Universal National Service Act

[Karma]

There is no 'right to vote' guaranteed by the Constitution, as there is a right to free speech, unwarranted searches and seizures, etc. Yes, members of Congress are chosen by voting, and yes, the Constitution says that there will be no voting discrimination based on race or gender, but other than that leaves voter qualification standards to the States. Many states prohibit felons from voting, some prohibit people with certain mental issues from voting. The residents of the District of Columbia cannot vote for their representation in Congress because they have none, as DC is a Federal enclave. And of course there is a minimum voting age requirement nationwide.

It would be an unpopular issue to exclude welfare sponges from the voter rolls, but perfectly legal according to federal law.

Keith

They are working hard to get D.C. representation.

I don't know about the rest of what you are saying. I think it was another thing that our founding fathers thought would be obvious enough that they didn't have to spell it out! However, they didn't count on our society devolving as we have. lol.

So your thought is that because the constitution doesn't specifically spell out who can vote, that there is no constitutional right? Does that mean that Democrats could vote to exclude Republicans from voting because there is no explicit right to vote for Republicans? lol. Minors can't vote because they are minors. Each state can define what their definition of a minor is. Felons can have their right to vote suspended as can prisoners, because they wave part of their constitutional rights when they become a felon or prisoner. They also wave that pesky right to freedom in most cases. lol

My point is that there is a right to vote, even though they didn't feel the need to explicity write it out. They probably assumed that nobody would challenge your right to breath either, so they neglected to slip that into the constitution too!

 

[trainsktg]

Ya know, this stuff is spelled out fairly clearly if a little dilligent research is done.

Actually, because there is no 'right to vote' written into the original Constitution is exactly why women, blacks and native Americans were denied voting access until it was later amended into the Constitution that it was illegal to do so, at least based on age and gender. If the 'right to vote' was 'obvious' as you state, the 14th and 15th Amendments would have been totally unnecessary. What is being confused here is what is written into the Constitution with what is written into other laws like the Voting Rights Act of 1965, among others.

Keith

 

[Karma]

Ya know, this stuff is spelled out fairly clearly if a little dilligent research is done.

Actually, because there is no 'right to vote' written into the original Constitution is exactly why women, blacks and native Americans were denied voting access until it was later amended into the Constitution that it was illegal to do so, at least based on age and gender. If the 'right to vote' was 'obvious' as you state, the 14th and 15th Amendments would have been totally unnecessary. What is being confused here is what is written into the Constitution with what is written into other laws like the Voting Rights Act of 1965, among others.

Keith

Oh. Well thank you for educating me. I always thought that blacks and women were considered property, and Indians were considered animals, and that was why they were denied many of the constitutional guarantees. It wasn't just a matter of voting. Blacks for example, were also denied other rights guaranteed such as freedom of speech and freedom to assemble.

So if this was just a matter of voting rights, how could blacks be denied the basic constitutional rights that were explicitly written such as freedom of speech?

 

[trainsktg]

I'll address one last point, then that's it for me in this discussion.

The 15th Amendment (no denial of voting rights based on race, color, previous condition of servitude) was ratified in 1870, but American Indians were still denied voting access because they weren't considered ctitzens of the US until the passage of the Citizenship Act of 1924. Their exclusion was based on their citizenship status, not because they were considered animals.

Keith

 

[CEF1959]

86 posts, with the standard references to socialism, brown shirts, Cuba, and Hitler, all debating one of hundreds of bills that get thrown in the hopper every session, but which will never go anywhere. What a waste of energy.

This from govtrack.us:

"For context, Congressman Rangel has introduced this bill many times in the past. Each time, it has received very little support, and Rangel knows it has no chance of being passed."

I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't spend energy getting hopped up over every dumb idea that passes through the mind of a legislator. I focus on things that actually might happen.

 

[Trlsmn]

86 posts, with the standard references to socialism, brown shirts, Cuba, and Hitler, all debating one of hundreds of bills that get thrown in the hopper every session, but which will never go anywhere. What a waste of energy.

This from govtrack.us:

"For context, Congressman Rangel has introduced this bill many times in the past. Each time, it has received very little support, and Rangel knows it has no chance of being passed."

I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't spend energy getting hopped up over every dumb idea that passes through the mind of a legislator. I focus on things that actually might happen.

Yours makes 87 posts, mine makes 88 posts.........

 

[Martini_Up]

If national service were required, we'd have a huge amount of people going into the military. If the new obama defense force were created, then we'd have a huge amount there too. What are all these people going to do? How are we going to pay for it?

I don't know if it's true or not but someone told me the other day, we have more admirals in the navy than we do ships. If that be true, we have either too few ships or too many admirals. again point being, what are we going to do with all these public employees?

 

[zeezee]

If national service were required, we'd have a huge amount of people going into the military. If the new obama defense force were created, then we'd have a huge amount there too. What are all these people going to do? How are we going to pay for it?

I don't know if it's true or not but someone told me the other day, we have more admirals in the navy than we do ships. If that be true, we have either too few ships or too many admirals. again point being, what are we going to do with all these public employees?

"How are we going to pay for it?" Taxes, as we have always done and will continue until the American people either rise up in revolt or sit on their asses awaiting more manna from heaven.

 

[PMKN_PI]

I also think this is a great idea. If more of our citizens got a little taste of what freedom costs maybe there would be a few less wars fought.

EXCEPT....now people may now be FORCED to serve a government that DOES NOT REPRESENT THEM. OR THE CONSTITUTION. Ill be damned if I ever serve in a Military or other government entity that has B. Hussein Obama or someone like him as Commander-In-Chief.

 

[zeezee]

EXCEPT....now people may now be FORCED to serve a government that DOES NOT REPRESENT THEM. OR THE CONSTITUTION. Ill be damned if I ever serve in a Military or other government entity that has B. Hussein Obama or someone like him as Commander-In-Chief.

Ahem!

 

[Stomper]

Ahem!

Ahem? :huh:

How about AMEN??!!! (my favorite word today... LOL!

 

[zeezee]

Ahem? :huh:

How about AMEN??!!! (my favorite word today... LOL!

Ya fur sure I do spik-a-da good english, sometimes. Thank you for setting me straight.