In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Options
Repeal the 17th Amendment Says Huckabee
p3skyking
Member Posts: 25,750 ✭
https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/4599de02-d3a8-3c45-84d1-7fdabdafa120/ss_huckabee-tweets:-‘time-to.html
I could make a case either way on this.
1. Con It takes power away from the people and gives it to government.
2. Pro People don't have the intelligence to elect Senators and it sets the stage for the birth of Fascism to combat Muslim invaders.
Take your pick.
I could make a case either way on this.
1. Con It takes power away from the people and gives it to government.
2. Pro People don't have the intelligence to elect Senators and it sets the stage for the birth of Fascism to combat Muslim invaders.
Take your pick.
Comments
As far as the 17th I think repealing it is fine as long as there are term limits too.
The US senate was originally set up to be very different than what it is now. The Senators were originally seen as the "Ambassadors" of their respective states to the Federal Government. They were tasked to look out for the interests of their States.
Congress was the supposed voice of the people.
The Senate was the voice of their State.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/4599de02-d3a8-3c45-84d1-7fdabdafa120/ss_huckabee-tweets:-‘time-to.html
I could make a case either way on this.
1. Con It takes power away from the people and gives it to government.
2. Pro People don't have the intelligence to elect Senators and it sets the stage for the birth of Fascism to combat Muslim invaders.
Take your pick.
Not really. It would decrease federal power and increase state power. Because the senators could no longer run on national party platforms with national party backing. Individuals would, by default, have to pay more attention to state elections as they would determine senate picks. It would actually give the people more power by making the senators answer to the state legislators.
Repealing the 17th puts power back into the states where it belongs.
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
quote:Originally posted by p3skyking
https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/4599de02-d3a8-3c45-84d1-7fdabdafa120/ss_huckabee-tweets:-‘time-to.html
I could make a case either way on this.
1. Con It takes power away from the people and gives it to government.
2. Pro People don't have the intelligence to elect Senators and it sets the stage for the birth of Fascism to combat Muslim invaders.
Take your pick.
Not really. It would decrease federal power and increase state power. Because the senators could no longer run on national party platforms with national party backing. Individuals would, by default, have to pay more attention to state elections as they would determine senate picks. It would actually give the people more power by making the senators answer to the state legislators.
Has everyone read the Amendment and understand what it did? Read the actual Amendment until you are sure you understand it.
That is what the founders originally had because they mistrusted the common folk. The 17th gave power directly to the people. Repealing it gives power back to the states. It's different now than then. You're not going to just stroll into your governor's or reps office where they could.
Sam, the Senate was the voice of the state and Congress was the voice of the people. A bicameral legislature just like the House of Lords and the House of Commons in England.
quote:Originally posted by SCOUT5
quote:Originally posted by p3skyking
https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/4599de02-d3a8-3c45-84d1-7fdabdafa120/ss_huckabee-tweets:-‘time-to.html
I could make a case either way on this.
1. Con It takes power away from the people and gives it to government.
2. Pro People don't have the intelligence to elect Senators and it sets the stage for the birth of Fascism to combat Muslim invaders.
Take your pick.
Not really. It would decrease federal power and increase state power. Because the senators could no longer run on national party platforms with national party backing. Individuals would, by default, have to pay more attention to state elections as they would determine senate picks. It would actually give the people more power by making the senators answer to the state legislators.
Has everyone read the Amendment and understand what it did? Read the actual Amendment until you are sure you understand it.
That is what the founders originally had because they mistrusted the common folk. The 17th gave power directly to the people. Repealing it gives power back to the states. It's different now than then. You're not going to just stroll into your governor's or reps office where they could.
Sam, the Senate was the voice of the state and Congress was the voice of the people. A bicameral legislature just like the House of Lords and the House of Commons in England.
And it should be important to note that the union is called The United States of America, not The United People of America. IT's an important distinction. The 17th amendment basically usurped power the states had in the federal legislature.
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
quote:Originally posted by SCOUT5
quote:Originally posted by p3skyking
https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/4599de02-d3a8-3c45-84d1-7fdabdafa120/ss_huckabee-tweets:-‘time-to.html
I could make a case either way on this.
1. Con It takes power away from the people and gives it to government.
2. Pro People don't have the intelligence to elect Senators and it sets the stage for the birth of Fascism to combat Muslim invaders.
Take your pick.
Not really. It would decrease federal power and increase state power. Because the senators could no longer run on national party platforms with national party backing. Individuals would, by default, have to pay more attention to state elections as they would determine senate picks. It would actually give the people more power by making the senators answer to the state legislators.
Has everyone read the Amendment and understand what it did? Read the actual Amendment until you are sure you understand it.
That is what the founders originally had because they mistrusted the common folk. The 17th gave power directly to the people. Repealing it gives power back to the states. It's different now than then. You're not going to just stroll into your governor's or reps office where they could.
Sam, the Senate was the voice of the state and Congress was the voice of the people. A bicameral legislature just like the House of Lords and the House of Commons in England.
I do not agree with this statement.
It was about balance. Balance between the people, the state governments and the federal government. The 17th took power from both the states and the people and increased the federal governments power.
+1
The reason it was done, for the peoples good supposedly.
You can thank big government people for it.
quote:Originally posted by SCOUT5
It was about balance. Balance between the people, the state governments and the federal government. The 17th took power from both the states and the people and increased the federal governments power.
+1
The reason it was done, for the peoples good supposedly.
You can thank big government people for it.
You can disagree all you want. Why then does the electoral college exist if the popular vote of the people could be trusted? Franklin and Jefferson both were wary of people reverting to mob rule. Read their writings. Otherwise, why a republic instead of a democracy?
quote:Originally posted by Sam06
quote:Originally posted by SCOUT5
It was about balance. Balance between the people, the state governments and the federal government. The 17th took power from both the states and the people and increased the federal governments power.
+1
The reason it was done, for the peoples good supposedly.
You can thank big government people for it.
You can disagree all you want. Why then does the electoral college exist if the popular vote of the people could be trusted? Franklin and Jefferson both were wary of people reverting to mob rule. Read their writings. Otherwise, why a republic instead of a democracy?
Balance. They trusted the people but also realized there had to be checks against mob rule just as there were checks placed on government. They studied history and realized population centers (cities) would also need balanced as they grew.
I have been extolling the virtues of repealing the 17th for a very long time. The Senators have only the fickle minded voters to pander too now for their thirty pieces of silver. they are just a congress critter with a longer time to become entrenched and corrupt. The States lost their most powerful voices within the Federal Monster when the 17th was passed.
You don't think sheets Byrd would have made it over 50 years if the State Legislature put the Senators into the Fed system do you?
isn't it amazing how many STUPID GREEDY POWER HUNGRY get elected...i believe a large part of the problem is the STUPID OBLIVIOUS electorate
They are not stupid, they are very smart and cunning, most are ruthless and ego maniacal.
We the voters allow them to pull the party line cards, pit neighbor against neighbor cause the issues in DC and point the finger to the other guy screaming I tried but he was a meanie and blocked me; elect me again and I promise to fix it if the other guy is gone.
quote:Originally posted by Sam06
quote:Originally posted by SCOUT5
It was about balance. Balance between the people, the state governments and the federal government. The 17th took power from both the states and the people and increased the federal governments power.
+1
The reason it was done, for the peoples good supposedly.
You can thank big government people for it.
You can disagree all you want. Why then does the electoral college exist if the popular vote of the people could be trusted? Franklin and Jefferson both were wary of people reverting to mob rule. Read their writings. Otherwise, why a republic instead of a democracy?
Dude I don't think I was disagreeing with you, I am all for a repeal of the 17th, BUT I want term limits and I want to see some over sight.
Look at why it was enacted and the history of abuse by the Senators.
There were states that were already electing senators by a Popular vote. OR was one and I think NE was also.
You can thank the guy that gave us the Spanish American war and so many other things; Tanya the terrorist's Grand pa WR Hurst(not the shifter guy think yellow journalism).
The problem was the Governors and the state houses were abusing the system. Guys like Nelson Aldrich from RI are prime example.
Term limits would have solved some of these problems. Repeal of the 17th is a great idea, it puts power back in the states but term limits are needed to keep the lifers out.
Look who did not vote for the 17th: All the south and some states have still not officially ratified they comply but its the ratified.
quote:Originally posted by SCOUT5
quote:Originally posted by p3skyking
https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/4599de02-d3a8-3c45-84d1-7fdabdafa120/ss_huckabee-tweets:-‘time-to.html
I could make a case either way on this.
1. Con It takes power away from the people and gives it to government.
2. Pro People don't have the intelligence to elect Senators and it sets the stage for the birth of Fascism to combat Muslim invaders.
Take your pick.
Not really. It would decrease federal power and increase state power. Because the senators could no longer run on national party platforms with national party backing. Individuals would, by default, have to pay more attention to state elections as they would determine senate picks. It would actually give the people more power by making the senators answer to the state legislators.
Has everyone read the Amendment and understand what it did? Read the actual Amendment until you are sure you understand it.
That is what the founders originally had because they mistrusted the common folk. The 17th gave power directly to the people. Repealing it gives power back to the states. It's different now than then. You're not going to just stroll into your governor's or reps office where they could.
Sam, the Senate was the voice of the state and Congress was the voice of the people. A bicameral legislature just like the House of Lords and the House of Commons in England.
I wish we would repeal it. It would give more power back to the State legislators. And yes, we do have the same federal government today as we did back when the 17th was made. The 17th was one last nail in the coffin of the mercantile reconstruction efforts that lasted for generations after the War of Northern Aggression . Seeing as how even the Northern States still don't produce much these days relative in percentage to back around the turn of the century, it would only give the states more power. People would actually start to pay attention again to the state and local elections.
And seriously limit voting to property owners... Not vested in the system? sorry... We really do not need your input.
+1
Thomas J. DiLorenzo on the:
1. 17th Amendment - https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Thomas+DiLorenzo+on+the+17th+amendment&view=detail&mid=2BA9672D469DA78EFBB52BA9672D469DA78EFBB5&FORM=VIRE
2. The Revolution of 1913 - https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Thomas+DiLorenzo+on+the+17th+amendment&&view=detail&mid=8B4DD6E647F37DB506E68B4DD6E647F37DB506E6&rvsmid=2BA9672D469DA78EFBB52BA9672D469DA78EFBB5&fsscr=0&FORM=VDQVAP
And,
Walter Williams on: States' Rights and Nullification
3. States' Rights and Nullification - https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Walter+Williams+on+the+17th+Amendment&ru=/search?q=Walter+Williams+on+the+17th+Amendment&FORM=EDGNCT&view=detail&mmscn=vwrc&mid=3DA8212DEA635E80E78C3DA8212DEA635E80E78C&FORM=WRVORC
Here's my pick:
Thomas J. DiLorenzo on the:
1. 17th Amendment - https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Thomas+DiLorenzo+on+the+17th+amendment&view=detail&mid=2BA9672D469DA78EFBB52BA9672D469DA78EFBB5&FORM=VIRE
2. The Revolution of 1913 - https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Thomas+DiLorenzo+on+the+17th+amendment&&view=detail&mid=8B4DD6E647F37DB506E68B4DD6E647F37DB506E6&rvsmid=2BA9672D469DA78EFBB52BA9672D469DA78EFBB5&fsscr=0&FORM=VDQVAP
Very good stuff Kimi
thanks
quote:Originally posted by kimi
Here's my pick:
Thomas J. DiLorenzo on the:
1. 17th Amendment - https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Thomas+DiLorenzo+on+the+17th+amendment&view=detail&mid=2BA9672D469DA78EFBB52BA9672D469DA78EFBB5&FORM=VIRE
2. The Revolution of 1913 - https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Thomas+DiLorenzo+on+the+17th+amendment&&view=detail&mid=8B4DD6E647F37DB506E68B4DD6E647F37DB506E6&rvsmid=2BA9672D469DA78EFBB52BA9672D469DA78EFBB5&fsscr=0&FORM=VDQVAP
Very good stuff Kimi
thanks
You're most welcome, my friend.
quote:Originally posted by p3skyking
quote:Originally posted by SCOUT5
quote:Originally posted by p3skyking
https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/4599de02-d3a8-3c45-84d1-7fdabdafa120/ss_huckabee-tweets:-‘time-to.html
I could make a case either way on this.
1. Con It takes power away from the people and gives it to government.
2. Pro People don't have the intelligence to elect Senators and it sets the stage for the birth of Fascism to combat Muslim invaders.
Take your pick.
Not really. It would decrease federal power and increase state power. Because the senators could no longer run on national party platforms with national party backing. Individuals would, by default, have to pay more attention to state elections as they would determine senate picks. It would actually give the people more power by making the senators answer to the state legislators.
Has everyone read the Amendment and understand what it did? Read the actual Amendment until you are sure you understand it.
That is what the founders originally had because they mistrusted the common folk. The 17th gave power directly to the people. Repealing it gives power back to the states. It's different now than then. You're not going to just stroll into your governor's or reps office where they could.
Sam, the Senate was the voice of the state and Congress was the voice of the people. A bicameral legislature just like the House of Lords and the House of Commons in England.
I do not agree with this statement.
You are correct to disagree because it is mostly wrong.
The House was set up to represent the interests of the people. The Senate was set up to represent the interests of the various States, and the Executive was to represent the interests of the Union.
The sovereignty of the various states was important to the Founders for a number of reasons. One is that they recognized each State as a functioning and independent political and social entity. Another is that absent some assurances of State Representation within the Federal Government, the Constitution would never have been ratified.
The tragedy of the 17th, and it was by design, is that it transfers power from the States not to the Federal Government, but to the political parties through their ability to manipulate the individual voter.
The same holds true with the party manipulation of the Electoral College. Article 2 Section 1 and the 12th Amendment both outline a mechanism for the tabulation of electoral votes for multiple individuals. The current system of winner take all which is used in all but one of the states (IIRC) is a create of party politics and while not in direct contrast with the letter of the Constitution, most definitely violates the spirit of the Constitution.
The 17th moves us towards democratic mob rule, as individual voters are more easily swayed that are state legislatures. One can make the argument that corruption is easier given a smaller target audience, but with the amount of money involved in politics today, there is enough to spread around and corrupt anyone who votes on emotion rather than principle.
Brad Steele
+1
Well stated.
Before the 17th Senators were recalled by their states and fired for failing to represent the states interests.
quote:The tragedy of the 17th, and it was by design, is that it transfers power from the States not to the Federal Government, but to the political parties through their ability to manipulate the individual voter.
+1
Well stated.
Before the 17th Senators were recalled by their states and fired for failing to represent the states interests.
+2
You are correct to disagree because it is mostly wrong.
The House was set up to represent the interests of the people. The Senate was set up to represent the interests of the various States, and the Executive was to represent the interests of the Union.
The sovereignty of the various states was important to the Founders for a number of reasons. One is that they recognized each State as a functioning and independent political and social entity. Another is that absent some assurances of State Representation within the Federal Government, the Constitution would never have been ratified.
The tragedy of the 17th, and it was by design, is that it transfers power from the States not to the Federal Government, but to the political parties through their ability to manipulate the individual voter.
The same holds true with the party manipulation of the Electoral College. Article 2 Section 1 and the 12th Amendment both outline a mechanism for the tabulation of electoral votes for multiple individuals. The current system of winner take all which is used in all but one of the states (IIRC) is a create of party politics and while not in direct contrast with the letter of the Constitution, most definitely violates the spirit of the Constitution.
The 17th moves us towards democratic mob rule, as individual voters are more easily swayed that are state legislatures. One can make the argument that corruption is easier given a smaller target audience, but with the amount of money involved in politics today, there is enough to spread around and corrupt anyone who votes on emotion rather than principle.
You folks are proof that the founders were correct not to give power to the people through direct democracy. The Constitution put the power in the educated state representatives, not in the hands of people unable to understand the written word. I too am for the repeal of the 17th for the same reason Jefferson and Franklin were against direct democracy. People are stupid and easily swayed.
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
You are correct to disagree because it is mostly wrong.
The House was set up to represent the interests of the people. The Senate was set up to represent the interests of the various States, and the Executive was to represent the interests of the Union.
The sovereignty of the various states was important to the Founders for a number of reasons. One is that they recognized each State as a functioning and independent political and social entity. Another is that absent some assurances of State Representation within the Federal Government, the Constitution would never have been ratified.
The tragedy of the 17th, and it was by design, is that it transfers power from the States not to the Federal Government, but to the political parties through their ability to manipulate the individual voter.
The same holds true with the party manipulation of the Electoral College. Article 2 Section 1 and the 12th Amendment both outline a mechanism for the tabulation of electoral votes for multiple individuals. The current system of winner take all which is used in all but one of the states (IIRC) is a create of party politics and while not in direct contrast with the letter of the Constitution, most definitely violates the spirit of the Constitution.
The 17th moves us towards democratic mob rule, as individual voters are more easily swayed that are state legislatures. One can make the argument that corruption is easier given a smaller target audience, but with the amount of money involved in politics today, there is enough to spread around and corrupt anyone who votes on emotion rather than principle.
You folks are proof that the founders were correct not to give power to the people through direct democracy. The Constitution put the power in the educated state representatives, not in the hands of people unable to understand the written word. I too am for the repeal of the 17th for the same reason Jefferson and Franklin were against direct democracy. People are stupid and easily swayed.
You're going to be hard pressed to find evidence of that in any of the early writings by Paine, Madison, or others. If they mistrusted the people as idiots, why did they set up a government of the people, by the people and for the people? The electoral college was set up for a few reasons but not one of them were because voters were stupid.
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
You are correct to disagree because it is mostly wrong.
The House was set up to represent the interests of the people. The Senate was set up to represent the interests of the various States, and the Executive was to represent the interests of the Union.
The sovereignty of the various states was important to the Founders for a number of reasons. One is that they recognized each State as a functioning and independent political and social entity. Another is that absent some assurances of State Representation within the Federal Government, the Constitution would never have been ratified.
The tragedy of the 17th, and it was by design, is that it transfers power from the States not to the Federal Government, but to the political parties through their ability to manipulate the individual voter.
The same holds true with the party manipulation of the Electoral College. Article 2 Section 1 and the 12th Amendment both outline a mechanism for the tabulation of electoral votes for multiple individuals. The current system of winner take all which is used in all but one of the states (IIRC) is a create of party politics and while not in direct contrast with the letter of the Constitution, most definitely violates the spirit of the Constitution.
The 17th moves us towards democratic mob rule, as individual voters are more easily swayed that are state legislatures. One can make the argument that corruption is easier given a smaller target audience, but with the amount of money involved in politics today, there is enough to spread around and corrupt anyone who votes on emotion rather than principle.
You folks are proof that the founders were correct not to give power to the people through direct democracy. The Constitution put the power in the educated state representatives, not in the hands of people unable to understand the written word. I too am for the repeal of the 17th for the same reason Jefferson and Franklin were against direct democracy. People are stupid and easily swayed.
Your superficial grasp of history is just a regurgitation of what I was spoon fed in 5th grade social studies.
Mayhaps some day you will go beyond the primer and realize that in which you were indoctrinated as a youngster may have had an agenda.
The clueless P3nut gallery is alive and well.
Brad Steele
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
You are correct to disagree because it is mostly wrong.
The House was set up to represent the interests of the people. The Senate was set up to represent the interests of the various States, and the Executive was to represent the interests of the Union.
The sovereignty of the various states was important to the Founders for a number of reasons. One is that they recognized each State as a functioning and independent political and social entity. Another is that absent some assurances of State Representation within the Federal Government, the Constitution would never have been ratified.
The tragedy of the 17th, and it was by design, is that it transfers power from the States not to the Federal Government, but to the political parties through their ability to manipulate the individual voter.
The same holds true with the party manipulation of the Electoral College. Article 2 Section 1 and the 12th Amendment both outline a mechanism for the tabulation of electoral votes for multiple individuals. The current system of winner take all which is used in all but one of the states (IIRC) is a create of party politics and while not in direct contrast with the letter of the Constitution, most definitely violates the spirit of the Constitution.
The 17th moves us towards democratic mob rule, as individual voters are more easily swayed that are state legislatures. One can make the argument that corruption is easier given a smaller target audience, but with the amount of money involved in politics today, there is enough to spread around and corrupt anyone who votes on emotion rather than principle.
You folks are proof that the founders were correct not to give power to the people through direct democracy. The Constitution put the power in the educated state representatives, not in the hands of people unable to understand the written word. I too am for the repeal of the 17th for the same reason Jefferson and Franklin were against direct democracy. People are stupid and easily swayed.
[:D]
You must be the hit of the party there PO1
[:D]
You must be the hit of the party there PO1
Sam, I was gifted with an excellent mind and I just paid attention to life.
I do love a party too, but only small ones with other gifted people.[;)]
And seriously limit voting to property owners... Not vested in the system? sorry... We really do not need your input.
Are you suggesting that renters or lease holders are not vested?
These are the folks that pay the property taxes for the units in which they live or for the businesses they operate.
A better measure, particularly for national office, may be net income tax payers, though one then runs into the question as to what one does with those who pay FICA but do not make enough to pay income tax.
Being vesting in the system takes many forms. Owning your house is only one of them.
Brad Steele
quote:Originally posted by CaptFun
And seriously limit voting to property owners... Not vested in the system? sorry... We really do not need your input.
Are you suggesting that renters or lease holders are not vested?
These are the folks that pay the property taxes for the units in which they live or for the businesses they operate.
A better measure, particularly for national office, may be net income tax payers, though one then runs into the question as to what one does with those who pay FICA but do not make enough to pay income tax.
Being vesting in the system takes many forms. Owning your house is only one of them.
Don, the owner of the property is still the one who pays the tax and is therefore, by your measure, still vested, so I'm failing to see your point. Are you trying to say that because the owner turned their property into a means by which to earn a profit somehow they are no longer vested via that same ownership? How so? The renter has no real stake in the property whether they believe they do or not. This is frequently demonstrated by the monies paid to ensure compliance with conditions of occupancy (aka damage deposit). If they (renter and leasees) were in fact vested, no deposit would be required because the terms regarding acceptable condition of the property would be up to the occupant to determine.
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
quote:Originally posted by CaptFun
And seriously limit voting to property owners... Not vested in the system? sorry... We really do not need your input.
Are you suggesting that renters or lease holders are not vested?
These are the folks that pay the property taxes for the units in which they live or for the businesses they operate.
A better measure, particularly for national office, may be net income tax payers, though one then runs into the question as to what one does with those who pay FICA but do not make enough to pay income tax.
Being vesting in the system takes many forms. Owning your house is only one of them.
Property owning was one way to earn a vote.
Being a significant taxpayer like a shipowner/importer was another.
Anyone having a stake in the country and was a man of means also got a vote.
Nevr'do'wells, drifters, drunkards, slaves, women, children, and jailbirds got no vote.
You should really study the period since you've forgotten all of your fourth grade learning.[;)]
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by CaptFun
And seriously limit voting to property owners... Not vested in the system? sorry... We really do not need your input.
Are you suggesting that renters or lease holders are not vested?
These are the folks that pay the property taxes for the units in which they live or for the businesses they operate.
A better measure, particularly for national office, may be net income tax payers, though one then runs into the question as to what one does with those who pay FICA but do not make enough to pay income tax.
Being vesting in the system takes many forms. Owning your house is only one of them.
Property owning was one way to earn a vote.
Being a significant taxpayer like a shipowner/importer was another.
Anyone having a stake in the country and was a man of means also got a vote.
Nevr'do'wells, drifters, drunkards, slaves, women, children, and jailbirds got no vote.
You should really study the period since you've forgotten all of your fourth grade learning.[;)]
So you agree with what I said, but I need more learning?
Who's wifi are you using under your bridge?
Edit:
The founders were not decided upon this, as the following quote by Madison demonstrates:
'The right of suffrage is a fundamental Article in Republican Constitutions. The regulation of it is, at the same time, a task of peculiar delicacy. Allow the right [to vote] exclusively to property [owners], and the rights of persons may be oppressed... . Extend it equally to all, and the rights of property [owners] ...may be overruled by a majority without property.... '
It is instructive to note that the US Constitution as originally constructed left the decision as to suffrage completely up to the state.
You previously cited Jefferson and Washington.
Both were quite liberal (they would be called progressives today) in their thinking. One only need look at the second sentence of the Declaration to get a feel for Jefferson's thinking: '..That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed.
You also seem to be suggesting that Washington would have denied the right to vote to many of those who fought under his command during the War of Independence.
If you can find a quote from either of these men that suggests they would limit suffrage to only those who owned property or had significant assets, I will be open to review it.
The original point addressed in this sub-thread was a statement that suffrage should be limited to property owners because they were/are vested. My point remains that with the current confiscatory nature of the Federal Government, and the abomination that is the 16th Amendment, the nature of vested has changed. This is undeniable.
If vested means something to lose, the net is wide.
If vested means financial contribution to government, that net is also quite wide.
Hell even some people who made their living off the taxpayers and were and continue to be a net drain on the Federal Budget are vested based upon past contributions.
We need to be careful how we craft access to the voting booth. While I tend to agree with the good Captain that it would be ideal were all voters somehow vested in the system, the definition of vested would include significantly more people than I would think most advocates of such vesting would think.
Brad Steele
And seriously limit voting to property owners... Not vested in the system? sorry... We really do not need your input.
At one time I agreed 100% with this but now I am not too sure would make a difference.
In fact I think if 100% of the people who do have a vested interest in the system WOULD vote, the political structure of this country would look very different.
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.
Winston Churchill
Winnie knew too.
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.
Winston Churchill
+100 [:D]
no retirement benefits and no health care except while in office and no paid lobbying afterwards - PERIOD.
you wanna be a lobbyist? do it on your on dime and time.
I might not have a problem with them taking money from the people who voted for them to lobby on their behalf but NO corporate monies!