where did I say that? You asked a question as to why voting was the way it was and I explained it to you.
and what is the "opinion" you cling to? That children cannot partake in an adult function? That states have the right to bar convicted felons from voting? If that is your opinion that indeed is reality.
If it is further your "opinion" that those two things are somehow connected or can be used as justification in a blatant politically inspired scheme to disenfranchise tens of millions of people from voting, that is not reality, it is fantasy.
But by all means, go full throttle and pursue your "reality". Announce your intention to pass a Constitutional Amendment doing just what you fantasize about. Convince the legislatures of 3/4 of our states that you have a good idea because we already don't let babies vote so it must be all right. Come back from time to time with an update on your progress. That is some reality I would be interested in.
duh, no I did not. I didn't ask how voting worked, I asked if it was right.
you are avoiding the question. I don't give a **** about how the system works...is it fair/morally correct that a bum gets to vote and a 17 y/o kid who has volunteered to serve his country doesn't?
here's a question for you one man/one vote people
why does some dirtbag welfare bum deserve the "right" to vote but a 17 year old kid who is working a full time job to help support his/her family does not?
why does willy the wino get the right to vote but 17 y/o PFC Joe Snuffy fighting in Afghanistan doesn't?
aren't states actually given the right to determine voting qualifications?
So either you have to believe that children and felons are not citizens or you have no idea what you are talking about.
Yes, except when limited by the Constitution. For example, the Women's Voting Amendment to the Constitution means that a state cannot pass a law that takes away women's right to vote.
Sure you did. Right here in post #317.
I was happy to inform you of why that situation exists.
If you could define both the term "fair" and "morally correct" for me I will give it some thought.
Or if they violate any other part of the Constitution. Which this scheme clearly would.
pointless, you'd just continue to duck and dive. you know what I meant, just don't have the intestinal fortitude to give an honest answer.
not if we ammended the constitution
Or if they violate any other part of the Constitution. Which this scheme clearly would.
Are you operating under the delusion that if you keep repeating the same nonsense over and over again that it gains in value or suddenly becomes worthwhile when it was not before?
How can I "know what you meant" if you do not clearly ask it in the first place. I read what you write, conclude that you are a reasonably intelligent person, and give you the answer you asked for. And now that is my fault for doing so? Amazing.
By all means please go forth and attempt that. Announce that the conservatives in America, the Republican Party, or whoever is behind this wants to go forth and disenfranchise tens of millions of voters, most of whom now vote Democratic, disproportionate numbers who are African American and Hispanic, announce your plan and go forth with it .
I am going to pick my second option since this is a very simple concept. Let me explain it to you. Children are citizens. We restrict childrens right to vote. Therefore the one man one vote rule is not consistent with current voting rules as children are not allowed to vote and are citizens.
I am going to pick my second option since this is a very simple concept. Let me explain it to you. Children are citizens. We restrict childrens right to vote. Therefore the one man one vote rule is not consistent with current voting rules as children are not allowed to vote and are citizens.
I couldn't care less about the racial makeup of the the voters who would choose not to vote. that being said, no, this is a theoretical exercise, not a political one. there is no public push (yet) to reform the decision making process. i look at this debate similar to how i look at the Fairtax; sure it would be great to switch the whole system out and replace it; but it's not politically plausible. better, then, to focus energies on achieving those reforms that are possible; such as lower and flatter income tax rates and lower spending.
And let me explain this to you one more time. Voting is a right of adults. Not children because they are not adults.
And again, if the Supreme Court says that one man one vote is a guiding principle that they follow in determining the interpretation of the laws of the land and the Constitution, then that is what it is.
You can live in some alternate reality of your own making in which you reject the word of the Supreme Court. The rest of the nation lives with it.
funny how children, who are citizens, are not allowed to vote, but in many places illegal aliens, who are not citizens, are.
And again, if the Supreme Court says that one man one vote is a guiding principle that they follow in determining the interpretation of the laws of the land and the Constitution, then that is what it is.
And your objective authoritative evidence for this allegation please?
Adults or not, children are still citizens of this country. So you can think this is an excuse all you want. All that this is a restriction on voting rights.
ladies and gentlemen...I give you the state of california
Ah, it is because they say it is.
It seems you left out the actual evidence part.
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?