaving a socialist country for the price of living there is outrageous…and so what do they do…we have proof here in the northeast…they believe in a benevolent dictatorship…and so we have more and more 'benefits’and less and less liberty and more and more taxes!

 

[goofyjim]

Not quite…America is not a free nation…we are more and more turning towards a fascist state…so many words are no longer allowed to be used…try not paying your property taxes on your re-assesed home …see who really owns your home…no one on welfare should be allowed to vote…for their vote is sure to go for a person promising them even more dips in the public drinking pot. So many europeans have come over leaving a socialist country for the price of living there is outrageous…and so what do they do…we have proof here in the northeast…they believe in a benevolent dictatorship…and so we have more and more 'benefits’and less and less liberty and more and more taxes!

Yes, so charitable. Sounds like that radio commentator I mentioned. The poor are not asking for a handout but a handup would be nice. Maybe if tax cuts really were targeted to create decent paying jobs there wouldn’t be so many poor and then they all could vote.

 

[goofyjim]

Where does it say that? Please quote the relevant part. It isn’t in there, Jim, which is why you keep avoiding quoting it.

Who said anything about the whole world? Why not those who actually reside in our country?

I know you won’t actually respond here, but let me propose a scenario - say you have a young, single mother of three. She is not a legal citizen because she cannot afford the fees associated. She truly values living in America, pays all appropriate taxes (undocumented workers do do this in some areas), and abides by the laws. A politician is running who will make it easier for her to become a citizen so she can fully participate in the country to which she has contributed with time and energy.

You would deny her a vote? If yes, why?

I could even go so far here as to try to paint you as the villian as you have tried to do with my hypothetical proposals by asking why you want so badly to only elect politicians who discriminate against immigrants. If you want an example of where you do this, see exibit A.

I won’t do that, though, because I’m sure you are a stand-up guy who takes things a little too seriously.

The Supreme Court can rule on the interpretation of an amendment. And it did. Twice. In addition, amendments, themselves, can be amended. It has happened with the prohibition of alcohol. Maybe you don’t like it. That doesn’t change reality.

This quote is the aformentioned Exibit A. You know full and well the thoughts behind my hypothetical proposal because you’ve been a part of this thread from the beginning and I’ve explained them several time. You know that I have said over and over that I do not want to keep the poor from voting, but am rather conducting a discussion to see if there are certain identifiers of bad decision making among groups of people.

Yet, you still make a post like this? Please respond to the actual ideas I present, instead of putting up strawmen and attacking them.

I’ve read quite a bit of your posts from other threads, and your game plan is very cosistent in all of them. If anyone disagrees with you, you go out of your way to villify him. On another thread, you refered to earlier posters as heartless and hatefull. On this one, you’ve called ideas stupid and senseless.

I offered you an olive branch in an earlier post, but you continue with the attacks and continue to make a hypothetical thread a personal war.

This whole thread is a villified war against the poor w/o any justification for denying them their vote. A non citizen is not entitled to vote until they follow the path to citizenship, like everyone else did who broke their back working to get to this country. But the citizens who are poor deserve a vote just as much as the rich. It is a matter of opinion and doesn’t need to be documented with evidence.

 

[goofyjim]

Any 18 year old lawabiding citizen should be allowed to vote regardless of whether he is on welfare or not. That’s my final answer as I am giving up these forums for lent.

 

[awfulthings9]

A non citizen is not entitled to vote until they follow the path to citizenship, like everyone else did who broke their back working to get to this country.

I certainly didn’t break my back working to get here. I was born in and quite lazy, both regarding employment and education, for most of my life.

But, it looks like we finally agree, as this post summarizes the intent of the thread, which is that people are “not entitled to vote” until they break “their backs working”.

 

[awfulthings9]

Any 18 year old lawabiding citizen should be allowed to vote regardless of whether he is on welfare or not. That’s my final answer as I am giving up these forums for lent.

Jim, God bless you, brother. Have a restful and prayerful Lent and a blessed Easter.

 

[jflare29]

After seeing notes in these posts about precisely what the Constitution does and does not say, I finally looked up the Constitution itself. usconstitution.net/xconst.html

Ultimately, here’s what the Constitution itself has to say about voting rights and/or who may be elected to political office, a subject which isn’t precisely germain, but which reveals some interesting implications to the thought process:

Art I, Sect 2: The House of Representatives
Electees MUST be:

• minimum 25 years old
• a US resident for minimum 7 years
• current resident of state from which elected

Art I, Sect 3: The Senate
Electees MUST be:

• minimum 30 years old
• a US resident for minimum 9 years
• current resident of state from which elected

Article II, Section 1: The President (presumably the VP also)
Electee MUST be:

• minimum 35 years old
• a US resident for minimum 14 years
• be a natural born citizen of the United States

14th Amendment, Section 1: All persons who are residents of the US and are either natural born or naturalized are legal citizens of the United States.

Other restrictions may be in place at States’ discretion, per the 10th Amendment, unless superceded by other Amendment to the overall Constitution:

The 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th Amemdments dealt with voting restrictions based on race, race, sex, poll tax, and age 18 respectively.

(Interestingly, Wyoming authorized women to vote well before the 19th Amendment passed.)

As to whether poor, undocumented/illegal alien, rich, or convicted felon should vote, I have the following thoughts:

First, I do not wholly trust rich, middle class, or poor citizens with the vote. A fairly basic examination of American history will demonstrate that no economic or social class status will guarantee the nation’s best interests. Thus the 24th Amendment restriction against poll taxes, arguably a class restriction.

Next, restrictions regarding Congressional and Presidential electees are useful hints. Basically speaking, noone may be legally elected to public office without achieving some semblance of reasonable ability and/or need to care about the overall nation, though obviously these requirements have not kept one or another politician from abusing power.

On a partly side note, I’ve long been disturbed by so-called “motor-voter” laws, whereby one may be enabled to vote by receiving a driver’s license. It’s far from infallible, I admit, but if a person is required to physically walk into an office besides the DMV, they might at least have an inkling that voting might be bit more involved than passing a mere driver’s test!!

Anyway, where illegal/undocumented aliens are concerned, I don’t buy the idea that they’re “second-class” citizens or otherwise suffer undue discrimination. We do, after all, have a naturalization process available whereby adults can be made legal, voting citizens. I believe this does require one to understand the basics of US citizenship and history; by the time they’ve been sworn in (literally), they have reasonable cause to understand both the power and the risk of voting.

If that weren’t enough, any alien who resides in the US may well bear children. Don’t forget that these children inherently possess citizenship AND the right to vote at 18, per the 14th and 26th Amendments.
I find it intensely annoying how various civil rights groups, but especially immigration activists, conveniently ignore that part!
Don’t they understand that they can exert political power within a generation anyway? Don’t they also understand that the whole process is designed to require people to take a measured approach?!

('Course, I’m not convinced that some of them care about that at all, but that’s another story…)

As far as whether felons or other prisoners should be allowed to vote, Article 2, Section 4 provides some food for thought. If a President may be removed from office due to committing certain crimes, doesn’t it make sense that certain crimes should be subject to limiting voting?
If we can’t trust someone to act within the law, why do we trust them to act for anyone else’s common good?

Does that justify barring the vote from any felon?
Maybe, maybe not. On this count, I think the crime in question and/or the potential risk may weight heavily. Or to put it more helpfully, does the crime committed suggest an intent that is heinous enough to justify removing voting rights?

I might be willing to allow some non-violent felons to vote, except that for now, I don’t trust the overall intent of that ideal.
Simply put, I don’t trust the drug folks to be civil or decent about this issue. I’m also not yet convinced that firearms felonies are less hazardous than some might suggest.

Well, I think I’ve ranted enough for now. Hope the research and the thoughts will be helpful to some of you.

John

 

[D317]

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

Wasn’t being sarcastic at all, just pointing out a fact. Sorry to frizzle you.

I have not read all 209 posts in this thread so I may have missed that fact that you are attempting to work-out things with goofyjim. mea culpa.

No one is denying anyone the right to vote based on sexual preferences, age, gender, financial status, or anything other than citizenship. Don’t know why you emphasise “literally” in your response. It states what it states and does not address the issues you pose, some of which is covered by statute and case law.

Non-citizens do not have the right to vote taken away or revoked since they never had it to begin with. This makes the question specious.

I went back and read your post #1. No, stupidity is not sufficient to revoke the right to vote. You must just want to argue points of opinion.

Feel free to inform me if you actually had any serious intent in you postings.

 

[awfulthings9]

Wasn’t being sarcastic at all, just pointing out a fact. Sorry to frizzle you.

I have not read all 209 posts in this thread so I may have missed that fact that you are attempting to work-out things with goofyjim. mea culpa.

No problem. It seems to happen quite a bit in threads around here, in my experience, that quite a bit of development happens in the first couple hundred posts (or the first couple thousand in the case of the infinite “I am an atheist” thread) and then new posters chime in with a post that isn’t consistent with the current state of the discussion (or which takes another post out of context), causing something of a speed bump in existing conversations.

There was something serious intended in my original post (I wouldn’t waste anyone’s time otherwise), but it wasn’t what it appeared to be on the surface. I wanted to challenge posters to explore (by defending against an absurd proposal) their deepest convictions. I think it was a success. If you do find the time to read through the posts, you’ll find two different posters who actually changed their minds on aspects of our voting regulations. I think that is a fairly substantial thing to happen in one of these threads, where people tend to be rather headstrong in their opinions.

I do feel, though, that the thread has run its course and has only been kept alive by an equal dose of sensitivity and stubborness. I’ll take credit for the stubborness.

Anyway, thanks for contributing.