rab@well.UUCP (Bob Bickford) (09/09/86)
In a previous article, Peter Osgood writes: > > >Wrong. (You did prove your point, though, that people who *can* read > >don't know enough to vote intelligently.) The Constitution gives the > >states the power to decide voting qualifications with a few restrictions: > >1.) race cannot be a factor; 2.) sex cannot be a factor; 3.) over 18, > >age cannot be a factor; 4.) poll taxes can be used to prevent voting > >in a Federal election. > > > >Clayton E. Cramer > > Wrong on 4. Amendment XXIV of the US Constitution states: > 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any > primary or other election for President or Vice President, for > electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or > Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged > by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay > any poll tax or other tax. > 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article > by appropriate legislation. > > ratification completed January 23, 1964. > > ---peter osgood--- Notice anything, fellow net.legal persons? (Yes, the amendment is quoted correctly and completely) According to the Constitution, YOU DON'T HAVE TO PAY TAXES IN ORDER TO VOTE! "....or other tax." I do feel that this is the way it should be (after all, even if you don't pay taxes, the government still messes with your life in a myriad of ways); I just wanted to be sure the point was noticed. -- Robert Bickford {lll-crg,hplabs}!well!rab
hoffman@hdsvx1.UUCP (Richard Hoffman) (09/11/86)
In an article defending literacy tests, Clayton E. Cramer wrote: > ... literacy requirements were frequently abused for racially > discriminatory reasons. That's not a valid argument against literacy > tests, provided you can find a way to have them not abused. Does > anyone seriously think that a person who can't read knows enough > about the issues and the candidates to vote intelligently? I responded ... > Does anyone seriously think that most people who *can* read know enough > about the issues and the candidates to vote intelligently? The constitution > guarantees universal suffrage to all adult American citizens. ... and Clayton shot me down: >Wrong. (You did prove your point, though, that people who *can* read >don't know enough to vote intelligently.) He then goes on to point out [correctly] that the Constitution gave the states the power to decide voting qualifications and that later amendments denied them the right to qualify with respect to sex, race, age above 18, and the payment of a tax. John Miller agreed, and, speaking of the same paragraph, wrote: > You do lend a lot of weight to your own arguments, though. You are at > least semi-literate, or you wouldn't be able to compose your posting. > Yet you apparently know little of your own Federal Constitution. Are these just cheap cracks, or are Clayton and John seriously suggesting that my incorrect adducement of a right to universal adult suffrage should disqualify me from voting? My guess is that I know considerably more about the Constitution than the "average" voter, even though I am far from being an expert. What level of expertise in constitutional law, American history and current issues and candidates would CC and JM suggest as an adequate basis for voting? What percentage of the current population has attained this level? Clayton quoted the rest of my article ... > ... An individual's right to vote is much more important than > society's right to insist that he vote "wisely." Literacy tests were > *never* a device to insure good government -- look at the state governments > found in the South in the years when the tests were most prevalent -- any > more than property requirements were, or the electoral college for that > matter. Each was the attempt of one class of people to maintain control > over the government without interference from other classes. ... but instead of responding to my point about the importance of universal suffrage (irrespective of whether constitutionally guaranteed or not), or to my point about the ineffectiveness of voting restrictions in bringing about good government, he merely suggests: > Try reading the Constitutional Convention debates on the subject of > voting. You will find that the notion of universal suffrage for *its > own sake* was never seriously suggested. John was even more silent on these points. I have not read the debates, but it is interesting to note that, at least by 1868, federal congressional opinion was probably in favor of universal male suffrage, since the 14th Amendment says that states which deny suffrage to a percentage of the adult male population shall have their congressional representation pro-rated by that percentage. -- Richard Hoffman | "Oh life is a wonderful cycle of song, Schlumberger Well Services | A medley of extemporanea. hoffman%hdsvx1@slb-doll.csnet | And Love is a thing that can never go wrong PO Box 2175, Houston, TX 77252 | ... And I am Marie of Roumania." --D. PARKER