No I am saying that "The Right" can be taken away from you. Nik was speaking as it couldn't be taken away. Obviously it can
Well, a broken clock is correct twice a day when it's looking for a blind squirrels nuts. Or something. I think people should drug testing for all jobs, but that's just because I think that way. The problem is, cost. It probably costs more in drug tests than it does in what they'd be saving (of course, I freely admit that might just be a talking point i remember from months ago..you know, one of those facebook/twitter memes)
I see. I personally don't see how why a felony takes away that right, but i'm not about to argue in favor of getting rid of that clause.
When talking constitutional rights, one would hope it would take more than being unemployed to have that right taken away from you. Pretty harsh and unconstitutional
Actually, it's not. The constitution (or rather, various amendments) only spell out reasons why someone can't be prohibited from voting (birthplace, race, gender, taxes). So specifically, what Mags originally said about "taxpayers only" would in fact be unconstitutional. But there is nothing in the constitution prohibiting denying the vote to recipients of welfare.
No, I am saying that people on welfare shouldn't vote. They could influence decisions on the working class that they don't care about. I bring up felons in response to Nik, saying that this right cannot be taken away. That is wrong.
someone, who is much smarter than I, should find out how many people are on welfare, how many of them don't work, how many of them have "welfare babies" and how many of them vote (in both comparison to the society at large, and different economic groups). I would, but I've already lost interest in finding out.
But it's taken away because they don't have a job? Contrary to popular belief on this forum, many simply can't get a job . . . our country should punish them for not paying taxes. And in your model what about S/O that stay at home while other works. So s/o doesn't work and doesn't pay taxes. They have to marry to vote? And what if they area gay and living in a state that doesn't recognize marriages . . . they don't get to vote? Hell while we are playing with the constitution, let's take all welfare people and move them to the Yukon in Alaska and make them live and work for the gov't until they find a job. Out of sight, out of mind. Hope nobody reading here has loved ones on welfare . . . this whole discussion and how to treat people on welfare could be very offensive to some.
Only if one responds to the conceptual discussion from an emotional instead of objective place. The concept of how to weed out and disincentivize the welfare abusers from the legitimately needy is not unreasonable.
Weed out? We are talking about taking away their right to vote if on welfare. My god, these people are not criminals.
Not directly, but: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harper_v._Virginia_State_Board_of_Elections In a 6 to 3 vote, the Court ruled in favor of Ms. Harper. The Court noted that “a state violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution whenever it makes the affluence of the voter or payment of any fee an electoral standard. Voter qualifications have no relation to wealth.” (Bush v. Gore had a bit to say, as well)
Actually, we're talking about voluntary temporary cessation of voting as a condition of welfare receipt. Nobody is forcing anything upon anybody. Now, removing emotional appeals from the equation, why don't you help me understand why you believe this to be a bad idea?
As if being poor or needing assistance is somehow completely voluntary. Don't get me wrong I'm all for punishing the deadbeats and cleaning up the system, but this idea that citizenship is somehow conditional on job status or one's bank account is beyond short-sighted. Imagine this policy being enacted during the Great Depression; suspension of voting rights for 25% of the population for ten+ years because there are no jobs to be had.
Eugenics? Voting rights suspension? Why are people advocating such drastic measures to punish all in poverty for the 2% of people who abuse the system? Poverty is a human problem, if we remove emotion from the discussion we come to inhumane conclusions.
It is unconstitutional to take away the vote due to poverty, even if it is for govt. assistance in return. I provided a link to the SCOTUS decision that says so. We're not a corporation, where it's one share one vote and only those who can afford a share get to vote.
