• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Only property owners should vote

Should owning property be a requirement to vote

  • yes, only property owners should vote

    Votes: 6 7.3%
  • no, let everyone vote

    Votes: 76 92.7%

  • Total voters
    82
Status
Not open for further replies.
And why are you making this point?

because as to the clause i posted article 1 section 8 clause 17, i was making a point the federal government has no legislative authority in the states.

roguenuke was making the claim the government is empowered to do as they wish......i stated this to be false, by posting the clause.
 
really ,you who say the government can do at will what they want, that its unlimited, that is directly contrary to what the founders say.

it states that the legislative branch of government , it does not say judicial or executive.

I never said any such thing. I said that they have more power than you believe. They however, unlike states, are much more limited in their power to restrict the people, thanks to the Constitution and the SCOTUS and the fact that there are much more people to keep them in check.
 
I never said any such thing. I said that they have more power than you believe. They however, unlike states, are much more limited in their power to restrict the people, thanks to the Constitution and the SCOTUS and the fact that there are much more people to keep them in check.



Madison, and Hamilton both were against a bill of rights, becuase both men stated that because no power was given under the constitution to the federal government for them to violate any right of the people, becuase of the limitations placed on the federal government by the constitution.

Madison states below the federal government has no power over the peoples life's or their property

Madison-- federalist 45-- The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. ....[again few and defined.]Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former[federal government] will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.


The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security. As the former periods will probably bear a small proportion to the latter, the State governments will here enjoy another advantage over the federal government. The more adequate, indeed, the federal powers may be rendered to the national defense, the less frequent will be those scenes of danger which might favor their ascendancy over the governments of the particular States.

Hamilton states. in federalist 84, that a bill of rights is not needed because, because why place a restriction on the federal government.......when they have no power to do., ......becuase he is making the same statement........ the federal government has no authority in the life's/property of the american citizen.

federalist 84--I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?


the founders gave no legislative authority to congress ..article 1 section 8.... into the life's/ property of the american citizen, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

for congress to enact legislation on a subject ,it must be a delegated power listed in article 1 section 8....that is the supreme law.
 
Last edited:
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.
  1. I agree that enfranchisement should be predicated on more than age and citizenship.
  2. In the 18th century, one's owning real property was a reasonable proxy for one's fitness to have an indirect say in the design, development and implementation of public policy. In the 21st century it is not.
    • E.g., My aunt never owned real (rather than personal) property in her life. She volunteered her time to several organizations, was socially and politically active in her community, raised six children, earned a master's degree, spoke three languages, was well read and well traveled. When my grandmother passed, my aunt sort of inherited a cottage; she didn't hold title to it, but it was solely hers to use almost as she saw fit, for she lacked the authority to sell it. She also was never a business owner or an employee. It makes no sense to me that she be disenfranchised.
  3. As goes the economy, I desire that it be Pareto efficient. There are myriad normative notions of what constitutes an effective economy; however, so long as an economy produces more than it consumes, it's effective is to some degree effective. Because there are various ways in which folks can adjude economic effectiveness, one must sooner or later determine what extent of effective constitutes effective enough. As one can see, whereas it's possible to quantify an economy's efficiency, its effectiveness remains a subjective matter. Frankly, I don't much care for using subjective measures when there are extant objective ones for guiding public policy decision making, hence my preference that the economy be Pareto efficient.



 
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.

That idea is absurd and promotes taxation without representation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom