Would you be upset if you were told you couldn't vote because you can't distinguish between plural and possessive? Not trying to be a jerk (well, maybe a little bit) but where would you draw the line? What if I'm illiterate about American History but know everything about an upcoming vote on a school bond?
Not sure. But I would like to see States draw the line. I would set a relatively low bar, with difficulty similar to a Driver's License Test but an hour long or so, requiring some effort and time. Maybe you can take the test while getting a DL at the DMV, and then get a "VOTER License" or stamp on your DL. Maybe the two could be renewed together... But, NEVER GONNA HAPPEN, of course.
Voting is not a privilege, but a right, and ultimately a responsibility of our citizenry. Uniformed voters are infuriating, but they exist on both sides of every election. Many people born here take this for granted, but it still should not be taken from them. Again, it is a right, not a privilege. If you want to make a dent in the amount of stupid people that can effect your life, require a certain IQ level for the privilege of going in to a bar or buying alcohol. Average ACT scores would rise ten points in one generation.
The Supreme Court doesn't see it that way. "In its 2000 ruling, Alexander v Mineta, the Court decided the 600,000 or so (mostly black) residents of Washington D.C. have no legal recourse for their complete lack of voting representation in Congress (they have one “representative” in the House who can speak, but cannot vote). The Court affirmed the district court's interpretation that our Constitution "does not protect the right of all citizens to vote, but rather the right of all qualified citizens to vote.” And it's state legislatures that wield the power to decide who is “qualified.” As a result, voting is not a right, but a privilege granted or withheld at the discretion of local and state governments. (Without violating our constitutional voting amendments 15, 19, 26) Race, Sex, & Age, with provable bias) Though, i agree with your second paragraph and will admit that many scholars disagree with the supreme court. I'm with Scalia and the boys, of course.
That has to do with the states running elections, and making sure that votes cast are valid and legal. It is not meant to be interpreted that states can disqualify a vote because the citizen doesn't know the date of the Boston Tea Party. Wish it all you want, but being uniformed about a candidate's policies or just plain stupid will not disqualify you from voting. And there are some bizarre politicians in the game, but no viable ones that will actually put this forth.
There is a difference between a pure democracy and a republic. We are not a pure democracy, but tend more toward the republic side. But elements of democracy can be seen in popular votes on constitutions and amendments. Also, I think you are defining democracy too strictly. There is no universally accepted definition of democracy. In its most fundamental sense, a democracy is that form of government where power comes from the people; power flows from the bottom to the top. Another principle of democracy is that all members enjoy universally accepted freedoms and liberties. Yet another characteristic of democracy is that of majority rule, but a majority rule that is held in check by government in order that minority rights are protected.
You are dead wrong. It was not a racist statement. Our history has shown that attempts to restrict the vote have often been racially motivated. That is a fact.
Best thread ever in free speech alley! :lol: I guessed on the puritans and monkey question...got lucky. I guessed on the one I missed and wasnt so lucky.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex." "The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax." "The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age."
Democracies and Republics are really antithetical forms of government. The founding fathers knew this and abhorred democracies. You seem to imply that a Republic is a type of democracy? Democracy should be fairly easy to define, except in this day and age when everything is blurred and subjective. Definitions for the two opposing governements are fairly clear, when you get down to the basic fundamentals: In Democracies the will of the majority is overriding. In Republics the rule of law if overriding. So in Republics, laws protect individual rights and property, and cannot be usurped by the majority. It is in Republics that the rights of minorities are protected, not in democracies. Democracies are essentially "Mob Rules". In a pure democracy, if 9 of 10 people want to take over and divide the property of Mr. Daddy Warbucks, its done. And yes we do have our amendment process written in our constitution that can be viewed as 'peaceful revolution'. We can change our constitution peacefully or violently, but in doing so we may no longer be a Republic. Here's some interesting quotes: [D]emocracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.2 James Madison Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.3 John Adams A democracy is a volcano which conceals the fiery materials of its own destruction. These will produce an eruption and carry desolation in their way.4 The known propensity of a democracy is to licentiousness [excessive license] which the ambitious call, and ignorant believe to be liberty.5 Fisher Ames, Author of the House Language for the First Amendment We have seen the tumult of democracy terminate . . . as [it has] everywhere terminated, in despotism. . . . Democracy! savage and wild. Thou who wouldst bring down the virtuous and wise to thy level of folly and guilt.6 Gouverneur Morris, Signer and Penman of the Constitution [T]he experience of all former ages had shown that of all human governments, democracy was the most unstable, fluctuating and short-lived.7 John Quincy Adams A simple democracy . . . is one of the greatest of evils.8 Benjamin Rush, Signer of the Declaration In democracy . . . there are commonly tumults and disorders. . . . Therefore a pure democracy is generally a very bad government. It is often the most tyrannical government on earth.9 Noah Webster Pure democracy cannot subsist long nor be carried far into the departments of state, it is very subject to caprice and the madness of popular rage.10 It may generally be remarked that the more a government resembles a pure democracy the more they abound with disorder and confusion.11 Zephaniah Swift, Author of America's First Legal Text John Witherspoon, Signer of the Declaration
