18 is the generally accepted age as adulthood. Just be thankful it isn't given at 16, as is the privilege of driving and even sexual activity in some states.
Is your position that it shouldn't have gone down in the first place? btw I was drafted.
Tax return, FICA deductions, Food Stamps, etc. Things of direct monetary value.I would very much like to know if I and others are NET USERS or NET CONTRIBUTORS. Could you please post the formula so I can apply it and find out the answer to this question?
There are libs pushing for HS students under 18 getting the vote, it just gets worse and worse.
High-schoolers deserve the right to vote | The Forest Lake Times
The OP was based on frustration on our current system which is basically if you can breathe you can vote. Going back to the original system of only property owners voting would be far better than what we have now but as has been pointed out in here times have changed. We now get taxes from other than property tax so amending the original system to tax paying Americans instead of land owners has merit and I mean income tax not tax on your groceries you buy with food stamps. The essence of the 1776 rule should remain the same though, only contributing members of society should have the privilege of voting.
Not technically germane to this thread, but in San Francisco about 10-ish years ago there was a serious push to allow illegal immigrants the ability to vote in local school board elections. As I understand it, it would have been perfectly legal.
I no longer live there, but if I recall correctly, the move failed.
As was the original premise in post #1.
Did you just concede your entire argument with one sentence? Considering that everybody pays taxes of some kind or another, it seems that you have.
You're trying to find some sort of logical consistency here, and it's not working. You would lower the age to 18 when a draft is in effect, which allows non-drafted people to vote... or you would raise it to 21 in a non-draft era, which would shut out 18-20 yr old volunteers.
It uses the phrase RIGHT TO VOTE five different times in five different places. If there is no right to vote, why would it use that phrase over and over and over and over again over a span of many decades?
Don't forget the hot pockets and coke with real sugar!
So what? There are all kinds of fringe groups out there.
Sawyer has made numerous statements to the effect that "people who not do X will vote for policy Y." His intention is very clear.
In addition, rights are not contingent upon paying taxes. If I have no income for 2 years, I do not lose the right to freedom of speech.
No, that sounds like a straw man.
There are plenty who don't. Low income or no income. They may pay SS and medicare, but get back all the taxes paid. They then get SNAP and Earned Income Credits as well, which means they are a net user of tax dollars rather than a net contributor.do you know of any adult who does not pay tax?
Is there supposed to be something significant in these quotes?
When George Washington was elected only 6% of the population could vote because you had to be a white male property owner over the age of 21. It wasn't until 1856 that the vote was expanded to include all white men. In 1868 black men got the vote and finally in 1920 women got the right to vote . It wasn't until 1972 that the voting age was lowered to 18 and the steady dumbing down of the voter pool was complete. Before people start screaming racist and misogynist that is not my point here. I'm fine with all races and women voting but we never should have dropped the property owner requirement and never should have lowered the voting age to 18. When you have reached a point in your life where you own property you have demonstrated the ability to participate in this society in a contributing way but the main thing is you have skin in the game. At this point you want America to be a stable functioning country that is prosperous and has an effective economy where your hard work will be rewarded and safe guarded. Kids and non property owners are going to vote on and for different issues than they will or would when they are a participating member of our economy and should not be allowed to vote until they do more than hang around the fringes. The extreme example of this is people on welfare voting and kids in school who have never had a job in their lives. These people have nothing to lose and everything to gain by voting against a thriving economy and for give away programs to benefit them and will vote in their own self interest instead of considering what is best for the country at large. IMO we should reinstate the original voting requirement of being a property owner.
There are plenty who don't. Low income or no income. They may pay SS and medicare, but get back all the taxes paid. They then get SNAP and Earned Income Credits as well, which means they are a net user of tax dollars rather than a net contributor.
Thing is, especially now that 47% of tax filers are net recipients of "other people's money," I see the day coming real soon, where the only politicians getting elected are those who promise to be Robin Hoods. When that happens, we are doomed as a nation.
I believe that day has arrived.
I don't respond to post that start with dude, so or so what.
I agree with the concept. I just think Sawyerloggingon missed the important change due to the 16th amendment. Now that the Federal government is financed by income taxes rather than property taxes... His OP needs modified, and he acknowledged that.Well thank goodness this dumb ass idea only has three votes yes. Most people are intelligent enough to see where this type of thinking leads, and I can be thankful for that regardless of whether some schmuck answers my posts or not.
I agree with the concept. I just think Sawyerloggingon missed the important change due to the 16th amendment. Now that the Federal government is financed by income taxes rather than property taxes... His OP needs modified, and he acknowledged that.
I simply didn't vote because of that oversight. I would have voted YES if it included the net taxation we speak of now.
Well thank goodness this dumb ass idea only has three votes yes. Most people are intelligent enough to see where this type of thinking leads, and I can be thankful for that regardless of whether some schmuck answers my posts or not.
Well then, I hope you don't complain when someone comes after YOUR rights. I mean God forbid you find yourself having a difficult time and have to collect benefits in order to survive and feed your kids.
I know people who are going through hard times must be too stupid to cast a vote. Gosh if only everyone could be as wonderful as some of you seem to think you are. :roll:
Well thank goodness this dumb ass idea only has three votes yes. Most people are intelligent enough to see where this type of thinking leads, and I can be thankful for that regardless of whether some schmuck answers my posts or not.
I believe there are some facts that need to be cleared up in regard to only property owners having the right to vote.
First off the Constitution grants states not Congress the powers to determine the qualifications of voters in a federal election.
Article I, Section 4, allows Congress to "make or alter such [state] Regulations" regarding "the Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives," in other words Congress's power is about "holding Elections" not about who votes, which is the express focus of Section 2.
Both Alexander Hamilton and James Madison believed the two clauses to be independent in this way. Hamilton, in The Federalist No. 60, said of Article I, Section 4, that the national government's "authority would be expressly restricted to the regulation of the times, the places, and the manner of elections. The qualifications of the persons who may choose or may be chosen...are defined and fixed in the Constitution; and are unalterable by the [national] legislature."
In The Federalist No. 52, Madison wrote of Article I, Section 2: "To have left it [the definition of the right of suffrage] open for the occasional regulation of Congress, would have been improper...." Hamilton and Madison believed that generally the state constitutions, and certainly not Congress, would determine who could vote.
So if you want only property owners to have the right to vote, fine......you can push for such a thing in each of your individual states but constitutionally you have no right to force such a mandate at the national level.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?