Repeal of a Constitutional Amendment?

DGS49

Diamond Member
Apr 12, 2012
16,443
14,418
2,415
Pittsburgh
Well, it has happened before. The Volstead Act - that is, the 18th Amendment to the Constitution - was repealed after about 14 years, when "we" Americans saw that it simply wasn't working. It actually made things worse, and ultimately led to the election of JFK.

Is it not clear by now that the 26th Amendment, granting the right to vote to citizens between the ages of 18 and 21, was also a serious mistake?

In fact, the "game" has changed significantly since 1971 when the 26th was ratified. I count myself among the "victims" whose interests were paramount when this Amendment was debated and passed: I was a soldier fighting in Vietnam* during all of 1970 and part of 1971, and not yet able to vote. The unfairness of it was shocking, to say the least. (Nor could I legally purchase and drink a beer, but that's another subject).

"How could we possibly," it was asked, "expect young men to fight and die for their Country without at least giving them a say in who runs it?" This question was considered particularly poignant when considering those who were drafted into military service, and I suppose it was. (I enlisted).

But the draft is dead and although one should never say, "never," when it comes to political stuff, the draft will NEVER be instituted over the objections of our American Soccer Moms and Helicopter Parents, so the core rationale for the 26th Amendment has basically gone, "poof." It wasn't passed with college students in mind, or high school dropouts. It was soldiers in Vietnam.

Certainly, even in 1971 "we" were not naive enough to think that 18-21 year olds had enough wisdom or life experience to cast rational votes. People simply thought that it was unfair to be forced into the military service and not have the right to vote. But we can now definitively say that these youngsters, to the extent that they DO vote (thankfully, not much), are often even more influenced than actual adults by fatuous charlatan candidates who promise an end to war, poverty, ignorance, pollution, AIDS, and hunger - or to legalize recreational drugs.

The current trend in our culture is for our Youth to defer actual adulthood until later and later in life, but there can be no doubt that it is "better" for voters to have had not only a goodly number of years of formal education, but also some years of Life experience, and possibly that they have WORKED to support themselves, and done a few things outside the protective ambit of their parents' domicile.

I haven't done the research, but I suspect that the percentage of, say 19-year-olds, who are financially emancipated from their parents (or worse, the Government) is at an all-time low. Do we really want these superannuated children (18-21) DECIDING WHO THE NEXT PRESIDENT WILL BE? It could easily turn out that way. John Stewart might run. Imagine that.

Are we mature enough as a country to say, "We fucked up," and end this experiment that creates a pretense of adulthood in people whose main concern in life is what their friends are saying about them on electronic media? I would hope so.

Repeal that sucker.
______________________
*I'm taking HUGE liberties with this word. I was a personnel clerk - an archtypal REMF.
 
The only thing in the way of a socialist Hussein slam bang is that pesky Bill 'O Rights. No wonder they want to revise the freedoms.
 
I've found younger people who understood Constitutional duties and principles.
I've found older people who still have no clue they are violating religious beliefs
by pushing their own political beliefs; or have no clue what "due process" means.

So the issue is not just about age, but whether citizens, politicians and OFFICIALS
themselves have an agreed understanding of Constitutional laws and process.

If they don't agree what the standards are, no difference in age is going to fix that.
If they do understand what the standards are, they can be in their 20's and still be
legally competent and responsible citizens.

Why not organize people by party and by class level, so until people have service experience either as police, military or govt administration, they can equally access assistance to participate in democratic process; and if they pass higher levels of proficiency, then they access even more direct representation, such as using guns for law enforcement, and participating directly in legal or legislative processes, etc.

Well, it has happened before. The Volstead Act - that is, the 18th Amendment to the Constitution - was repealed after about 14 years, when "we" Americans saw that it simply wasn't working. It actually made things worse, and ultimately led to the election of JFK.

Is it not clear by now that the 26th Amendment, granting the right to vote to citizens between the ages of 18 and 21, was also a serious mistake?

In fact, the "game" has changed significantly since 1971 when the 26th was ratified. I count myself among the "victims" whose interests were paramount when this Amendment was debated and passed: I was a soldier fighting in Vietnam* during all of 1970 and part of 1971, and not yet able to vote. The unfairness of it was shocking, to say the least. (Nor could I legally purchase and drink a beer, but that's another subject).

"How could we possibly," it was asked, "expect young men to fight and die for their Country without at least giving them a say in who runs it?" This question was considered particularly poignant when considering those who were drafted into military service, and I suppose it was. (I enlisted).

But the draft is dead and although one should never say, "never," when it comes to political stuff, the draft will NEVER be instituted over the objections of our American Soccer Moms and Helicopter Parents, so the core rationale for the 26th Amendment has basically gone, "poof." It wasn't passed with college students in mind, or high school dropouts. It was soldiers in Vietnam.

Certainly, even in 1971 "we" were not naive enough to think that 18-21 year olds had enough wisdom or life experience to cast rational votes. People simply thought that it was unfair to be forced into the military service and not have the right to vote. But we can now definitively say that these youngsters, to the extent that they DO vote (thankfully, not much), are often even more influenced than actual adults by fatuous charlatan candidates who promise an end to war, poverty, ignorance, pollution, AIDS, and hunger - or to legalize recreational drugs.

The current trend in our culture is for our Youth to defer actual adulthood until later and later in life, but there can be no doubt that it is "better" for voters to have had not only a goodly number of years of formal education, but also some years of Life experience, and possibly that they have WORKED to support themselves, and done a few things outside the protective ambit of their parents' domicile.

I haven't done the research, but I suspect that the percentage of, say 19-year-olds, who are financially emancipated from their parents (or worse, the Government) is at an all-time low. Do we really want these superannuated children (18-21) DECIDING WHO THE NEXT PRESIDENT WILL BE? It could easily turn out that way. John Stewart might run. Imagine that.

Are we mature enough as a country to say, "We fucked up," and end this experiment that creates a pretense of adulthood in people whose main concern in life is what their friends are saying about them on electronic media? I would hope so.

Repeal that sucker.
______________________
*I'm taking HUGE liberties with this word. I was a personnel clerk - an archtypal REMF.
 
Why talking about changing the nature of democracy, should mention how the voting age should be lowered as well. Can't drive a car until 16, enlist in the military at 17, but not vote until 18? Paint me a picture how that makes sense.
 

Forum List

Back
Top