Tea Party says you should have to own property to vote

[Anonymous]

I would rather see an IQ test than a property qualification. That would rule out Bachmann, Palin etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it would be better if we limited the vote to people who contributed something to society, but a property qualification is too narrow. I'd any of the following would be sufficient: 1. property qualification, 2. net taxpayer, 3. military service. Perhaps a community service alternative as well, but I would worry that is too susceptible to gaming, but I'd approve of it in principle.

I think you don't understand the Constitution very well. The Bill of Rights is a phenomenal document because it protects rights not based on whether you're a nice person but regardless of whether you rich, poor, smart, dumb - whatever. It's what makes this country great. But if you want to dole out human rights based on some arbitrary list of qualifications, well, I'm sure there's a Third World country somewhere that would love to have you immigrate. Don't let the screen door hit you on the way out.

I don't think you understand the Constitution very well. When the Bill of Rights was written, there was no universal sufferage in the U.S. Voting is not, strictly speaking, a universal human right -- we do not allow children to vote, for instance -- so we are already as a society deciding who is responsible enough to vote and who isn't. I just think we need to tighten that up a bit.

Just because you feel morally superior to someone does not mean you actually know more than them.

But I do know more than you. I know that in the United States in principle we don't apply rights based on whether you're a nice person or have a lot of money. It's got nothing to do with what was in the Constitution when it was first written. It has to do with the principle behind the rule of law. And with the changes we made to the Constitution since it was first written, the Supreme Court would never agree with your proposal. (Especially after our dismal experience of selective voting requirements during the Jim Crow era.)

It would, of course, require an amendment to the constitution. We also do limit the right to vote based on whether you are a "nice person" at least to some extent -- felon disenfranchisement, for example.

I utterly concede that the Supreme Court as currently composed would not uphold my proposal. Of course, at one point in time, the Supreme Court upheld the fugitive slave act and "separate but equal", so it's not like they're 100% correct all of the time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it would be better if we limited the vote to people who contributed something to society, but a property qualification is too narrow. I'd any of the following would be sufficient: 1. property qualification, 2. net taxpayer, 3. military service. Perhaps a community service alternative as well, but I would worry that is too susceptible to gaming, but I'd approve of it in principle.

And for all those who think that the fed could have effective oversight of this type of regime - yeah, sure. Ripe for all kinds of abuse. What if your spouse owns the house in its entirety and your a full-time SAHM? What about kids over the age of 18 that haven't bought a house and are in college. C'mon people, think it through. This isn't, and never will be, a good idea.

Only if you are committed in advance to ruling out the option. The SAHM issue is dealt with quite nicely by extending the franchise to the spouses of people who pass the property qualification test. The government already knows how much people pay in taxes and who served in the military. The example of college kids cuts my way, in my view: they are still dependents and should be treated as such.

Okay, i thought you were joking, but obviously you are just white and privileged. Tax paying and military service are not the only contributions people make to society. You should really move to a country where the vote is not universal and see how you like it.

Ah, the ad hominem argument and implicit accusation of racism! The last refuge of a liberal who is losing an argument. Color me shocked that this hoary chestnut reared its ugly head.

I'm certainly open to other forms of contribution to society in addition to the ones I named. That's just an implementation detail.

I'll note also that the vote is not, strictly speaking, universal here either. I like it just fine.

[Anonymous]

It would, of course, require an amendment to the constitution. We also do limit the right to vote based on whether you are a "nice person" at least to some extent -- felon disenfranchisement, for example.

I utterly concede that the Supreme Court as currently composed would not uphold my proposal. Of course, at one point in time, the Supreme Court upheld the fugitive slave act and "separate but equal", so it's not like they're 100% correct all of the time.

What you are proposing is more atrocious than separate, but equal. The renting, divorced, SAHM or god fobid, poor black man, is supposed to trust your white entitled, unfeeling ass to take his interests to heart when you vote? At least with separate but equal, blacks got a dirty train car. You would have folks excluded from the train because they don't meet your standards- don't really count.

[Anonymous]

How exactly do you think I am losing the argument? You made a horrible proposal that outlined your values by naming what you think are valuable contributions to society. And just because you think it's not racist, doesn't mean it's not. It just means that you don't fully understand all the ways that racism manifests itself. And please correct me if you are not a white male.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

It would, of course, require an amendment to the constitution. We also do limit the right to vote based on whether you are a "nice person" at least to some extent -- felon disenfranchisement, for example.

I utterly concede that the Supreme Court as currently composed would not uphold my proposal. Of course, at one point in time, the Supreme Court upheld the fugitive slave act and "separate but equal", so it's not like they're 100% correct all of the time.

What you are proposing is more atrocious than separate, but equal. The renting, divorced, SAHM or god fobid, poor black man, is supposed to trust your white entitled, unfeeling ass to take his interests to heart when you vote? At least with separate but equal, blacks got a dirty train car. You would have folks excluded from the train because they don't meet your standards- don't really count.



If all you have is name-calling, there is not much point to continuing the conversation. Apparently you have issues with those of differing views. I could invent things about you and accuse you of them as well, but what is the point? I'm not very good at insults. My "unfeeling ass" bleeds at your scorn. Have a good weekend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How exactly do you think I am losing the argument? You made a horrible proposal that outlined your values by naming what you think are valuable contributions to society. And just because you think it's not racist, doesn't mean it's not. It just means that you don't fully understand all the ways that racism manifests itself. And please correct me if you are not a white male.

I freely acknowledge I am a white male. Unlike you, I don't think that is a bad thing. I told you several posts ago that I was open to other forms of contribution, but you either did not read or did not understand because you are consumed by your own issues. Fair enough. We'll never agree and don't have anything to discuss. As I said, have a great weekend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It would, of course, require an amendment to the constitution. We also do limit the right to vote based on whether you are a "nice person" at least to some extent -- felon disenfranchisement, for example.

I utterly concede that the Supreme Court as currently composed would not uphold my proposal. Of course, at one point in time, the Supreme Court upheld the fugitive slave act and "separate but equal", so it's not like they're 100% correct all of the time.

What you are proposing is more atrocious than separate, but equal. The renting, divorced, SAHM or god fobid, poor black man, is supposed to trust your white entitled, unfeeling ass to take his interests to heart when you vote? At least with separate but equal, blacks got a dirty train car. You would have folks excluded from the train because they don't meet your standards- don't really count.



If all you have is name-calling, there is not much point to continuing the conversation. Apparently you have issues with those of differing views. I could invent things about you and accuse you of them as well, but what is the point? I'm not very good at insults. My "unfeeling ass" bleeds at your scorn. Have a good weekend.

Ah, the last bastion of the pedantic conservative losing an argument- "You are just name calling".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It would, of course, require an amendment to the constitution. We also do limit the right to vote based on whether you are a "nice person" at least to some extent -- felon disenfranchisement, for example.

I utterly concede that the Supreme Court as currently composed would not uphold my proposal. Of course, at one point in time, the Supreme Court upheld the fugitive slave act and "separate but equal", so it's not like they're 100% correct all of the time.

What you are proposing is more atrocious than separate, but equal. The renting, divorced, SAHM or god fobid, poor black man, is supposed to trust your white entitled, unfeeling ass to take his interests to heart when you vote? At least with separate but equal, blacks got a dirty train car. You would have folks excluded from the train because they don't meet your standards- don't really count.

If all you have is name-calling, there is not much point to continuing the conversation. Apparently you have issues with those of differing views. I could invent things about you and accuse you of them as well, but what is the point? I'm not very good at insults. My "unfeeling ass" bleeds at your scorn. Have a good weekend.

Ah, the last bastion of the pedantic conservative losing an argument- "You are just name calling".

If you are really the position that saying someone is "entitled" and "unfeeling" is not name calling--even charitably accepting that the "ass" part was intended as a neutral reference rather than an insult, which to me is a stretch--not only do we not agree on politics, we don't even speak the same language. Again, discourse is pointless. I leave the last word to you.

[Anonymous]

Your formalism is unfeeling. You express no passion for your proposal that some citizens are not entitled to a vote. And by focusing on the name calling, you completely ignored the argument that you feel like people in positions of power (as property ownership in your scenario would make them powerful- say feudal lord-like) would be able to make decisions that affect an entire population.

Is your focus on the language not a deflection from the sense of entitlement that your posts demonstrate?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How exactly do you think I am losing the argument? You made a horrible proposal that outlined your values by naming what you think are valuable contributions to society. And just because you think it's not racist, doesn't mean it's not. It just means that you don't fully understand all the ways that racism manifests itself. And please correct me if you are not a white male.

I freely acknowledge I am a white male. Unlike you, I don't think that is a bad thing. I told you several posts ago that I was open to other forms of contribution, but you either did not read or did not understand because you are consumed by your own issues. Fair enough. We'll never agree and don't have anything to discuss. As I said, have a great weekend.

I'm a white male and in this country Liberty, not value to society, defines rights. Not only would we have to amend the constitution. We would have to subvert the very philosophical tradition that caused us to break from England. We would have to retract the Declaration of Independence. We would be subverting the preamble to the Constitution.

What you are describing is really oligarchy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How exactly do you think I am losing the argument? You made a horrible proposal that outlined your values by naming what you think are valuable contributions to society. And just because you think it's not racist, doesn't mean it's not. It just means that you don't fully understand all the ways that racism manifests itself. And please correct me if you are not a white male.

I freely acknowledge I am a white male. Unlike you, I don't think that is a bad thing. I told you several posts ago that I was open to other forms of contribution, but you either did not read or did not understand because you are consumed by your own issues. Fair enough. We'll never agree and don't have anything to discuss. As I said, have a great weekend.

I'm a white male and in this country Liberty, not value to society, defines rights. Not only would we have to amend the constitution. We would have to subvert the very philosophical tradition that caused us to break from England. We would have to retract the Declaration of Independence. We would be subverting the preamble to the Constitution.

What you are describing is really oligarchy.

I'm the first poster quoted above. I do not as, the OP? insinuates, think being a white male is a bad thing- my father is one. I am very glad that you, pp, put the proper naming to it- Oligarchy. Thank you.

[Anonymous]

Wow, maybe we should restrict it to rich, white, landowners, just like the founding fathers did?

[Anonymous]

Okay, i thought you were joking, but obviously you are just white and privileged. Tax paying and military service are not the only contributions people make to society. You should really move to a country where the vote is not universal and see how you like it.

Ah, the ad hominem argument and implicit accusation of racism! The last refuge of a liberal who is losing an argument. Color me shocked that this hoary chestnut reared its ugly head.

I'm certainly open to other forms of contribution to society in addition to the ones I named. That's just an implementation detail.

I'll note also that the vote is not, strictly speaking, universal here either. I like it just fine.

NP, I am an independent. I own property and I was a business owner. I don't think anyone who knows me would call me a liberal
I think your argument is lame. And I bet the previous poster is correct. The only way you can spew that crap you pushing is because you are favored with white privilege

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it would be better if we limited the vote to people who contributed something to society, but a property qualification is too narrow. I'd any of the following would be sufficient: 1. property qualification, 2. net taxpayer, 3. military service. Perhaps a community service alternative as well, but I would worry that is too susceptible to gaming, but I'd approve of it in principle.

And for all those who think that the fed could have effective oversight of this type of regime - yeah, sure. Ripe for all kinds of abuse. What if your spouse owns the house in its entirety and your a full-time SAHM? What about kids over the age of 18 that haven't bought a house and are in college. C'mon people, think it through. This isn't, and never will be, a good idea.

Only if you are committed in advance to ruling out the option. The SAHM issue is dealt with quite nicely by extending the franchise to the spouses of people who pass the property qualification test. The government already knows how much people pay in taxes and who served in the military. The example of college kids cuts my way, in my view: they are still dependents and should be treated as such.

Okay, i thought you were joking, but obviously you are just white and privileged. Tax paying and military service are not the only contributions people make to society. You should really move to a country where the vote is not universal and see how you like it.

Ah, the ad hominem argument and implicit accusation of racism! The last refuge of a liberal who is losing an argument. Color me shocked that this hoary chestnut reared its ugly head.

I'm certainly open to other forms of contribution to society in addition to the ones I named. That's just an implementation detail.

I'll note also that the vote is not, strictly speaking, universal here either. I like it just fine.

The reverse racism card! The last gasp of a windbag who can't hack a real debate. Pathetic.