[quote]Chomskyian wrote:
Yes, I think we addressed this one back in 1870 with that thing called the 15th amendment.
“The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.”[/quote]
So, you are associating welfare with a specific race? Talk about bigotry. [/quote]
which race would that be? i didnt get that from his post.[/quote]
“race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” It has to be one or more of those things to even bring up the 15th amendment. He brought it up. He was applying it to one of those things. None of the people discussed were ever slaves. That leaves race and color. So, please explain how barring people on welfare from voting violates the 15th amendment without a relationship between race and welfare recipients.
are you alright? that is the text of the amendment 15th. you can also include the 19th and 26th in to the discussion which both make specific stipulations as to who the federal or state governments cannot disenfranchise. Women in 19th and anyone over 18 in 26th. With all three together, only those who have forfeited their rights i.e. felons, anyone over 18 can vote, end of story.
"I know what might be said in answer to this; what the objections might be. But this is not the place to exhaust a controversy of this nature. I wish merely to observe here that this controversy over universal suffrage (as well as most other political questions) which agitates, excites, and overthrows nations, would lose nearly all of its importance if the law had always been what it ought to be. In fact, if law were restricted to protecting all persons, all liberties, and all properties; if law were nothing more than the organized combination of the individual’s right to self defense; if law were the obstacle, the check, the punisher of all oppression and plunder â?? is it likely that we citizens would then argue much about the extent of the franchise?
Under these circumstances, is it likely that the extent of the right to vote would endanger that supreme good, the public peace? Is it likely that the excluded classes would refuse to peaceably await the coming of their right to vote? Is it likely that those who had the right to vote would jealously defend their privilege? If the law were confined to its proper functions, everyone’s interest in the law would be the same. Is it not clear that, under these circumstances, those who voted could not inconvenience those who did not vote?"
[quote]rageradios wrote:
are you alright? that is the text of the amendment 15th. you can also include the 19th and 26th in to the discussion which both make specific stipulations as to who the federal or state governments cannot disenfranchise. Women in 19th and anyone over 18 in 26th. With all three together, only those who have forfeited their rights i.e. felons, anyone over 18 can vote, end of story. [/quote]
The 15th amendment only applies to race. In a discussion about voter rights for welfare recipients he quoted the 15th amendment as forbidding excluding welfare recipients from voting. The only way that is possible is if welfare is a race or color. It is not. BUT he must have been associating it with one race or another to have made the comment.
And no. You have no idea what you are talking about. The constitution makes it illegal to deny a person the right to vote, BASED ON race, gender, or based on age when over 18. That is entirely different than what you said.
It does not mean every person of a race gets to vote. It does not mean every woman gets to vote. It does not mean everyone over 18 gets to vote. It only says you can’t deny the vote based on those specific reasons. You can however deny the right to vote based on other things. Like nationality, being under 18, being a felon, not registering, est.
It would not violate any of these amendments in any way to deny welfare recipients voting rights. And while we were at it, requiring photo ID to vote should be another qualification.
a Textualist I see, I think you would have a very hard time saying that with 14 and 15,19,26, that citizens who chose to receive welfare could be denied right to register and subsequently vote if they so chose. I understand what you are say, as there are a certain strict nature to the ‘voting’ amendments, if you will. However, I feel like looking through a lens of intent and not merely the words on the paper, that attempting to disenfranchise welfare recipients would be illegal.
and with the same vein of thought would you also disenfranchise anyone who receives s.s. or any old folks who use medicare?
[quote]rageradios wrote:
a Textualist I see, I think you would have a very hard time saying that with 14 and 15,19,26, that citizens who chose to receive welfare could be denied right to register and subsequently vote if they so chose. I understand what you are say, as there are a certain strict nature to the ‘voting’ amendments, if you will. However, I feel like looking through a lens of intent and not merely the words on the paper, that attempting to disenfranchise welfare recipients would be illegal.
and with the same vein of thought would you also disenfranchise anyone who receives s.s. or any old folks who use medicare?[/quote]
what about unemployment?
the argument is that they can vote to extend or increase their entitlements which needs to be stolen from the productive memembers of society first,
so why not extend it to anyone receiving some kind of entitlement from the government.
This would get wildly out of control very quickly. completely putting aside the bureaucratic nightmare this would cause, what you you call entitlement, strictly receiving money, or would tax refunds be included too? Do loans count? would I, because I receive government loans to finance my education not be able to vote until I pay back my loans?
Also, in theory everyone receives the “entitlement” of having police and firefighters from the state, if my house is burning down and I let the state run firefighters save me, can I not vote that year? I mean I paid my taxes but still got help from the government, much like people using medicare. where does it stop?
the argument is that they can vote to extend or increase their entitlements which needs to be stolen from the productive memembers of society first,
so why not extend it to anyone receiving some kind of entitlement from the government.
[/quote]
Why is it that when taxpayer money goes to social welfare programs they are being “stolen from the productive members of society,” but when these so called “productive members of society” get taxpayer assitance, the standard is not equally applied?
If we exclude people on welfare from voting, do we then exclude sports team owners that get govt money for their new stadiums, hedge fund managers, corn farmers, the oil idustry, defense contractors, etc?
the argument is that they can vote to extend or increase their entitlements which needs to be stolen from the productive memembers of society first,
so why not extend it to anyone receiving some kind of entitlement from the government.
[/quote]
Why is it that when taxpayer money goes to social welfare programs they are being “stolen from the productive members of society,” but when these so called “productive members of society” get taxpayer assitance, the standard is not equally applied?
If we exclude people on welfare from voting, do we then exclude sports team owners that get govt money for their new stadiums, hedge fund managers, corn farmers, the oil idustry, defense contractors, etc?[/quote]
a) Because they only get back some of what was stolen in the first place.
And we all know how much you macho, gun toting, NRA members love your amendments. [/quote]
And we also know how effete, freedom-hating, Authoritarians hate the idea of inalienable rights.
Anyway, denying voting rights to everyone who gets Disability, Social Security, Foodstamps, etc. along with every gov’t worker - it’s the most impractical solution ever.
It would make more sense to wean people off the government tit slowly. Which is what’s happening with SS anyway. If we continue to raise the retirement age, then eventually, nobody will be collecting benefits until they are 120, and they will only be receiving 5%.