Voting age!

[S. Hunter]

A very good point. I picked eighteen and said "because you're legally an adult" because truly universal suffrage - which would include five-year-olds, et cetera - would be pointless. So the point when you get to do pretty much everything else, seemed a pretty good arbitrary age to start.

Suffrage for those who can make educated decisions would be good. I'd personally lower it to 16, maybe 15. I doubt that the government is gonna tax or draft 5 year olds. :-D

[Soldier]

Okay, so define now who can make educated decisions or not. I'd say most ten-year-olds can. How well? Don't know. How do you intend to measure that?

And why change it by just a few years? If it's a small amount like that, why not leave well enough alone?

[Rogue]

Actually, it goes beyond that. As voting is considered a fundamental right, a citizen cannot be disenfranchised unless it is necessary to promote a compelling state interest.

--Philistine

Where is that fundamental right in the constitution?
I'll help you, it's not there.

[Army Fencer]

It's interesting to me that most of the people on this board think their age should vote, but people younger than them shouldn't. I think that the older we get the more we realize how much we didn't know and how much less mature we were. We never think that we are too immature for anything, because we don't know what we're capable of in the future.

[S. Hunter]

Where is that fundamental right in the constitution?

Rights are given by God(/nature), the constitution just states SOME of them. We have rights not in the constitution. I believe you fail to recognize the founder's purpose and logic in the constitution.

(PS: We HAVE to vote for house representitives at the LEAST. Thats the ONLY way they can be picked. Directly by us. Senate, no. Executive, no. Judicial, No. House == WE HAVE TO VOTE 4 TEHM!)

[D+F+P=Hadouken!]

You should be able to choose who's agenda you die for. If you can be recruited or enlist, then you should be able to vote.

[Rogue]

Rights are given by God(/nature), the constitution just states SOME of them. We have rights not in the constitution. I believe you fail to recognize the founder's purpose and logic in the constitution.

The founders "rightly" (lol) left the voting requirements up to the states by ommision.

(PS: We HAVE to vote for house representitives at the LEAST. Thats the ONLY way they can be picked. Directly by us. Senate, no. Executive, no. Judicial, No. House == WE HAVE TO VOTE 4 TEHM!)

Sorry, there is no right to vote. Requirements for voting can be set by law. Such as you have to be 18 or you can't vote if you’re a convicted felon.
I believe the law should be that persons should have to pass an abridged citizenry test (like the one immigrants take to become citizens) every time they renew their driver’s license in order to be allowed to vote. An ignorant voter is dangerous.

BTW, I agree rights come from God. But some "rights", like the "right" to drive a car are defined by the state.

[S. Hunter]

"Clause 1: The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature."

Chosen by the people is voting. Chosen by the legislature is not voting - We have the right to elect house reps. The legislature chooses how we pick presidential electors. If you are going to argue that choosing house reps is not a constitutional right, then it can only be construed as a REQUIREMENT, and as such we would have to force everyone to vote.

I believe the law should be that persons should have to pass an abridged citizenry test (like the one immigrants take to become citizens) every time they renew their driver’s license in order to be allowed to vote. An ignorant voter is dangerous.

That defeats the purpose. You might as well have a democracy if we are going to do that - And democracies are BAD! Repbublics solve that by electing people who will account for our stupidity and protect us from it. The republican system becomes usesless if we are going to, in effect by making them take a test, choose special electors who are in some way more qualified than others as it adds an additional layer than can easily be corrupted.

BTW, I agree rights come from God. But some "rights", like the "right" to drive a car are defined by the state.

The state cannot regulate your right to drive a car unless you submit partial ownership to them to register. If you have the manufacturer's statement of origin, they own none of your car and as such cannot regulate it. Its very similar to allodial title for property. The government acutally owns your car and your land to a degree, and can charge you rent for using it through taxes. Its late and I'll talk more later.

[S. Hunter]

Oh ja, and there is a god given right to property, which is a car, and the right to use that property in a morally responsible manner. Driving without a liscense is not morally irresponsible unless you are not qualified, so nothing from god prevents you from drivin' without one. (When I say god, I don't mean like bible law, I mean that god has endowed us with rights since our creation that are self evident in every form that they manifest themselves. The constitution guarantees them. The constitution also guarantees a de facto right to property, as it gives us the government as our property.)

(r= god
If atheist:
r = nature)

[Rogue]

"Clause 1: The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature."

Chosen by the people is voting. Chosen by the legislature is not voting - We have the right to elect house reps. The legislature chooses how we pick presidential electors. If you are going to argue that choosing house reps is not a constitutional right, then it can only be construed as a REQUIREMENT, and as such we would have to force everyone to vote.

The requirements for being able to vote, as long as it doesn't go against the 15th, 19th, and 26th Amendments, can be established by law. If that were not the case we would not have an age limit nor could we keep felons from voting.

That defeats the purpose. You might as well have a democracy if we are going to do that - And democracies are BAD! Repbublics solve that by electing people who will account for our stupidity and protect us from it. The republican system becomes usesless if we are going to, in effect by making them take a test, choose special electors who are in some way more qualified than others as it adds an additional layer than can easily be corrupted.

That's all well and good. (except the "our stupidity" remark ?) That doesn't change the fact that, if the state Legislature wanted it could set rules for being eligable to vote. And I think standards should be set for people to be eligable to vote. Just like you have to be gennerally competent, at least pass a test and don't get to many tickets, to drive a car.

The state cannot regulate your right to drive a car unless you submit partial ownership to them to register. If you have the manufacturer's statement of origin, they own none of your car and as such cannot regulate it. Its very similar to allodial title for property. The government acutally owns your car and your land to a degree, and can charge you rent for using it through taxes. Its late and I'll talk more later.

You can own all the cars you want but if you don't get the states permission to drive on public streets, via a drivers license, they can arrest you.

[Rogue]

Driving without a liscense is not morally irresponsible ...

It's just illegal.

[ls14evar]

So for the 0.0001% of 15-16 olds that might handling voting intelligently and responsibility, we should risk the rest? Doesnt sound like a good deal to me.

Honestly, Id be all for restricting voting rights more than they already are. Most of the people in this country are utterly incapable of making intelligent decisions in elections.

[miyamoto]

BTW, I agree rights come from God. But some "rights", like the "right" to drive a car are defined by the state.

Driving is a privilege, not a right.

That's the first line of all the driving handbooks I've seen.

[Rogue]

Driving is a privilege, not a right.

That's the first line of all the driving handbooks I've seen.

Please note the "" around the word right.

[Rogue]

So for the 0.0001% of 15-16 olds that might handling voting intelligently and responsibility, we should risk the rest? Doesnt sound like a good deal to me.

Honestly, Id be all for restricting voting rights more than they already are. Most of the people in this country are utterly incapable of making intelligent decisions in elections.

How about having to pass a civics exam every time a person renews their drivers license in order to vote.
Or, only persons who pay income taxes (not FICA) can vote.

[KShan5[PrFC]]

It's interesting to me that most of the people on this board think their age should vote, but people younger than them shouldn't. I think that the older we get the more we realize how much we didn't know and how much less mature we were. We never think that we are too immature for anything, because we don't know what we're capable of in the future.

Well, I think my age should be able to vote (17). But I don't have a problem with 18 being the number, because once you chose 17 you'll have to chose 16 then 15 etc.

[lochinvar]

It's interesting to me that most of the people on this board think their age should vote, but people younger than them shouldn't. I think that the older we get the more we realize how much we didn't know and how much less mature we were. We never think that we are too immature for anything, because we don't know what we're capable of in the future.

True. When I was 17 I KNEW I had the world figured out. Now, I'm not so sure...
But I don't have a problem with people younger than me voting--otherwise, the electorate would shrink dramatically! (As George Burns once said, 'I'd date women my own age, but there aren't any women my own age.') I just think it should be "not as much younger than me as it is now".

[S. Hunter]

It's just illegal.

Mayhaps you are not understanding that with a constitutional right to property, the law that gives the government to regulate property that is completely yours is unconsitutional. This is equivilant to the government telling you that you need a license to use a toothbrush, or a license to talk (Your body is your property :-)) Driving without a license is NOT illegal if you actually go through the motions to get the car as completely your property. And about public streets: Public means you own them. The 'Government' doesn't own anything, its shared amongst the people.

The requirements for being able to vote, as long as it doesn't go against the 15th, 19th, and 26th Amendments, can be established by law. If that were not the case we would not have an age limit nor could we keep felons from voting.

Actually, on a federal level, that is thoroughly unconstitutional as they haven't given themselves the power to regulate who can vote. To be fair, I'm rather extremist on this, and congress seems to pass MANY laws that are unconstitutional, but according to the text, congress only has the power to:

"Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof. "

On a state level, if the state constitution allows it though, It is fine to regulate who can vote. I am just opposed to your rather extreme narrowing of it down, as it would reduce voter registration to probably aroun 5% and turn this country into a de facto oligarchy.

[prototoast]

To be fair, I'm rather extremist on this, and congress seems to pass MANY laws that are unconstitutional, but according to the text, congress only has the power to:

The 10th Ammendment is also important, as it basically says that the Feds can't (well, apparently they can) do anything not specified in the Constitution.

[Rogue]

The Fed government has definitly grown out of its constitutional boundaries. Only because We the people have allowed it to. Because the Feds are doing it for our best interest. ( and to buy votes from the ones benefiting frm the bloated Fed Gov.)

I don't know about PA, but it illegal to drive without a drivers license in OK.