Tea Party founder - restrict voting rights to property owners

There are no rights enshrined in the Constitution. That's not its intent.

 

What is its intent then?

 

From Wickapedia

The Bill of Rights is the name by which the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution are known.[1] They were introduced by James Madison to the First United States Congress in 1789 as a series of legislative articles, and came into effect as Constitutional Amendments on December 15, 1791, through the process of ratification by three-fourths of the States.

The Bill of Rights is a series of limitations on the power of the United States Federal government, protecting the natural rights of liberty and property including freedom of speech, a free press, free assembly, and free association. In federal criminal cases, it requires indictment by a grand jury for any capital or "infamous crime", guarantees a speedy, public trial with an impartial jury composed of members of the state or judicial district in which the crime occurred, and prohibits double jeopardy. In addition, the Bill of Rights reserves for the people any rights not specifically mentioned in the Constitution[2] and reserves all powers not specifically granted to the federal government to the people or the States. Most of these restrictions on the Federal government were later applied to the states by a series of legal decisions applying the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was ratified in 1868. The Bill was influenced by George Mason's 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights, the 1689 English Bill of Rights, works of the Age of Enlightenment pertaining to natural rights, and earlier English political documents such as Magna Carta (1215).

 

No sweat brother.

 

It is an enumeration of powers. Strictly interpreted, if it isn't explicitly written, the federal government can't do it. The Bill of Rights was argued against by Hamilton as 1) Superfluous, and 2) Dangerous, because men apt to usurp their authority will use the implied power of securing rights to actually take them away.

Even so, the so-called Bill of Rights were restrictions on congress only. Not on state and local governments.

 

OK, but when I went to court in July regarding some chickens I have & signage my wife put up on my property, my lawyer argued the case using Constitutional amendment rights arguments & got the whole thing thrown out of court....guess what your saying is it depends on your lawyer. Of course he couldn't have done it without the Bill Of Rights being in place, right?

 

It's interesting that some suggest individuals receiving welfare should be ineligible from voting. Ironically though this sector of the population (as small as it is) does not get out to vote in large numbers.

I don't know about anyone else, but I rather enjoy that the US allows all to vote...well except felons.

 

I disagree with this characterization. Are there people who have abused the system? Certainly but many welfare recipients are not in that category.

There's a guy named Tom who attends our church. Tom is a good guy with a great heart but because of a physical disability cannot work to support himself. He requires some level of care, though is pretty self-sufficient. His big trip every week is to attend church on Sundays. It is a big deal because it takes a lot for him to get out and about. Tom is on welfare and has been for a while. He needs the assistance. I would disagree that Tom is stealing from others.

As a society we have a mandate to help out others. With all the reforms that have been put in place and the review process for those accepting welfare it is hard to suggest there are many people abusing the system.

Tom doesn't like being on welfare, but he has no choice. Most people that I've known who are on a form of welfare don't like it, but they usually don't have much of a choice.

 

I forget who the player was, but in summer of '09 one of those inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame in his speech said, "What a man believes determines how he lives. And how he lives shows what he really believes, not matter what he says he believes."

So, with Jefferson's quote, "equal rights for all, special privileges for none," did his slaves has as many rights as he himself did? Did a free woman of his time have as many rights as he did? Did he have special privileges he never ceded just because he was born white, male, and to affluence? If you think a person's words show his character, you would say he was equal and unprivileged. If it's his actions that you believe, you would think the opposite. I take the latter position.

 

I feel bad for Tom. I honestly do. I know of others in his same situation and I grieve for them as well.

Where's Tom's family? Why aren't they helping Tom? Why isn't his church helping him? Why is it that help can only come from the government (by way of income redistribution)?

 

Matt, are you really expecting his Church to fund his life? My own minister is gathering wood in the forest to enable him to have heat this winter. We are a small church & we cant fund a person on welfare. Do churches actually do that today?

 

I didn't get too specific about this in the above, though I will mention Tom is in his 50s and his parents have both passed away. He has a sibling who helps as they are able. He has had this condition since childhood and thus never got married.

Tom gets help from many people but his care costs are expensive. I cannot say how much but would submit it is a heavy financial burden. Our ministry aids him as we can and many in our congregation help him. We also have a lot of other people who we aid as well. Our annual aid budget is larger than most other ministry's total budgets. We try to bless who we can and do help out.

Tom does what he can but is at the mercy of society. He didn't choose this path and has gone through a time where his faith was challenged because of his situation.

Tom is a good man who is limited in what he can do. What are his options?

I really struggled with this issue for several years. The Church steps up where it can but is limited. Many people have said "Well let the Church (et al) take care of these people" but the Church hasn't. At some point as a merciful society we need to provide for those who cannot provide for themselves. This is one example.

 

Court history disagrees with you, brother.

If that were so, equal rights would be purely a state issue.

 

He couldn't have done it without political correctness.

 

The courts are an ass, and Communism is equal rights.

 

As to the original subject, the U.S. of A. does have a serious problem with voting.

The demise of any democracy (and I AM aware that we are a Republic; but we do have democratic voting for representatives) stems from people being able to vote themselves benefits from the public trough purely by electing those who love giving other people's money away- and the public trough comes from those who work and pay taxes.

Now, if I pay no taxes - even better yet; I pay no taxes and even get a couple grand in refund (which is a misnomer as I get back two grand more than was withheld!); then all I have to do is make sure I vote for my candidate who helped pass the law that gave me that benefit. It is called "vote buying."

However, on the other hand, I am one of those guys who has to kick in twenty or thirty thousand per year in taxes, I don't want to vote for those who take my money and waste it on non-constitutional programs.

As the number of non-taxpaying citizens increase (and it is now around 50%) their their individual votes can cancel out the votes of those who do have to pony up the money for those frivolous handouts. The non-taxpayers have nothing to lose and everything to gain. The taxpayers have everything to lose and nothing to gain.

This is a problem - and it is bankrupting our country. Too many congressmen and senators think that tax money grows on trees. Why not - they spend it like water and still keep getting elected...... by whom?