Journal Planesdragon's Journal: Amending the Constitution, take II 46
As I've said before, we should come out and amend the constitution to make this a better country.
A short recap of previous amendments:
D1: The ERA
D2: Define Marriage and give federal weight to Civil Unions
D3: Let Congress protect citizens (end-run around the commerce clause)
D4: Abortion
To add to this list of good ideas that we really should consider, I'll add a fifth stolen right from The West Wing.
Amendment D5: Voting Rights
All citizens who reside in these United States shall be counted and persons for purposes of proportional representation of members of Congress, and for all federal elections.All citiens so counted shall be alloted to cast one vote, in a manner decdied by Congress and the several states. Citizens younger than the age of eighteen or otherwise in need of a legal guardian shall have their votes cast by proxy by their legal guardian, save for those who specifically register to vote on their own.
In any case where a real citizen and that citizen's guardian both cast otherwise valid votes on the citizen's behalf, the vote of the real citizen shall be deemed valid and the guardian's proxy vote discarded.
Let's given children the vote. All children, even newborns. We value children too poorly, and parents not enough.
No. (Score:2)
Now, you personally may be the perfect parent. I commend you if you are, but granting parents the right to vote for eighteen years in their children's name is lunacy. In the case of divorce, who gets the "right" to vote in their children's name? In the case
Re:No. (Score:1)
While I agree that kids should not be allowed to vote, I think your idea that parents have too much influence in politics is more a symptom of non-parents being less active in politics. Personally I think folks that are parents usually are more aligned with my points of view since they often are the ones that have a higher investment in the future compared to non-parents. So, maybe I am biased, but the idea th
Re:No. (Score:2)
Parents do have a choice as to what their children are taught in school. If they want their children ill-prepared for the vagaries of the real-world, then they have the choice of homeschooling or putting them into a private school. Ther are private schools for ever occassion. If you think that Adam and Company rode around on Dinosaurs, then there are religious fundamentalist schools. If you don't want your child
Re:No. (Score:1)
And as far as I know, here in the states we have nothing preventing you from creating your own political lobby to
Re:No. (Score:2)
While I support school vouchers, I'm not completely opposed to oppressing the poor either.
Re:No. (Score:1)
Re:No. (Score:1)
Re:No. (Score:1)
If this is the case, could you please tell me why I have to pay for someone elses kids to be taught something I don't approve of and to teach my kids something I do approve of? Property taxes have a purpose, you know, and a very large chunk of that goes to the schools in the
Re:No. (Score:2)
Re:No. (Score:1)
We the people are meant to have a little influence on how that money is allocated.
Also, another way of looking at the school system is the way we look at social security, or perhaps backwards from social security. Instead of paying in first, then recieving benefit, we recieve benefit first (education) and pay in after (career).
Re:No. (Score:2)
Re:No. (Score:2)
It seems noteworthy that it is even worth mentioning, but the very attitude that truth needs your approval is at the core of what is wrong with education. You have an interest in seeing that what is taught is true, yes. Whether you "approve" of certain facts or not makes you funny, at best, or evil, at worst. Get over it.
Re:No. (Score:1)
My children can be asked about their sex lives and the tender age of six. If I don't approve of that, if I believe that childhood innocence is a something to cherish and that children shouldn't be forced to grow up too fast, apparently I can just go to hell, because the public school I support can do anything it please
Re:No. (Score:2)
In terms of having input to school curricula, consider that I'm living in a state where the powers that be have declared "Intelligent Design" to be a science topic by redefining "science" so that it
No kids, eh? (Score:2)
Not to nitpick, but I don't believe you'll get a kid that way.
Re:No kids, eh? (Score:1)
Uh oh (Score:2)
Though hanging chad probably has more to do with erotic asphyxiation...
Re:No kids, eh? (Score:2)
Re:No. (Score:2)
It's not about being special. It's about being valuable. In 100 years you and I will be dead, and the only people alive will be those that are descended from those who had kids.
Those who can't vote aren't people. If children are people, and we want the government and the politicians to value them, we'll give them the vote.
As to your specific objection--what a
Re:No. (Score:2)
Re:No. (Score:2)
Children can be employed -- how many children work in the family business, or volunteer their time, or get a paper route, or work as child stars.
Children are also subject to being treated as adults in various court matters.
And, there are adults who can vote but cannot legally enter contracts, adults who are not able to be employed, and adults who can not make day to day
Re:No. (Score:2)
Voting is a benefit and a responsibility, it requires more responsibility and experience than children have. A child isn't going to care what the tax rates are, nor whether the death penalty is legal in his state. All your proposal does is give parents a louder voice in politics solely because they're parents.
But then, I suppose, all animals are equal, it's just that some are more equal than others, rig
Re:No. (Score:2)
You're ignoring the benefits of a more moderate passage -- that as soon as young adults start thinking about government and understanding anything at all, they will start being able to express their votes. Go ahead and do away with it by proxy, or lower the voting age only to the minimum age that a child can be employeed at all. But let's not expect Americans to suddenly learn how to vote at the same time th
Re:No. (Score:2)
Even worse, now our elections will be decided by the parents who can most easily bribe their children into voting for the candidate of the parent's choice. Lovely.
Re:No. (Score:2)
Replace "parents" with "rich people" and "children" with "ordinary citizens" and you've got what we have today.
Sorry, your argument still isn't cognizent enough to justify denying the start of the voting age until the worst possible time to form a new annual habit.
Re:No. (Score:2)
I've never been bribed for my vote, and even if someone tried - because we've got anonymous ballots, they have no hold over my vote. Children are supported by their parents materially, the risk of coercion is far greater than any nebulous rich person could hope to create.
Sorry, your argument still isn't cognizent enough to justify denying the start of the voting age until the worst possible time to
Re:No. (Score:2)
By the time they CAN vote, they're no longer children and it would be out of my hands.
If you want reasons to extend sufferage to children, I'm more than happy to supply.
Re:No. (Score:2)
Voting is not a human right it is a responsibility arising from our form of government. It has been suppressed in the past by other nations, and has been used very recently to bring forth an absolute monarchy in Liechtenstein. That we elevate and revere it in our country doesn't make it a right. It is a privilege that the government can take away in certain cases.
Society is better served when w
Re:No. (Score:2)
All forms of government are democratic, some are just more informal than others.
Society is better served when we have a higher proportion of educated citizens participating in the democratic process
So, you're in favor of a basic competency test to vote. Sure, sounds good to me. But if I'm a really smart 14-year old, why can't I try to pass it and vote?
Felons are taxed, and in most states are unable to vote - why aren't
Re:No. (Score:2)
It doesn't follow that a totalitarian dictatorship is a democratic government because the people could rise up en masse to throw it off.
So, you're in favor of a basic competency test to vote. Sure, sounds good to me. But if I'm a really smart 14-year old, why can't I try to pass it and vote?
No, I'm in favour of a basic competency test for majority. If you can't pass, you can't vote, you can't drive, you can't drink, you can't se
Re:No. (Score:2)
Few children ever really try it, but emancipating oneself from one's parents is about as difficult as getting a divorce when your spouse controls the money and doesn't want you to get one.
And in NY at least, any child over the age of 14 can just pack up and say "I'm going to live wiht Steve's Mom", and so long as Steve's Mom is OK with it they can go and do just that.
Re:No. (Score:2)
The person seeking divorce is still capable of independent action, if we were to take the spouse away - the person seeking divorce would be able to survive on their own as a functioning member of society (in some capacity), the same cannot be said for children.
And in NY at least, any child over the age of 14 can just pack
Re:No. (Score:2)
You're not arguing about parents, you're arguing about children. Allowing proxy votes in the general population is a controversial issue, and I wouldn't see a problem in simply tossing it aside. (And I'm not arguing equality, I'm arguing insufficient catagorical difference.
Re:No. (Score:2)
Re:No. (Score:2)
Re:No. (Score:2)
The idea isn't to artifically inflate someone's voice, but rather to deflate the artifical distinction that some citizen
Re:No. (Score:2)
The concept of proxy voting is indeed about artificially inflating someone's voice in government. Our government enshrines proxy v
Re:No. (Score:2)
Re:No. (Score:2)
Re:No. (Score:2)
A minor revision (Score:2)
Really, what is so bloody difficult about having to show valid ID in order to cast a vote?
Re:A minor revision (Score:1)
It does one of two things, depending on one's point of view:
You're kidding, right? (Score:1)
So... According to your proposition, I would be able to vote for me and for each of my three boys, until they are old enough to do it themselves.
You've got to be kidding. Children are too easily swayed by others to be able to make wise decisions on their own. If anything, I would propose raising the voting age to around 40, since the life expectancy is so high, and many adults seem to be immature, too. (Of course, a requirement for 40 years-of-
Re:You're kidding, right? (Score:2)
Yep. But that's really the second point--the more important matter is that those boys won't have to wait to vote--they can start voting for themselves as soon as they decide they want to.
You've got to be kidding. Children are too easily swayed by others to be able to make wise decisions on their own. If anything, I would propose raising the voting age to around 40
Re:You're kidding, right? (Score:1)
Maybe you'd get me to agree about the 40 year-olds, but after that, people can get pretty cantankerous. (however that's spelled....)
After a while, we just don't give a rat's patootie what anyone thinks. I'm pretty close to that attitude, and I'm "only" 38.
In the mean time, between us, I think we've pretty much come up with one solid fact: nobody should vote because they're all swayable.
Personally, I favor the Two-term rule fo
blacks, er children, were nominally human (Score:2)
200 years ago blacks were nominally human. Now people know that are real people. Not fake people whose sole purpose is to increase votes for southern states.
Yes children can be swayed by parents but anyone can be swayed by anyone.
Why some arbitary age? Does wisdom magically become useful o