3 ms·

"Prevent us from having any say"?? Legislators are directly elected, president is elected somewhat indirectly but largely by popular vote, administrative rule

by clucas 4y ago

"Prevent us from having any say"?? Legislators are directly elected, president is elected somewhat indirectly but largely by popular vote, administrative rule making has notice and comment process, Article 3 judges are appointed by President and confirmed by legislature... everything derived from the will of the people. It sounds like you are upset that more people aren't as upset at the same things you are. That's not a problem with the government, that's a problem with the populace. Organize a petition to have your congressional rep submit a bill for what you want. If they refuse, find someone to run who will do it. Actually do something, don't just post online about how the government isn't working... make it work for you!

ceejayoz 4y ago
Much of what you describe is an evolution from the original design. https://theconversation.com/the-right-to-vote-is-not-in-the-constitution-144531 https://theconversation.com/the-right-to-vote-is-not-in-the-... > At the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Madison expressed the prevailing view that “the freeholders of the country would be the safest depositories of republican liberty,” meaning only people who owned land debt-free, without mortgages, would be able to vote. The Constitution left voting rules to individual states, which had long-standing laws limiting the vote to those freeholders. > In the debates over the ratification of the Constitution, Madison trumpeted a benefit of the new system: the “total exclusion of the people in their collective capacity.” Even as the nation shifted toward broader inclusion in politics, Madison maintained his view that rights were fragile and ordinary people untrustworthy. In his 70s, he opposed the expansion of the franchise to nonlanded citizens when it was considered at Virginia’s Constitutional Convention in 1829, emphasizing that “the great danger is that the majority may not sufficiently respect the rights of the Minority.” There's a reason the Constitution, as originally written, doesn't actually guarantee anyone the right to vote. Even today, it wouldn't be unconstitutional to, say, ban redheads or people born on Tuesday from voting.
- Dylan16807 4y ago
  > Even today, it wouldn't be unconstitutional to, say, ban redheads or people born on Tuesday from voting. I think the 14th amendment would block any such ban, since 15/19/24/26 make it clear that this is a right people have by default. And that's ignoring how hair color ties into race.
  - feet 4y ago
    Its only illegal if you're explicitly excluding people Oh but if you make laws that just happen to make it harder for black people and Latinos to vote, its just a bad coincidence yea? Awe so sad, wish we could do something about it!
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    > since 15/19/24/26 make it clear that this is a right people have by default No, they say the opposite. They set up specific conditions you can't use to disqualify for voting. It's a short list. > And that's ignoring how hair color ties into race. SCOTUS is pretty good at that. See the just announced Marietta case; Congress said you can't discriminate against end-stage renal failure patients. An insurer decided they'd get around it by not covering outpatient dialysis - of which 99.5% of patients are end-stage renal failure - and SCOTUS permitted it. Kagan's dissent correctly pointed out it's like banning yarmulkes and claiming you're not discriminating against Jews.
    - Dylan16807 4y ago
      > No, they say the opposite. They set up specific conditions you can't use to disqualify for voting. It's a short list. Those amendments don't directly give maximum protection, but they establish it as a right, which seems to indirectly give pretty good protection.
      - ceejayoz 4y ago
        We needed the various amendments because it was entirely legal to forbid voting based on race, gender, age, etc. That implies it's still legal to forbid voting based on other reasons not listed.
        feet 4y ago
        Wow it sounds like we shouldn't be forbidding people from voting at all, why the hell would we make specific carve outs. Its absolutely absurd, almost like the people who wrote the legislation wanted it that way

by clucas 4y ago

ceejayoz 4y ago

Much of what you describe is an evolution from the original design. https://theconversation.com/the-right-to-vote-is-not-in-the-constitution-144531 https://theconversation.com/the-right-to-vote-is-not-in-the-... > At the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Madison expressed the prevailing view that “the freeholders of the country would be the safest depositories of republican liberty,” meaning only people who owned land debt-free, without mortgages, would be able to vote. The Constitution left voting rules to individual states, which had long-standing laws limiting the vote to those freeholders. > In the debates over the ratification of the Constitution, Madison trumpeted a benefit of the new system: the “total exclusion of the people in their collective capacity.” Even as the nation shifted toward broader inclusion in politics, Madison maintained his view that rights were fragile and ordinary people untrustworthy. In his 70s, he opposed the expansion of the franchise to nonlanded citizens when it was considered at Virginia’s Constitutional Convention in 1829, emphasizing that “the great danger is that the majority may not sufficiently respect the rights of the Minority.” There's a reason the Constitution, as originally written, doesn't actually guarantee anyone the right to vote. Even today, it wouldn't be unconstitutional to, say, ban redheads or people born on Tuesday from voting.

Dylan16807 4y ago
> Even today, it wouldn't be unconstitutional to, say, ban redheads or people born on Tuesday from voting. I think the 14th amendment would block any such ban, since 15/19/24/26 make it clear that this is a right people have by default. And that's ignoring how hair color ties into race.
- feet 4y ago
  Its only illegal if you're explicitly excluding people Oh but if you make laws that just happen to make it harder for black people and Latinos to vote, its just a bad coincidence yea? Awe so sad, wish we could do something about it!
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  > since 15/19/24/26 make it clear that this is a right people have by default No, they say the opposite. They set up specific conditions you can't use to disqualify for voting. It's a short list. > And that's ignoring how hair color ties into race. SCOTUS is pretty good at that. See the just announced Marietta case; Congress said you can't discriminate against end-stage renal failure patients. An insurer decided they'd get around it by not covering outpatient dialysis - of which 99.5% of patients are end-stage renal failure - and SCOTUS permitted it. Kagan's dissent correctly pointed out it's like banning yarmulkes and claiming you're not discriminating against Jews.
  - Dylan16807 4y ago
    > No, they say the opposite. They set up specific conditions you can't use to disqualify for voting. It's a short list. Those amendments don't directly give maximum protection, but they establish it as a right, which seems to indirectly give pretty good protection.
    - ceejayoz 4y ago
      We needed the various amendments because it was entirely legal to forbid voting based on race, gender, age, etc. That implies it's still legal to forbid voting based on other reasons not listed.
      - feet 4y ago
        Wow it sounds like we shouldn't be forbidding people from voting at all, why the hell would we make specific carve outs. Its absolutely absurd, almost like the people who wrote the legislation wanted it that way