Voting age!

[Rogue]

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:

The power to regulate who can vote resides in the States,10th adm. , as long as the before mentioned ameds. are not broken.

[S. Hunter]

The power to regulate who can vote resides in the States,10th adm. , as long as the before mentioned ameds. are not broken.

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.

Me am not sayink it do not beink so.

[jeff]

Coincidence time - on the Libertarian thread I just posted about what I've just learned from one of their videos, including the claim that drivers licenses are not needed, and that the laws requiring them are unconstitutional.

The Constitutional argument is bogus: the Constitution says nothing about state laws regulating automobiles or a thousand other details of life. It's absurd to think that these laws stand and are in effect in all 50 states, yet are unconstitutional. Baloney: the laws stand, and are recognised universally. No challenge to them has won.

The argument that "the roads belong to the people" and therefore no registration or license is needed to drive them, is also baloney: We The People have decided through our government to regulate how they're funded, managed, and used. That includes the rules requiring licenses.

The argument that it's based on properly establishing the ownership of the vehicle is also baloney: it's not upheld by any court decision, is it? In fact - just go build your own car from a kit or spare parts - so there's no question of having bought it and having to establish title - and you still require a license and registration. Oh, and passing an emissions test too.

These claims about entire sections of the law being illegal are amazing. The laws are on the books, never challenged in any serious way, and these laws are enforced, and penalties for violators upheld. Claiming that the law is somehow is illegal is just dreaming

[S. Hunter]

Wow, Looks like jeff took some time of from bashing conservatives to assault us liberty loving folk.

The argument that "the roads belong to the people" and therefore no registration or license is needed to drive them, is also baloney: We The People have decided through our government to regulate how they're funded, managed, and used. That includes the rules requiring licenses.

Many state constitutions have limits on government privledge that the regulation violates. We The People are not allowed to decide against the surpeme law of our lands, this isn't a democracy.

The argument that it's based on properly establishing the ownership of the vehicle is also baloney: it's not upheld by any court decision, is it? In fact - just go build your own car from a kit or spare parts - so there's no question of having bought it and having to establish title - and you still require a license and registration. Oh, and passing an emissions test too.

These claims about entire sections of the law being illegal are amazing. The laws are on the books, never challenged in any serious way, and these laws are enforced, and penalties for violators upheld. Claiming that the law is somehow is illegal is just dreaming

I am not quite sure what you are claiming. Would you agree with a law that banned free speech, if it was upheld by the supreme court and had the general support of the people? If it was never challenged in a serious way, would you sit idly and accept it as the aboslute law of the land? Claiming the unconstitutionality of a law is not dreaming, it is stating something that is a heartfelt belief. You seem to be arguing that because a small percentage of the population believes this that it is actually untrue, and not acutally offering any edvidence besides "Oh, we've done it for so long and people dont' really mind" that it is actually wrong.

[jBirch]

This is a great sound-bite slogan, but nonsense, because the requisite qualifications needed in a good soldier are not the same qualification desired in a responsible voter.

The army likes them young (17-18, 19 at the most) because recruits in that age range are EASIER TO MOLD into the Army Way of Thinking. Psychologically, they respond better to peer pressure and adapt easier to blind obedience to orders, unlike their somewhat older counterparts, say 22-24 age range. (This difference was pointed up sharply during the Vietnam conflict, where a lot of draftees were college drop-outs, flunk-outs, or graduates who were no longer able to justify a student deferrment.)

I don't know about you, but I don't consider those qualities optimum for informed choice.

I disagree that the voting age should be established by those most likely to vote intelligently. As soon as you go down that road, you get into questions like minimum education, social background, money, etc... that preclude the notion of universal sufferage.

At the age of 17 you can make your first decision as an adult, to join the military or not join the military, against the wishes of your parents. If you can choose to serve your country then you should also be able to participate in the process of electing and choosing those people who will be determining the meaning of your service. Further, as a soldier you have given an oath to defend your country and to look out for its interests. As a non-voting member, how can you exercise that responsibility? Before most non-military types can vote, they need only be citizens, not sworn members of the State. Now, if you believe that the minimum age for military service should similarly be raised to 25, then I agree with setting that as the age for voting. I also agree with setting the age at 25 for the civvie populace but at 17 for service members. I do also believe that military service should be a requirement for running for an elected position and that that service is open to every citizen, regardless of disability.

My position is just that you should not be able to do one without also being able to do the other. Choosing to serve puts you, by definition, in a more civic minded position then choosing not to serve.

Hope this helps.

[Rogue]

Me am not sayink it do not beink so.

Sorry for my poor attention to your post prior to my repy.


What's narrow about what I would prefer the voting regulations to be?
Civics exam every 4 years.
and/or
Only people who pay for the Fed Government (income tax) can vote.
Sorry you think the number of voters will be to small.
Any citizen could qualify, if they really wanted to vote.

[S. Hunter]

Rogue: After thinking a lil, its probably a good idea after all. There are way to many dumb people, and as a plus, libertarians would make up an even larger percent of the vote!

[lochinvar]

(snip)
At the age of 17 you can make your first decision as an adult, to join the military or not join the military, against the wishes of your parents. If you can choose to serve your country then you should also be able to participate in the process of electing and choosing those people who will be determining the meaning of your service.

I think you're ignoring the obverse of this logic. The knife cuts both ways: If you feel it unfair to have to put your life on the line without voting for your representative, you are perfectly free not to join the military. That so many do so despite the full knowledge that they can't vote seems to me to argue against your position.

(snip) Now, if you believe that the minimum age for military service should similarly be raised to 25, then I agree with setting that as the age for voting.

I'll posit a third choice: Set the minimum age for volunteering for military service at 25. Then both positions are served. (The government is still allowed to introduce extreme measures during time of war, like drafting 17-yr olds.)

I also agree with setting the age at 25 for the civvie populace but at 17 for service members. I do also believe that military service should be a requirement for running for an elected position and that that service is open to every citizen, regardless of disability.

Can we say, "Starship Troopers"? Bob Heinlein would have loved you...

My position is just that you should not be able to do one without also being able to do the other. Choosing to serve puts you, by definition, in a more civic minded position then choosing not to serve.

You make it sound as if all those who serve in the military have been forced into service, and so should have a vote. Such is not the case. As stated before, many have chosen to serve with full knowledge that they cannot vote. Such a free choice is, in my opinion, forfeits the right to object to it later.

And I disagree with the idea that militay service is ipso facto a "civic-minded" decision. For a lot of soldiers in the US, it was just an easy way to pay for college. The Iraq situation and the fact that they suddenly actually have to--heaven forbid!--serve came as a rude surprise for many of these 'citizen-soldiers', to the extent that their 'civic-mindedness' is leading them to forgo re-enlistment in droves.

[jeff]

Wow, Looks like jeff took some time of from bashing conservatives to assault us liberty loving folk.

I assault any ideas I think silly. Don't you?

Many state constitutions have limits on government privledge that the regulation violates. We The People are not allowed to decide against the surpeme law of our lands, this isn't a democracy.

Examples, please? What supreme law do you have in mind? Are you claiming that We The People can't vote the bastards out if we hate 'em, have their replacements appoint new judges that go our way?

I am not quite sure what you are claiming. Would you agree with a law that banned free speech, if it was upheld by the supreme court and had the general support of the people? If it was never challenged in a serious way, would you sit idly and accept it as the aboslute law of the land? Claiming the unconstitutionality of a law is not dreaming, it is stating something that is a heartfelt belief. You seem to be arguing that because a small percentage of the population believes this that it is actually untrue, and not acutally offering any edvidence besides "Oh, we've done it for so long and people dont' really mind" that it is actually wrong.

On your initial point, sadly, people often do support bans and limitations on free speech. It has happened in this electoral season, where protesters were confined to "free speech zones" far away from where they would be seen. I'm not in favor of banning free speech - you better not imply that I am!

What I'm saying is that your belief that something is unconstitutional is wishful thinking, mere fantasy, until there's case law that accepts it. Got any judgements or precedents? This is like the people who claim that Income Tax is unconstitutional, or that a fringe on a US flag in a courtroom makes court procedings illegal. Once in a while one of these cases comes up and they always lose. They literally have no basis in law. You seem to mistake the fact that yours is the small percentage of the population, and that many well-reasoned cases in law have already decided against you. In the meantime, drive around without a license, and get fined or thrown into jail. It will be completely legal - and right, to boot.

[Philistine]

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

Through the provisions which call for the people to vote for senators and representatives, and further in Article IV, Section 4: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government...."

No right is identified by the Constitution as a "fundamental right." That is, however, a term of art used by the Supreme Court which has long considered voting to be a "fundamental right."

Who and under what situations a person may vote has always been a state issue (so long as it does not conflict with the Federal Constitution). Other than age--federal law does not disenfranchise anyone.

You can quibble with the definition of "fundamental right" if you like--or you can say nowhere does the constitution say "voting is a fundamental right", but I would be surprised to find any judge, at any level anwhere who would not agree that voting is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution.

--Philistine

[jBirch]

I think you're ignoring the obverse of this logic. The knife cuts both ways: If you feel it unfair to have to put your life on the line without voting for your representative, you are perfectly free not to join the military. That so many do so despite the full knowledge that they can't vote seems to me to argue against your position.

No, this seems to me to say that it is more important to some to serve then it is to be able to influence the people who dictate where and when you serve. I believe that you should not have to choose one or the other.

I'll posit a third choice: Set the minimum age for volunteering for military service at 25. Then both positions are served. (The government is still allowed to introduce extreme measures during time of war, like drafting 17-yr olds.)

Sounds reasonable. I agree.

Can we say, "Starship Troopers"? Bob Heinlein would have loved you...

I grok you. Starship troopers is actually where I was first exposed to the idea and the rationale. I agree with it, though not in its extreme. For those of you who have only seen the movie and/or not read the book, the idea is that in order to have the priviledge to vote you must have military service. The rationale is that only those who are willing to serve the state, and willing to sacrifice in the best interests of the state, are going to exercise their vote with care towards what they believe is in the best interest of the state. If you are just going to throw your vote away and/or not vote at all, then there is really no benefit to you having the ability to vote in the first place. You have to earn the priviledge to vote, not be given the right. It's an intriguing concept.

You make it sound as if all those who serve in the military have been forced into service, and so should have a vote. Such is not the case. As stated before, many have chosen to serve with full knowledge that they cannot vote. Such a free choice is, in my opinion, forfeits the right to object to it later.

Then I miscommunicated. I simply believe that there is no point in allowing someone to serve and die and not to vote. It is dishonourable on the state's part.

And I disagree with the idea that militay service is ipso facto a "civic-minded" decision. For a lot of soldiers in the US, it was just an easy way to pay for college. The Iraq situation and the fact that they suddenly actually have to--heaven forbid!--serve came as a rude surprise for many of these 'citizen-soldiers', to the extent that their 'civic-mindedness' is leading them to forgo re-enlistment in droves.

Well, this is a US problem then. If the drive to recruit is such that people who don't want to be there are in uniform then there is something wrong. A soldier is, in my view, the ultimate citizen. That some would freeride on the responsibility is repugnant.

Just my thoughts at any rate. I'm Canadian so you have to be really motivated to serve in our units. The government might cover your beer expenses if you're really frugal. *grin*

Take it easy.

[R. Exnicios]

these number just don't add up.

18 to vote.
18 to got to war.
16-17 to drive.
21 to drink.


16 to be sentenced to death!

R

[miyamoto]

Well, this is a US problem then. If the drive to recruit is such that people who don't want to be there are in uniform then there is something wrong. A soldier is, in my view, the ultimate citizen. That some would freeride on the responsibility is repugnant.

Just my thoughts at any rate. I'm Canadian so you have to be really motivated to serve in our units. The government might cover your beer expenses if you're really frugal. *grin*

Take it easy.

I went to school with a couple of guys who had served in the Military. One explained it to me like so, 'The largest group consisted of guys like me. Scared kids who joined to learn, get out, and go to school. Then there were the guys we stayed away from, the ones that enjoyed it. They scared us. Lastly, the idealistic ones. The ones that really believed. I never decided which was scarier...'

Having met a number of people in the military since then, I realize that he was making a large generalization, but his statement has stuck with me, and has some truth to the types of people that join the US military.

[jBirch]

I went to school with a couple of guys who had served in the Military. One explained it to me like so, 'The largest group consisted of guys like me. Scared kids who joined to learn, get out, and go to school. Then there were the guys we stayed away from, the ones that enjoyed it. They scared us. Lastly, the idealistic ones. The ones that really believed. I never decided which was scarier...'

Having met a number of people in the military since then, I realize that he was making a large generalization, but his statement has stuck with me, and has some truth to the types of people that join the US military.

Cool. Never knew that. In Canada it is very difficult to get the military to give you any special money towards your education. However, our university bills are typically significantly less then what you guys pay. I went to a prestiguous university and paid only $3500 CAD / year + books in tuition. That summer, as an infantry private, I made ~$5000 for 3 months work. Friends of mine made significantly more doing other things (waiting tables and bartending, come to mind), so the army wasn't the most ideal way to make coin for university.

I trained with a bunch of national guards, regular force army and marine guys and was dismayed at the disparity between our private / corporals and theirs. NCO's and officers seemed to be about the same (though our officers tended to party harder then theirs). Another note was the rank difference: our master corporals were filling slots that their sergeants were. Definitely had cooler equipment then us but our troops just seemed to be more "army". I never could figure out that difference and you just explained that disparity for me.

Thanks.

Take it easy.

[Army Fencer]

I also agree with setting the age at 25 for the civvie populace but at 17 for service members.

As a member of the military, I disagree strongly. We move around so much that neither I nor my peers in the military have a vested interest in local politics. The lowest resolution we care about is the state level.

[jBirch]

As a member of the military, I disagree strongly. We move around so much that neither I nor my peers in the military have a vested interest in local politics. The lowest resolution we care about is the state level.

I'm sorry, I must have missed something. Is the voting age different for different levels of government? It seems obvious that no member of the military is going to care about and vote in municipal / local elections. For starters, many live on base and I don't think that any military base I'm aware of has a mayor or bylaws so, for many troops, there's no one to vote for! Many are very interested in (and highly conversant in) federal level elections and election issues. Why can they not vote?

[Rogue]

You can quibble with the definition of "fundamental right" if you like--or you can say nowhere does the constitution say "voting is a fundamental right", but I would be surprised to find any judge, at any level anwhere who would not agree that voting is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution.

--Philistine

Please see Supreme court decision Bush v. Gore 2000

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. U.S. Const., Art. II, §1. This is the source for the statement in McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 35 (1892), that the State legislature’s power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary; it may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself, which indeed was the manner used by State legislatures in several States for many years after the Framing of our Constitution. Id., at 28—33. History has now favored the voter, and in each of the several States the citizens themselves vote for Presidential electors. When the state legislature vests the right to vote for President in its people, the right to vote as the legislature has prescribed is fundamental; and one source of its fundamental nature lies in the equal weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter. The State, of course, after granting the franchise in the special context of Article II, can take back the power to appoint electors. See id., at 35 (“[T]here is no doubt of the right of the legislature to resume the power at any time, for it can neither be taken away nor abdicated”) (quoting S. Rep. No. 395, 43d Cong., 1st Sess.).

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html

[Army Fencer]

I'm sorry, I must have missed something. Is the voting age different for different levels of government? It seems obvious that no member of the military is going to care about and vote in municipal / local elections. For starters, many live on base and I don't think that any military base I'm aware of has a mayor or bylaws so, for many troops, there's no one to vote for! Many are very interested in (and highly conversant in) federal level elections and election issues. Why can they not vote?

It's not why in the military shouldn't vote, it's why people between 17-25 who are not military should be allowed to vote.

I live in Washington, DC, yet I vote in the desert highlands of Victorville, CA. I have no clue who the mayor is, and I really don't care because it doesn't effect me one way or another. On the other hand, a person my age (I'm show my youth, sheez ) living in Victorville is going to have a much greater vested interest in who gets elected. No, suggesting that only military between 17-25 be allowed to vote is absurd.

[Philistine]

Please see Supreme court decision Bush v. Gore 2000

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. U.S. Const., Art. II, §1.
{snip}

Which is why, way back on page 1 iof this thread, in my first post I said: "Direct voting for president is not a right established by the federal constitution. However, voting for the Senate and the House is firmly established by the Constitution."

--Philistine

[Inquartata]

I simply believe that there is no point in allowing someone to serve and die and not to vote. It is dishonourable on the state's part.

Should soldiers of foreign powers fighting as our allies then be granted the right to vote in US elections?