Jump to content
270soft Forum
vcczar

What Amendments to the US Constitution Would You Like to See?

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, CPE said:

I have never understood the abhorrence, from a practical perspective, among the left-wing side of the US political spectrum towards the practice of requiring proof of citizenship before being able to cast a vote.

The Constitution doesn't require someone to be a citizen to vote.

There are several problems with requiring IDs.  First; it constitutes a poll tax, which is strictly prohibited by the 24th Amendment.  You can't require someone pay a fee to the government to be allowed to vote.  Second; many people don't drink or drive or travel abroad and thus don't need an ID of the type that would be required.  Third; many jurisdictions have made getting an ID difficult with the specific purpose of disenfranchising poor people and minorities.  Federally, the REAL ID Act was a boon to these efforts.

In any event, ID requirements do very little towards preventing election fraud.  Anybody with the resources to impersonate individual voters enough to change an election result could do so much more easily and efficiently by other methods.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, vcczar said:

@Patine Are you going to suggest any amendments?

When I can get a big block of time. There would be a LOT of them - to the point I said above it would be realistically more expedient to write a second and new constitution altogether.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, pilight said:

Same place @jvikings1 and @servo75 got the idea that ALL 18-20 year olds are too ignorant to be allowed to vote

Well, I am in favor of greater restrictions on voting for everyone (not just 18-20 year olds). The ignorant voter is a threat to liberty and a pawn of those in power. Much like the Founders, I do not trust unchecked democracy.

6 hours ago, Patine said:

I haven't checked the polling results, yet. And two people, even on a forum like this, isn't an overwhelming bloc of consensus. Plus, @jvikings1 isn't as nearly as old as @servo75 (or myself, but I haven't yet made any firm statements on the issue) - I believe, in fact, that @jvikings1 hasn't been over 20 very long at all, in fact.

Correct. In fact I only recently turned 21.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Patine said:

There is, however, a flip-side to this idea, with a very good set of case-and-point cautionaries already extant and fairly well-known about. The U.S. has not gotten quite this far, but it could possibly be on the horizon. The Persian Gulf Monarchies are VERY rich. They have glittering, ultra-modern cities with awe-inspiring experimental architecture and the world's only seven-star hotel (in Dubai). Citizens of these countries pay no taxes, AND get a check in the mail from oil wealth every year, and many of them own Italian exotic sports cars and high-grade yachts. However, a very unusually high percentage of the permanent residents in those nations are non-citizens who live there to work - at the jobs the citizens don't want to bother with, from base labour and services, to highly-trained and -educated specialists. But they will NEVER be citizens, because these nations do NOT naturalize foreigners for any reason - period, full stop. A woman from outside these countries who marries a citizen never becomes a citizen, even though her children by him do (this a legal protection for the citizens in terms of Islamic divorce laws). A man from outside these nations is LEGALLY FORBIDDEN to marry a woman who is a citizen, even if the man is a devout and practicing Sunni Sect Muslim (or Obadhi Sect, in Oman) and from a pre-dominantly Islamic nation, even a majority Arab nation outside those nations - it doesn't matter. The penalty for attempting an illegal wedding or elopement is DEATH. Many of these expatriate workers (moreso the unskilled labour and services ones - VERY RARELY the specialists) are exploited and taken advantage of ruthlessly, abusively, cruelly, and vulture-like - but the infrastructure and economies of these nations - as it stands - would collapse without them.

Point taken, no system is without flaws in its entirety.  I live in a nation with similar laws (7-10+ years to obtain citizenship through marriage, for instance), and it is true that there are issues with the Jus sanguinis model.  When it comes to dual citizenship, for example, not every nation recognizes the right for a person to have allegiance to two countries (which makes the situation complex if there are two parents of different nationalities).  Personally, I prefer stricter immigration rules.  Easier to carefully vet who you let in, rather than try to send out troublemakers years later.  Important thing to remember is that not every nation can be a Canada or USA in the sense that they can be a melting pot.  National identities are much stronger in other regions of the world, and it would be a powder keg waiting to explode trying to mix too many lit fuses together.  I think different systems work best for different parts of the world ie. it is a localized issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, pilight said:

The Constitution doesn't require someone to be a citizen to vote.

There are several problems with requiring IDs.  First; it constitutes a poll tax, which is strictly prohibited by the 24th Amendment.  You can't require someone pay a fee to the government to be allowed to vote.  Second; many people don't drink or drive or travel abroad and thus don't need an ID of the type that would be required.  Third; many jurisdictions have made getting an ID difficult with the specific purpose of disenfranchising poor people and minorities.  Federally, the REAL ID Act was a boon to these efforts.

In any event, ID requirements do very little towards preventing election fraud.  Anybody with the resources to impersonate individual voters enough to change an election result could do so much more easily and efficiently by other methods.

If my understanding is correct, while the US Constitution does not explicitly require citizenship to vote, do not all of the individual states (not including territories) mandate it as part of their requirements?  Is it still not a federal felony to vote as an illegal alien in the US?

The poll tax part is debatable in my mind, can easily be solved by giving out free IDs.  I am not sure how it may be in the different parts of the US, but it is impossible to live life without a form of ID where I am.  Whether it be for opening bank accounts, having employment, accessing an education, travel, taking part in government programs, etc. ID is required at every step of the way.  I simply find it difficult to believe that someone can live a modern life without ever having a form of national (or state I guess for the US) ID.  Not sure what the REAL ID Act entails in specific, so I will not comment on that.

I know that the US is different from any other nation that has ever existed (for better or worse), but it just strikes me as very odd that there is even political discussion around such a simple topic (in my perspective now, not trying to insult or affront).  The process is very simple where I am, and nobody ever cries foul over it.  As far as I know, there are similar forms of voter ID requirements across the Commonwealth, so it seems to be a very commonly accepted practice.  Just my thoughts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, pilight said:

 

There are several problems with requiring IDs.  First; it constitutes a poll tax, which is strictly prohibited by the 24th Amendment.  You can't require someone pay a fee to the government to be allowed to vote.  Second; many people don't drink or drive or travel abroad and thus don't need an ID of the type that would be required.  Third; many jurisdictions have made getting an ID difficult with the specific purpose of disenfranchising poor people and minorities.  Federally, the REAL ID Act was a boon to these efforts.

In any event, ID requirements do very little towards preventing election fraud.  Anybody with the resources to impersonate individual voters enough to change an election result could do so much more easily and efficiently by other methods.

While a voter id might not do a whole lot to prevent fraud (especially with mail-in balloting being expanded), it does add to the legitimacy of the electoral process.

As for a poll tax, if a voter id is given to every person who doesn't have a qualifying id with no charge, then that point is moot. It also makes your 2nd and 3rd points moot as well. Though it is worth noting how many things already require an id (which many people are already participating in), so most will already have a valid form of identification.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Giving out free IDs would be great.  No states do that without the person jumping through lots of legal hoops.  Also, many local governments rely on licensing income as a substantial portion of their budget.  Free IDs for all would mean shortfalls; shortages of school supplies, less frequent road repairs, fewer cops on the streets, etc.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, pilight said:

Giving out free IDs would be great.  No states do that without the person jumping through lots of legal hoops.  Also, many local governments rely on licensing income as a substantial portion of their budget.  Free IDs for all would mean shortfalls; shortages of school supplies, less frequent road repairs, fewer cops on the streets, etc.  

 

1 hour ago, jvikings1 said:

While a voter id might not do a whole lot to prevent fraud (especially with mail-in balloting being expanded), it does add to the legitimacy of the electoral process.

As for a poll tax, if a voter id is given to every person who doesn't have a qualifying id with no charge, then that point is moot. It also makes your 2nd and 3rd points moot as well. Though it is worth noting how many things already require an id (which many people are already participating in), so most will already have a valid form of identification.

I think voter IDs should be given out automatically. It could also be part of filing federal taxes. "Do you have a voter ID?" If no, the voter ID is mailed to them. Whatever the case, I think they should definitely be accessible for those deserving of a vote. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I think voter IDs should be given out automatically. It could also be part of filing federal taxes. "Do you have a voter ID?" If no, the voter ID is mailed to them. Whatever the case, I think they should definitely be accessible for those deserving of a vote. 

Many people don't file federal taxes, and they are mostly the kind of people who get disenfranchised

Quote

If my understanding is correct, while the US Constitution does not explicitly require citizenship to vote, do not all of the individual states (not including territories) mandate it as part of their requirements?  Is it still not a federal felony to vote as an illegal alien in the US?

Not all states require citizenship and the ones that do could easily change the requirement any time.

I was not referring to undocumented aliens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, pilight said:

Not all states require citizenship and the ones that do could easily change the requirement any time.

I was not referring to undocumented aliens.

Just curious as to which ones do not have it as a requirement.  I know of some individual cities/municipalities that offer non-citizens the right to vote, but am not aware of any statewide measures.

I do not understand why voting privileges would even theoretically be extended to non-citizens in the US.  I have been through the immigration process before, and the setup of the system basically ensures that voting privileges are the primary reason to file for citizenship (besides the fact that it would theoretically be difficult to revoke).  I look at it this way, if you are not intending to allow illegal aliens to vote, what other categories of immigrants would possibly be affected :

  • International students : Sign papers stating that their intent is to go home and not immigrate into the United States, some do anyways through marriage (or wealth).
  • Investors : E-class visa is expedited PR really, not too much of a wait to get citizenship (~7 years) if everything goes right.
  • Temporary workers : Seems like a ludicrous idea to me.  H1Bs have no path to permanent status outside of marriage or paying their way through the system (E-class)
  • Fiance's : Will become citizens shortly anyways
  • All the other's (O-class, B-class, etc.) : Not really applicable
  • Permanent Residents (Green Card Holders) : 5 years for citizenship if you do everything right.  The only difference between being a PR and being a citizen is that you can 1. vote and 2. not theoretically be sent home at the border

Within the Commonwealth, there are special arrangements for voting in each others jurisdictions.  Despite not being a UK national, I can vote in their general election provided that I am (as far as my memory goes) :

1. Registered as a voter

2. Living in the country for 6 months+

3. Have the right of abode there

Those arrangements within the Commonwealth are dwindling as the family drifts apart since the end of decolonization, but it makes some logical sense.  We all share the English monarch as our head of state, we all speak a common language, we all have a shared history, etc; basically, we are like a family.  I do not see an similar situation in the US where it would make sense to give non-citizens the vote.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, pilight said:

Shocking that the old folks don't want the youngsters to vote

I propose limiting the vote to those under 65.  Past that you start getting cognitive decline.  By retirement age you've had your political say and then some.

Well... we could always just have the civics exam. If we find a 16 year old who can name the three branches of government I guess she can vote

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, CPE said:

Just curious as to which ones do not have it as a requirement.  I know of some individual cities/municipalities that offer non-citizens the right to vote, but am not aware of any statewide measures.

I do not understand why voting privileges would even theoretically be extended to non-citizens in the US.  I have been through the immigration process before, and the setup of the system basically ensures that voting privileges are the primary reason to file for citizenship (besides the fact that it would theoretically be difficult to revoke).  I look at it this way, if you are not intending to allow illegal aliens to vote, what other categories of immigrants would possibly be affected :

  • International students : Sign papers stating that their intent is to go home and not immigrate into the United States, some do anyways through marriage (or wealth).
  • Investors : E-class visa is expedited PR really, not too much of a wait to get citizenship (~7 years) if everything goes right.
  • Temporary workers : Seems like a ludicrous idea to me.  H1Bs have no path to permanent status outside of marriage or paying their way through the system (E-class)
  • Fiance's : Will become citizens shortly anyways
  • All the other's (O-class, B-class, etc.) : Not really applicable
  • Permanent Residents (Green Card Holders) : 5 years for citizenship if you do everything right.  The only difference between being a PR and being a citizen is that you can 1. vote and 2. not theoretically be sent home at the border

Within the Commonwealth, there are special arrangements for voting in each others jurisdictions.  Despite not being a UK national, I can vote in their general election provided that I am (as far as my memory goes) :

1. Registered as a voter

2. Living in the country for 6 months+

3. Have the right of abode there

Those arrangements within the Commonwealth are dwindling as the family drifts apart since the end of decolonization, but it makes some logical sense.  We all share the English monarch as our head of state, we all speak a common language, we all have a shared history, etc; basically, we are like a family.  I do not see an similar situation in the US where it would make sense to give non-citizens the vote.

 

I'm okay as long as their legal permanent residents and can pass the citizenship exam. But you must at least show legal permanent status (not visa), pass a civics exam, and be resident in the United States for 5 years or more. At a very minimum. Someone who is not a U.S. national shouldn't have a say in the government of a country that they are only visiting and/or are not in legally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, CPE said:

I have never understood the abhorrence, from a practical perspective, among the left-wing side of the US political spectrum towards the practice of requiring proof of citizenship before being able to cast a vote

Because this:

DeadGrandmaVoting.jpg

It makes voter fraud more likely, and really helps their get-out-the-vote campaign for the dead. This whole "voter ID requirement = racism" is a laughable sham. We need voter ID to do 100 other things in this country, and to say that blacks aren't capable of getting IDs is racist in and of itself. If "getting out the vote" is so important, then you'd find one afternoon a four year period to get off your couch and get down to a motor vehicle agency. These are the same people who were prattling on about "integrity of our election process" when accusing Trump of colluding with Russia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, pilight said:

The Constitution doesn't require someone to be a citizen to vote.

There are several problems with requiring IDs.  First; it constitutes a poll tax, which is strictly prohibited by the 24th Amendment.  You can't require someone pay a fee to the government to be allowed to vote.  Second; many people don't drink or drive or travel abroad and thus don't need an ID of the type that would be required.  Third; many jurisdictions have made getting an ID difficult with the specific purpose of disenfranchising poor people and minorities.  Federally, the REAL ID Act was a boon to these efforts.

In any event, ID requirements do very little towards preventing election fraud.  Anybody with the resources to impersonate individual voters enough to change an election result could do so much more easily and efficiently by other methods.

It's not a fee to be allowed to vote. Voting is free. Voter ID costs money and is needed for hundreds of things besides just voting. For example, driving a car, which you have to buy insurance for. So do people pay a fee to drive? I suppose so, yes. Even when offered ways to get free IDs, Democrats still balk at it.

"Third; many jurisdictions have made getting an ID difficult with the specific purpose of disenfranchising poor people and minorities."

Could you quote some of those laws that have disenfranchisement as their stated and intended purpose?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, servo75 said:

Well... we could always just have the civics exam. If we find a 16 year old who can name the three branches of government I guess she can vote

Literacy tests.  You're breaking more of Jim Crow's greatest hits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to say, if the electoral college exists, it is for one main thing now.

If a proportionnal system appears, this will be the death of the two party system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Edouard said:

this will be the death of the two party system.

And that will be the long-belated sentence they so deserve for their many crimes, betrayals of the trust, violation of the laws that bind them, contempt of justice, abdication of their oaths of office and mandated duties and responsibilities, blatant corruption, and treason and sedition against their people and nation committed by great majorities of the elected office-holders of each.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, servo75 said:

to say that blacks aren't capable of getting IDs is racist in and of itself

Until you get to Alabama, which passed a voter ID law touting free voter IDs could be obtained at any driver's license bureau then closed the driver's license bureaus in every county that had over 50% black population.  That's racism, and it's one example of how Voter ID laws are used to disenfranchise minority voters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, pilight said:

Until you get to Alabama, which passed a voter ID law touting free voter IDs could be obtained at any driver's license bureau then closed the driver's license bureaus in every county that had over 50% black population.  That's racism, and it's one example of how Voter ID laws are used to disenfranchise minority voters.

The voter IDs should be given by the federal government in this case. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, vcczar said:

The voter IDs should be given by the federal government in this case. 

That'll get the State's Rights people riled up, not to mention all the people who don't want Big Brother tracking their every move.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, pilight said:

not to mention all the people who don't want Big Brother tracking their every move.  

Isn't "he" already, in full violation of Constitutional law and principal of due process. I'm talking to you, former Traitor-in-Chief, George W. Bush...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Patine said:

Isn't "he" already, in full violation of Constitutional law and principal of due process. I'm talking to you, former Traitor-in-Chief, George W. Bush...

Well, you are correct (though it also spreads into intelligence agencies and Obama as well). Though the sham FISA courts have (unfortunately) been upheld to this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Patine said:

Isn't "he" already, in full violation of Constitutional law and principal of due process. I'm talking to you, former Traitor-in-Chief, George W. Bush...

He and Obama both greatly expanded the practice of spying on U.S. citizens, there's no excuse for either. A new amendment should greatly limit this ability, and make it illegal to collect data on Americans who are not reasonably suspected of a crime. Not sure how to word that. In theory the 4th Amendment should cover that, but perhaps should be updated or clarified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, pilight said:

That'll get the State's Rights people riled up, not to mention all the people who don't want Big Brother tracking their every move.  

They'll either have to keep all driver's license bureaus open with the same hours or risk losing this state right. If they're going to perversely seek to disenfranchise people in their own state, then the Fed Gov should step in. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...