Nobody on welfare should be allowed to vote

[goldcatt]

That aside, you're quoting one small piece of the analysis without going on to the next step:

The right to vote is protected in more than the initial allocation of the franchise. Equal protection applies as well to the manner of its exercise. Having once granted the right to vote on equal terms, the State may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person's vote over that of another. See, e.g., Harper v. Virginia Bd. of Elections, 383 U.S. 663, 665 (1966) (“[O]nce the franchise is granted to the electorate, lines may not be drawn which are inconsistent with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment&#8221. It must be remembered that “the right of suffrage can be denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen’s vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise.” Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 555 (1964).

Same link as post #279

 

[Care4all]

that aside, you're quoting one small piece of the analysis without going on to the next step:

the right to vote is protected in more than the initial allocation of the franchise. equal protection applies as well to the manner of its exercise. Having once granted the right to vote on equal terms, the state may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person's vote over that of another. see, e.g., harper v. Virginia bd. Of elections, 383 u.s. 663, 665 (1966) (“[o]nce the franchise is granted to the electorate, lines may not be drawn which are inconsistent with the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment”). It must be remembered that “the right of suffrage can be denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen’s vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise.” reynolds v. Sims, 377 u.s. 533, 555 (1964).

same link

thanks gc!

 

[goldcatt]

No. Read the bold part. It's self explanatory.

no it is not self explanatory, not without the full case? how do i even know by the bold, what the SC was even referring to? did you link the case somewhere in the thread, so i can go in to it, and read it?

To me, that part explain tenth amendment. It's up to the States to determine who can vote, not to the feds. It's should apply to every case. This one is from 2000, Bush vs. Gore.

In the portion of the case where they were reciting existing precedent (the beginning of Section B), you need to read the entire argument to understand what they were actually saying. Taking one sentence here and one sentence there is tempting but isn't going to bring you to the correct concluson.

Yes, the States are not required to allow their residents to vote for Presidential Electors. However, once the Legislature has in fact granted that right it must be applied evenly to all citizens or violate the 14th's Equal Protection Clause.

 

[Care4all]

No. Read the bold part. It's self explanatory.

no it is not self explanatory, not without the full case? how do i even know by the bold, what the SC was even referring to? did you link the case somewhere in the thread, so i can go in to it, and read it?

To me, that part explain tenth amendment. It's up to the States to determine who can vote, not to the feds. It's should apply to every case. This one is from 2000, Bush vs. Gore.

you are wrong on this, look at the ENTIRE case, instead of picking and choosing to fit your preconceived idea americano....and this will serve you well in life....

look at goldcatt's posts...

 

[Ame®icano]

She didn't say anything different then I. Read it yourself.

Yes, the States are not required to allow their residents to vote for Presidential Electors. However, once the Legislature has in fact granted that right it must be applied evenly to all citizens or violate the 14th's Equal Protection Clause.

 

[goldcatt]

She didn't say anything different then I. Read it yourself.

Yes, the States are not required to allow their residents to vote for Presidential Electors. However, once the Legislature has in fact granted that right it must be applied evenly to all citizens or violate the 14th's Equal Protection Clause.

Actually, it is different. Go over that second part again. The fact is all States allow citizens to vote for Electors, and I can't see that changing at this point even if technically it's allowed. Could you imagine the outcry over taking away the right to vote for President?

But there is nothing here to justify restricting the franchise on the basis of financial status, ability to pay, employment status, or any other way you try to look at welfare recipients. One person, one vote, no exceptions.

And to head off the felon argument, that's based on a different rationale, line of cases and power altogether.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Americano has been carefully instructed correctly by Care4all of why he is wrong. Americano has demonstrated that now he is neither ignorant nor mentally feeble. The only conclusion left is that Americano is guilty of stubborn malignance. This type of obstinancy and obstructionism by the wing nut reactionary right will result this fall in a massive success for the moderates and liberals.

 

[goldcatt]

Americano has been carefully instructed correctly by Care4all of why he is wrong. Americano has demonstrated that now he is neither ignorant nor mentally feeble. The only conclusion left is that Americano is guilty of stubborn malignance. This type of obstinancy and obstructionism by the wing nut reactionary right will result this fall in a massive success for the moderates and liberals.

Nah, he just didn't read far enough into the case he chose to use in support of his argument. It's tempting to read until you find something that supports your view and stop there. Unfortunately the way these things work that method is rarely if ever correct. I wouldn't call it "malignant", "ignorant" or "mentally feeble", just taking a shortcut that leads to the wrong place. It happens to all of us sometimes.

 

[JakeStarkey]

OK, goldcatt, we can give him the benefit of the doubt. But it is fun to watch him bounce of the wall when he is smashed on the back hand. He gets really angry.

 

[MaggieMae]

Years ago I would have thought anyone who proposed this was some kind of asshole but I am beginning to see the light after seeing why Obama got elected and people who actually thought Obama was going to drop money into their lap. Its really disgusting when you see people vote believing that the government will give them things.

At least they were voting and not lining the pockets of some lawmaker in exchange for some really BIG favor.

 

[MaggieMae]

That's a little rough, don't you think? The right to vote is one of our most important. Not all people on welfare are deadbeats ... I know, they're in the 5% group. Some of these people are grandparents who are now raising their grandchildren because the parents are doped up, in prison, dead or whatever. Some people are severely disabled and will never be able to contribute to society. Some are people who are genuinely poor, but still good citizens to the best of their ability - in other words, they do what they can to comfort or aid the people of their community. Good example: the WV miners who were recently killed - their families may have to temporarily take some welfare aid. Right now, there are God only knows how many people who are without jobs and have been thrust into a position they would never have dreamed they would be in.

Also, just because someone doesn't own property does not mean they should be denied the right to vote. It could be they live in a city where apartments are a necessity - or it could be they just don't want to own property because they either can't afford it or don't have the time to keep it up.

The right to vote is not universal or felons would have the same right to do so. We restrict the right to vote to people for various reasons because if we allowed felons to vote they would vote out laws restricting their freedom to rape, murder, rob, and so forth. We should begin discussing if we should allow those who recieve welfare the privelage to vote because they are beginning to vote away other people's money.

Those who don't own property are not a drain on the system. They are just poor and are not asking for public money so I don't see why they should be denied the right to vote.

Your logic seems to imply that felons would somehow be able to get such issues on a ballot and be highly influential in passage of laws which would favor their situation. Huh? How likely is that? Regardless what someone might be imprisoned for, if they are natural born citizens, they have a Constitutional RIGHT to vote. Period.

The rest of your post makes no sense. It appears now you'd like to split the have-nots class between the sorta-have nots and the really-have nots. Again, if they are legal citizens, they have the right to vote.

 

[MaggieMae]

That's a little rough, don't you think? The right to vote is one of our most important. Not all people on welfare are deadbeats ... I know, they're in the 5% group. Some of these people are grandparents who are now raising their grandchildren because the parents are doped up, in prison, dead or whatever. Some people are severely disabled and will never be able to contribute to society. Some are people who are genuinely poor, but still good citizens to the best of their ability - in other words, they do what they can to comfort or aid the people of their community. Good example: the WV miners who were recently killed - their families may have to temporarily take some welfare aid. Right now, there are God only knows how many people who are without jobs and have been thrust into a position they would never have dreamed they would be in.

Also, just because someone doesn't own property does not mean they should be denied the right to vote. It could be they live in a city where apartments are a necessity - or it could be they just don't want to own property because they either can't afford it or don't have the time to keep it up.

The right to vote is not universal or felons would have the same right to do so. We restrict the right to vote to people for various reasons because if we allowed felons to vote they would vote out laws restricting their freedom to rape, murder, rob, and so forth. We should begin discussing if we should allow those who recieve welfare the privelage to vote because they are beginning to vote away other people's money.

Those who don't own property are not a drain on the system. They are just poor and are not asking for public money so I don't see why they should be denied the right to vote.

"The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College." - SCOTUS, December 12, 2000

I believe the court was addressing electoral DELEGATES, not voting at the booth.

 

[MaggieMae]

it is speaking about the electoral college....the state has the power to choose their electoral college NOT the people through a right to vote for each elector chosen....??? no???

YES!!!

I find it "amusing" how they will scurry to find some statement or clause to support their ill-conceived positions on certain things, then come up with something obscure which has nothing to do with the discussion.

 

[MaggieMae]

it is speaking about the electoral college....the state has the power to choose their electoral college NOT the people through a right to vote for each elector chosen....??? no???

No. Read the bold part. It's self explanatory.

[Sigh...] Here is the self-explanatory part that you apparently keep missing:

"The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College." - SCOTUS, December 12, 2000

Individual citizens do NOT choose electoral delegates, which in a presidential election, is that political body that confirms the winner and loser of the popular vote, BY STATE.

 

[Ame®icano]

She didn't say anything different then I. Read it yourself.

Yes, the States are not required to allow their residents to vote for Presidential Electors. However, once the Legislature has in fact granted that right it must be applied evenly to all citizens or violate the 14th's Equal Protection Clause.

Actually, it is different. Go over that second part again. The fact is all States allow citizens to vote for Electors, and I can't see that changing at this point even if technically it's allowed. Could you imagine the outcry over taking away the right to vote for President?

But there is nothing here to justify restricting the franchise on the basis of financial status, ability to pay, employment status, or any other way you try to look at welfare recipients. One person, one vote, no exceptions.

And to head off the felon argument, that's based on a different rationale, line of cases and power altogether.

You can't see it changing, but it doesn't mean states can't change it.

You said it yourself: "technically it's allowed". I am not questioning your opinion on should state election law be changed, I am saying that states has right to change the law and it CAN be changed withing constitutional boundaries.

Also, you're saying that there is nothing to justify restrictions but there is nothing that is saying that restrictions can't be implemented. In fact every state has voting rules and most of them are implementing restrictions of some kind. For example, in New York no ID is required at the polls, some counties in Alabama require oral exam about the Constitution when registering, in Virginia, Florida, Kentucky and one more state (don't remember) felons are banned from voting for life, Minnesota allows same day registration as voting...

All those rules/restrictions are legal and constitutional. Could I imagine taking away my right to vote? As long is constitutional, yes.

 

[Ame®icano]

OK, goldcatt, we can give him the benefit of the doubt. But it is fun to watch him bounce of the wall when he is smashed on the back hand. He gets really angry.

First, I can't imagine that someone thoughtless as you cant put yourself together along with anyone, yet with goldcatt who, unlike you, has brains. While I don't agree with her political views, she's definitely capable of intelligent conversation. With you I don't agree simply because you're moron.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, Americano, the states have not the power to disenfrancise citizens except in specific disabilities. Being on welfare is not one of those disabilities. To make it so would be the worst sort of activism in more than a century, and the courts would find such legislation to be unconstitutional.

 

[JakeStarkey]

OK, goldcatt, we can give him the benefit of the doubt. But it is fun to watch him bounce of the wall when he is smashed on the back hand. He gets really angry.

First, I can't imagine that someone thoughtless as you cant put yourself together along with anyone, yet with goldcatt who, unlike you, has brains. While I don't agree with her political views, she's definitely capable of intelligent conversation. With you I don't agree simply because you're moron.

You prove my point: you can't argue well or consistently.

 

[Ame®icano]

it is speaking about the electoral college....the state has the power to choose their electoral college NOT the people through a right to vote for each elector chosen....??? no???

No. Read the bold part. It's self explanatory.

[Sigh...] Here is the self-explanatory part that you apparently keep missing:

"The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College." - SCOTUS, December 12, 2000

Individual citizens do NOT choose electoral delegates, which in a presidential election, is that political body that confirms the winner and loser of the popular vote, BY STATE.

Now, explain who has that power.

 

[Care4all]

The state appoints electors according to how they determine, based on the popular vote within the state.

Most states, after their popular vote, send all of their allotted electors, all in the same party of the winner of the popular vote, in their state.

a Couple of states have changed or are trying to change their system where, the popular vote proportionately determines the electors sent, where the electors from the party line popular vote are the ones sent off to vote for the President so there are both Democratic electors and Republican electors sent off to vote for the President.