Republicans attempting to disenfranchise voters?

[Zeb_Carter]

The states don't get to determine that a U.S. citizen cannot vote in a federal (presidential/vice presidential) election. Federal laws exist that say they can--and states cannot fail to register a voter for a federal election. If they try, the voter can sue in federal court--and win.

And again, Zeb, not every scrap of federal law we have to follow can be found, word for word, in the Constitution. We've had 200 years of clarifying and applifying federal law that continues in effect until/unless the U.S. Supreme Court strikes it down as not being compatible with the Constitution based on a lawsuit brought to the court.

The problem here--other than a hard head and little knowledge--is that (A) states do control state and local elections and (B) every four years the federal and state elections are combined. (and, thus, every four years election officials have to keep straight in their minds what set of laws to follow in relation to what the voter is trying to vote.)

The chads issue was on how to read/count votes, not who had a right to vote in a federal election.

Last time I'll try to post on this. You Yahoos can believe whatever your hard heads tell you to. I work the elections, and have no trouble discerning who gets to do what in them.

But all laws in the US are based on the Constitution and there for must conform to that document or they are struck down by the Supreme Court. So as I was saying...there is no guarantee to vote outlined in the Constitution. And the states can decide who can and cannot vote in any election except they can not limit that right by race, creed, religion or sex.

Just because state laws allow what they allow now is by no means a guarantee.

 

[Boxlicker101]

But all laws in the US are based on the Constitution and there for must conform to that document or they are struck down by the Supreme Court. So as I was saying...there is no guarantee to vote outlined in the Constitution. And the states can decide who can and cannot vote in any election except they can not limit that right by race, creed, religion or sex.

Just because state laws allow what they allow now is by no means a guarantee.

They don't so much have to conform as they cannot be contrary. If the Constitution doesn't say anything about a certain factor, state law would prevail. For instance, a state could probably have a requirement that a voter had to be literate.

Before the federal minimum changed from 21 to 18, some states already had 18 as the minimum. In those states, people could vote in local and state elections, but not federal ones. If a state were to lower the minimum to 16, that would be the minimum age for voters in local and state elections, but not federal elections.

 

[Magistermilitum]

Is it such a bad thing for ignorant and easily gulled proletarii to be denied the franchise? Rome didn't let her poorest citizens vote, and her republic lasted long that America has.

 

[rgraham666]

Does that mean that the eggheads who piloted AIG into the ground, or a big time cocaine lord, is a better voter than the proletariat or the plebes?

 

[Magistermilitum]

Does that mean that the eggheads who piloted AIG into the ground, or a big time cocaine lord, is a better voter than the proletariat or the plebes?

No, they should be proscribed. Executed, to put it politely. And their property should be confiscated and sold to the highest bidder. They're criminals of the worst sort. Sulla didn't put up with losers like that, and why should we?

 

[rgraham666]

So who does get to vote?

 

[Magistermilitum]

So who does get to vote?

Smallholders, major landowners, honest merchants, tradesmen (I'd bring back mercantilism and the guilds, LOL), and any other loyal citizen with a stake in society. But only after a dictatorship to correct the present chaos.

Of course, I'm in favor of making sure that most citizens get a plot of land to keep, sell, or rent out as an investment. That way, we turn the ignorant, unwashed masses into true citizens with a stake in the preservation of property. Ironically, I'd use some socialistic means to attain mercantilist ends. I wouldn't say capitalist, because raw capitalism is too anarchic for the public health.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

Smallholders, major landowners, honest merchants, tradesmen (I'd bring back mercantilism and the guilds, LOL), and any other loyal citizen with a stake in society...

I am very glad you don't make voting laws.

 

[Magistermilitum]

I am very glad you don't make voting laws.

Well, of course, you are. Nothing personal against you. I don't hate you. You're even quite likable. But I don't approve of your sex getting to vote, either.

 

[starrkers]

Smallholders, major landowners, honest merchants, tradesmen (I'd bring back mercantilism and the guilds, LOL), and any other loyal citizen with a stake in society. But only after a dictatorship to correct the present chaos.

Of course, I'm in favor of making sure that most citizens get a plot of land to keep, sell, or rent out as an investment. That way, we turn the ignorant, unwashed masses into true citizens with a stake in the preservation of property. Ironically, I'd use some socialistic means to attain mercantilist ends. I wouldn't say capitalist, because raw capitalism is too anarchic for the public health.

Well, of course, you are. Nothing personal against you. I don't hate you. You're even quite likable. But I don't approve of your sex getting to vote, either.

Ah, so as a landowner I get to vote. As a woman I don't.

 

[Magistermilitum]

Ah, so as a landowner I get to vote. As a woman I don't.

You raise an interesting point. What to do with female property owners? Perhaps a vote in the economic assemblies, but not in the ones pertaining to the use of public violence. That makes sense to me, at least.

Since there would be many bodies or assemblies or councils. Some would be specialized toward economic affairs, some toward more military/strategic/police ones.

And not a seat in the Senate, of course. They will be the Fathers of the Commonweal, not Fathers and Mothers.

I would say that my utopia is a mix of capitalism, socialism, and mercantilism. So perhaps it is also fitting that it is a mix of patriarchy and more egalitarian structures, too.

 

[SweetPrettyAss]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Magistermilitum
Smallholders, major landowners, honest merchants, tradesmen (I'd bring back mercantilism and the guilds, LOL), and any other loyal citizen with a stake in society. But only after a dictatorship to correct the present chaos.

Of course, I'm in favor of making sure that most citizens get a plot of land to keep, sell, or rent out as an investment. That way, we turn the ignorant, unwashed masses into true citizens with a stake in the preservation of property. Ironically, I'd use some socialistic means to attain mercantilist ends. I wouldn't say capitalist, because raw capitalism is too anarchic for the public health.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Magistermilitum
Well, of course, you are. Nothing personal against you. I don't hate you. You're even quite likable. But I don't approve of your sex getting to vote, either.

Ah, so as a landowner I get to vote. As a woman I don't.

Yeah, what about women who are smallholders, major landowners, honest merchants, tradeswomen or otherwise loyal citizen with a stake in society? How about us?

 

[starrkers]

You raise an interesting point. What to do with female property owners? Perhaps a vote in the economic assemblies, but not in the ones pertaining to the use of public violence. That makes sense to me, at least.

Since there would be many bodies or assemblies or councils. Some would be specialized toward economic affairs, some toward more military/strategic/police ones.

And not a seat in the Senate, of course. They will be the Fathers of the Commonweal, not Fathers and Mothers.

I would say that my utopia is a mix of capitalism, socialism, and mercantilism. So perhaps it is also fitting that it is a mix of patriarchy and more egalitarian structures, too.

Sounds more like paternalism to me. Why shouldn't women be involved in decisions pertaining to "use of public violence"? Women have been involved in armed conflict for a while now. Remember Margaret Thatcher?

 

[Magistermilitum]

Sounds more like paternalism to me. Why shouldn't women be involved in decisions pertaining to "use of public violence"? Women have been involved in armed conflict for a while now. Remember Margaret Thatcher?

Aside from Israel, women can't be drafted into combat. So they don't have equal duties. Equal privileges should be tied to equal obligations.

 

[starrkers]

Aside from Israel, women can't be drafted into combat. So they don't have equal duties. Equal privileges should be tied to equal obligations.

It's your utopia. Make it equal.

 

[Magistermilitum]

It's your utopia. Make it equal.

Touche. Mind you, I doubt that you would like it even then.

 

[starrkers]

Touche. Mind you, I doubt that you would like it even then.

I'm damned sure I wouldn't. But as a benevolent dictator, you'd have no objection to me leaving, would you?

 

[Belegon]

But I don't approve of your sex getting to vote, either.

Well, what the fuck do you know. It IS amicus.

 

[rgraham666]

When you start instituting your 'perfect world', Magister, bring lots of ammo.

Because I intend to fight you every fucking, goddamn step of the way, you authoritarian pig.

 

[Guest]

Aside from Israel, women can't be drafted into combat. So they don't have equal duties. Equal privileges should be tied to equal obligations.

*smiles sweetly at ami*

Equal duties and equal privileges? Well, then, since men can't have the babies, they don't need to have any of the sex.

Enjoy Utopia.

 

[neonlyte]

Of course it's not Ami. This plonker does quotes, and 'LOL', when did you ever see buddy-boy do those properly?

 

[Guest]

Of course it's not Ami. This plonker does quotes, and 'LOL', when did you ever see buddy-boy do those properly?

One of his, um, personalities, could perhaps use better posting skills.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

Well, of course, you are. Nothing personal against you. I don't hate you. You're even quite likable. But I don't approve of your sex getting to vote, either.

Why did I just KNOW you were going to say that???

Damn. I think I'm psychic.

 

[Safe_Bet]

*smiles sweetly at ami*

Equal duties and equal privileges? Well, then, since men can't have the babies, they don't need to have any of the sex.

Enjoy Utopia.

 

[oggbashan]

Ah, so as a landowner I get to vote. As a woman I don't.

That used to be the case in the UK before the 19th Century Electoral Reforms. A woman owning sufficient property had a vote.

As a King I don't get a vote in the UK. Nor do members of the House of Lords, prisoners and compulsory inmates in mental hospitals.

Og