Restrict the Right To Vote

I have lots of friends and family who say how they really feel when their black "friends" (whom I amazingly have never met) are not around.

Of course I don't KNOW, but I can tell you that nothing shows the power of ignorance more than when it comes to race. There are thousands of people across the United States who voted on race alone. There are thousands of people who voted based on one (other) issue alone (e.g., abortion).

In all, people are individuals and vote for their own reasons. America is no more doomed than the day any of the past presidents were elected. Like I wrote, America's heart will keep on ticking.

And, no, not one person should have to take a test to have the RIGHT to vote. Not now, not ever.

 

Look up the voter demographics and post those for people to draw their own conclusions.

Of all groups (gender, race, color, etc.) let's see who had the largest percentage vote for a particular candidate.

 

When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic. — Benjamin Franklin

Be thankful we're not getting all the government we're paying for. — Will Rogers

It is the responsibility of the patriot to protect his country from its government. — Thomas Paine


A Return to republican (small “r”) Government

Would you rather live in a republic or a democracy?

In an article by the economist Walter E. Williams (Are we a republic or a democracy?) we discover the difference between a republic and a democracy:

So what’s the difference between republican and democratic forms of government? John Adams captured the essence of the difference when he said, “You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe.” Nothing in our Constitution suggests that government is a grantor of rights. Instead, government is a protector of rights.

In recognition that it’s Congress that poses the greatest threat to our liberties, the framers used negative phrases against Congress throughout the Constitution such as: shall not abridge, infringe, deny, disparage, and shall not be violated, nor be denied. In a republican form of government, there is rule of law. All citizens, including government officials, are accountable to the same laws. Government power is limited and decentralized through a system of checks and balances. Government intervenes in civil society to protect its citizens against force and fraud but does not intervene in the cases of peaceable, voluntary exchange.

Contrast the framers’ vision of a republic with that of a democracy. In a democracy, the majority rules either directly or through its elected representatives. As in a monarchy, the law is whatever the government determines it to be. Laws do not represent reason. They represent power. The restraint is upon the individual instead of government. Unlike that envisioned under a republican form of government, rights are seen as privileges and permissions that are granted by government and can be rescinded by government.

I suppose that if you happen to hold the same beliefs as the majority in a democracy, you’re in a good position — unless you want to let others believe and live differently.

 

We started out as a Constitutional Republic. (It is quite evident that the Founders never intended for universal suffrage)

The terms 'republic' and 'democracy' both have many different meanings.
A democracy, in some contemporary usage, is frequently defined as a government chosen by the people, whether directly or by representatives. Solely by that definition the US is also a democracy. too vague and subjective. By that definition you could tag 'Democratic' to any other from of government: 'Democratic Monarchy' If all the people get together (or elected reps. get together) and vote one man to be King, and make all decisions for the rest of his life, would you just call it a Monarchy? Not by your logic.

In describing our government, if you want to convey that the broad masses of people may vote in electing reps., then sure, call it a Constitutional and Democratic Republic, if you must. But both systems allow voting and the election of officials. The significance lies in that in a republic you cannot vote on rights and property. At least, you're not suppose too.

By my accepted definitions of Democracy and Republic, although they usually share similarities, the litmus test is always, in the end, when awaiting the final uncontestable verdict, Is it the will of the Majority, or what is the applicable LAW.

Thus they are Mutually Exclusive.

 

I think what is obvious is that the framework the Founding Fathers left us is a flexible one subject to the present generations interpretations. The idea that the Constitution is bound to the intent of its writers is foolish. It is contridicted by their own writings and speeches, and in the document itself which establishes a branch of government to interpret the Constitution.

Yes you can make anything mutually exclusive if you make up the definitions yourself.

 

okay, but in a Republic, the majority may never establish laws that infringe on inalienable rights

...certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,...

We may never establish laws that violate the constitution.

Do you think, in the near future, we'll pass an amendment that would effectively change our government enough that it could not be labeled a (Democratic) Republic? Or by your accepted definitions, is that not really possible?
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government...

 

Many disagree with you. It's not obvious. Did the founding fathers use the words 'flexible', 'foolish' in binding to their intent, or 'interpret', in regards to justices applying the constitution? That whole paragraph is just your subjective opinion.

You can make anything not mutually exclusive too the same way. Ditto.