Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2010/12/02 00:16:00
Subject: Tea party leader: Restricting vote to property owners ‘makes a lot of sense’
Tea Party Nation President Judson Phillips said denying the right to vote to those who do not own property "makes a lot of sense" during a weekly radio program.
"The Founding Fathers originally said, they put certain restrictions on who gets the right to vote," Phillips said. "It wasn't you were just a citizen and you got to vote."
"Some of the restrictions, you know, you obviously would not think about today," he continued. "But one of those was you had to be a property owner. And that makes a lot of sense, because if you’re a property owner you actually have a vested stake in the community."
"If you're not a property owner, you know, I'm sorry but property owners have a little bit more of a vested interest in the community than non-property owners."
Approximately 33% of Americans are renters, according to the National Multi-Housing Council.
During the same radio program, Phillips discussed with David DeGerolamo, the founder of tea party group North Carolina Freedom, the repeal of various constitutional amendments.
"Of course, when people talk, three Amendments that really are the only ones that seriously get talked about getting repealed: the 16th Amendment, for the income tax, and we can only hope that happens; the 17th Amendment for having the appointment of Senators got back to state legislatures; and the 26th Amendment, I believe it is," Phillips said. "Do you know which one that is, David?"
"No, but I know which one I want repealed," responded DeGerolamo. "I want the 14th Amendment repealed."
The first clause of the 14th Amendment grants birthright citizenship to anyone born in the US, regardless of whether their parents are citizens. The second and third clause prohibits the government from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without due process and requires the government to provide equal protection under the law, respectively.
Ending citizenship rights granted to children of illegal immigrants born in the US will be one of the first objectives of the Republican-led House of Representatives, according to a published report.
Rep. Steve King (R-IA), who has represented Iowa's 5th congressional district since 2003, said he will push a bill to deny birthright citizenship to children of illegal immigrants.
"Because the 14th Amendment has been misconstrued, current law inappropriately gives American citizenship to the children of illegal aliens solely because their parents were able to cross our borders illegally and give birth here," King said in October.
"As a result of this perverse incentive, an entire 'anchor baby' industry has developed which exploits a legal loophole caused by a misinterpretation of the Constitution," he continued. "Many of these illegal aliens are giving birth to children in the United States so that they can have uninhibited access to taxpayer funded benefits and to citizenship for as many family members as possible."
In an open letter, DeeDee Blasé, the founder of Somos Republicans, criticized King for planning legislation "that would undermine the 14th amendment of the constitution" which he "swore an oath to uphold."
"We find both this rhetoric and this un-constitutional conduct reprehensible, insulting and a poor reflection upon Republicans because we don’t want our Party to be viewed as the Party of changing the United States Constitution," she added.
2010/12/02 01:49:44
Subject: Tea party leader: Restricting vote to property owners ‘makes a lot of sense’
Wait, he wants to repeal the 26th amendment? Really? I've never even heard of that being discussed before. For everyone that doesn't know, that's the amendment that establishes the minimum voting age as no higher than 18.
I also find the decision to restrict federal voting to property owners a bit strange given that the extent to which someone invests in their own community has very little bearing on investment in the nation as a whole via taxation. Though I suppose since they want to repeal the 16th, that makes some sense. Not that repealing the 16ty amendment is likely, that would take a colossal feat of stupidity.
I wouldn't mind if the 17th amendment were repealed, as it would make the Senate a legitimate higher house. But I'm really surprised that any Tea Party leader would want it repealed, as it both diffuses the influence of popular politics on the Senate, and opens the door to list-based appointment restrictions like gender quotas.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/12/02 01:52:34
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
2010/12/02 02:04:31
Subject: Tea party leader: Restricting vote to property owners ‘makes a lot of sense’
Is it just me, or is the Tea Party core members (not the generic angry white folk) just those guys from college that ranted about libertarianism until they weren't allowed into bull sessions any more?
Also, while I get the idea of returning our nation to a more constitutionally based government (although I disagree with the idea that somehow we aren't one), amendments are by definition part of the constitution!
I mean, the damn document was written with the understanding that it would be changed.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/12/02 02:14:24
2010/12/02 02:08:22
Subject: Tea party leader: Restricting vote to property owners ‘makes a lot of sense’
I've been picking up copies of The Objective Standard lately, mostly to amuse myself regarding terrible political and social arguments, and there's always some reference to the Tea Party and an odd sort of Libertarianism that derives itself from Objectivism. Of course, what this really means is that its a form of Libertarianism that isn't predicted on Liberty at all, but on opposition to the state and an adherence to quasi-religious doctrine.
So yeah, those guys that ranted about Libertarianism in college.
I'm also curious as to how property ownership would be determined if the franchise were thus restricted. I don't own physical property, but I own a decent amount of stock, which isn't something that really existed outside the landed class when the franchise was restricted to property before, but seems to occur fairly often now.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote:I think they really just want to take the vote away from Dogma and Polo...err, a smaller group than it sounds like. I've already said to much.
Maybe it has something to do with the way I troll Illinois Tea Party protests by showing up in "Vote Quinn" shirts?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2010/12/02 02:14:17
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
2010/12/02 02:17:01
Subject: Tea party leader: Restricting vote to property owners ‘makes a lot of sense’
dogma wrote:I also find the decision to restrict federal voting to property owners a bit strange given that the extent to which someone invests in their own community has very little bearing on investment in the nation as a whole via taxation.
It's all part of the assumption that wealthy people know what's best for running the country. It's entirely coincidental that the wealthy think the best way to run the country is to do what benefits them the most.
I wouldn't mind if the 17th amendment were repealed, as it would make the Senate a legitimate higher house. But I'm really surprised that any Tea Party leader would want it repealed, as it both diffuses the influence of popular politics on the Senate, and opens the door to list-based appointment restrictions like gender quotas.
They believe that putting appointment into the hands of the state houses will make appointees loyal to the states. This is nonsense, of course, because the two parties that dominate Federal Government also dominate each individual state. What you'd see is a quite move to more closely align the state and federal arms of each party. What you'd lose is the freedom of senators to ignore party directives to represent the people of their electorates.
Which, given the low state of party discipline in the US system and it's likely effect on decent long term planning for the country, might be a good thing but the total opposite of what the Tea Party wants.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Polonius wrote:Is it just me, or is the Tea Party core members (not the generic angry white folk) just those guys from college that ranted about libertarianism until they weren't allowed into bull sessions any more?
Plus the guys who ranted about stuff that was too crazy to really fit into any particular kind of -ism, plus a whole lot of people who are genuinely classical conservatives who just haven't quite figured out how crazy the rest of the party are.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2010/12/02 02:27:54
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2010/12/02 02:34:24
Subject: Tea party leader: Restricting vote to property owners ‘makes a lot of sense’
So take away the vote of anybody living in a metro area. check
Target a minority that has little impact on the issues at hand. check.
You know for the party that ran a platform of loving the constitution, they sure seem keen on ripping it apart.
And whilst you're pointing and shouting at the boogeyman in the corner, you're missing the burglar coming in through the window.
Well, Duh! Because they had a giant Mining ship. If you had a giant mining ship you would drill holes in everything too, before you'd destory it with a black hole
2010/12/02 02:58:22
Subject: Re:Tea party leader: Restricting vote to property owners ‘makes a lot of sense’
Yeah, take away the vote of all the metro areas: aka the city folk who are so commonly known for their progressive liberal delusions, lack of education, and backwards social conventions. They can't mount gun racks on a bicicle, and they aren't allowed on public transportation either... SSoooooo...
While we're at it, why dont we just get even more to the point and make each mans vote equal to the ammount of ammo he has stashed in his shed? The more of your grandpappy's land you inherited and call your own, the more room to stockpile! They go hand in hand! Makes sense, since the right to have any say in anything really only comes down to how capable you are of exerting your will through force if necessary.
Land ownership is not an absolute, just a societal nicety and a stupidly respected tradition. Who was the first donkey-cave to say "This land is MINE" to start the ball rolling of ownership and class privellige? Probably the guy who could defend his right to be a greedy fuckstain the best.
GUNS!!!! (I'm shooting to get a Palin endorsement here)
The owning class of people in any feudal land based culture learned pretty hard that their right to ownership only went so far as to when the number of pissed off pissed ons just TOOK their land when they got fed up enough. But now we have more guns.
land = votes
but guns = land
so...
guns = votes! JOIN THE TEA PARTY AND YOU CAN VOTE BASED ON GUNS!
What would Yeenoghu do?
2010/12/02 06:30:41
Subject: Tea party leader: Restricting vote to property owners ‘makes a lot of sense’
It's one thing to want some sort of enlightened oligarchy to make decisions for everyone, but this is just lazy. You should have to prove yourself by fighting space bugs, or jousting, or something along those lines.
Anuvver fing - when they do sumfing, they try to make it look like somfink else to confuse everybody. When one of them wants to lord it over the uvvers, 'e says "I'm very speshul so'z you gotta worship me", or "I know summink wot you lot don't know, so yer better lissen good". Da funny fing is, arf of 'em believe it and da over arf don't, so 'e 'as to hit 'em all anyway or run fer it.
2010/12/02 06:45:47
Subject: Tea party leader: Restricting vote to property owners ‘makes a lot of sense’
Orkeosaurus wrote:It's one thing to want some sort of enlightened oligarchy to make decisions for everyone, but this is just lazy. You should have to prove yourself by fighting space bugs, or jousting, or something along those lines.
+1
Or maybe by bare knuckles boxing other world leaders? I think Putin might be dictator for life if we did it like that....................errrr wait a sec
I like some of the basic Tea Party platform....very similar to Libertarian stances. However the deep entrenchment of the religious right....WAY FAR CRAZY OMFG ARE YOU SERIOUS right gives the entire movement a really bad name. Plus having Sarah Palin as your most recognized political....interest? is a damn fine way to get laughed at.
sebster wrote:
Which, given the low state of party discipline in the US system and it's likely effect on decent long term planning for the country, might be a good thing but the total opposite of what the Tea Party wants.
Which, oddly enough, is why populism tends to fail. The mob is dumb. Well, at least ignorant.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
2010/12/02 11:14:38
Subject: Tea party leader: Restricting vote to property owners ‘makes a lot of sense’
Mr Mystery wrote:America, a country founded by illegal immigrants, wanting to stop...illegal immigrants.
They weren't illegal immigrants at the time, just immigrants. They weren't breaking any non-existent unified Native American law just by being there and they had the backing of their respective countries as well. It would be more honest and less loaded to say a country founded by immigrants wanting to stop immigrants, but even that isn't wholly accurate because we do take in immigrants. It is complicated and a pithy bumper slogan sticker doesn't really help deal with the situation.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
2010/12/02 14:10:57
Subject: Tea party leader: Restricting vote to property owners ‘makes a lot of sense’
agroszkiewicz wrote:I like some of the basic Tea Party platform....very similar to Libertarian stances. However the deep entrenchment of the religious right....WAY FAR CRAZY OMFG ARE YOU SERIOUS right gives the entire movement a really bad name.
I don't think the movement has much at all to do with the religious right. Seems like this is the result of the collapse of the religious right. I'd say that what you like about the Tea Party is probably what draws most people to it.
Bringing the destitute? now we can ship low end jobs to the destitute. no need to soil our "better than yous" land.
And whilst you're pointing and shouting at the boogeyman in the corner, you're missing the burglar coming in through the window.
Well, Duh! Because they had a giant Mining ship. If you had a giant mining ship you would drill holes in everything too, before you'd destory it with a black hole
2010/12/02 14:28:36
Subject: Tea party leader: Restricting vote to property owners ‘makes a lot of sense’
Mr Mystery wrote:I think invaders can be classed as illegal immigrants.
That pretty much means that 99% of the countries in the world are founded by illegal immigrants then no ?
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
2010/12/02 14:41:42
Subject: Tea party leader: Restricting vote to property owners ‘makes a lot of sense’
America is scary... i think we should start granting asylum to people from NY and CA.
Palin making those ridiculous wikileaks comments was awesome as well.
I always argued my missus should leave California and come here on the grounds that it might one day end up in the ocean after a big earthquake, but i think i can just say "50% of the country are lunatics" these days.
I hope Palin becomes president and then bans everything thats not sanctioned by her interpretation of the bible!
We are arming Syrian rebels who support ISIS, who is fighting Iran, who is fighting Iraq who we also support against ISIS, while fighting Kurds who we support while they are fighting Syrian rebels.
2010/12/02 14:43:58
Subject: Tea party leader: Restricting vote to property owners ‘makes a lot of sense’
For something to be illegal there actually has to be a law that is broken. There was no law stating that people couldn't visit the western hemisphere. People didn't initially 'invade' North America or were as unfriendly or as unwelcome by the native population as they would be later on.
As for the 'destitute' I believe he is referring to one of the inscriptions on the Statue of Liberty. If you read my posts nowhere do I say anything about immigration, but not that it is disingenuous and showing a gross misunderstanding of both the law and history to call the early colonists 'illegal immigrants'.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
2010/12/02 15:24:49
Subject: Tea party leader: Restricting vote to property owners ‘makes a lot of sense’
mattyrm wrote:America is scary... i think we should start granting asylum to people from NY and CA.
Palin making those ridiculous wikileaks comments was awesome as well.
I always argued my missus should leave California and come here on the grounds that it might one day end up in the ocean after a big earthquake, but i think i can just say "50% of the country are lunatics" these days.
I hope Palin becomes president and then bans everything thats not sanctioned by her interpretation of the bible!
Matt, do you do your own research into someone's stance before you just condemn them to the trash heap of history or do you believe what the news tells you?
The American media has no interest in seeing Americans think independently, neither does our government. The minute our Government detects that a vast majority of it's "subjects" becomes skeptical they will lose the game they've been playing for the last 110+ years.
Catachan LIX "Lords Of Destruction" - Put Away
1943-1944 Era 1250 point Großdeutchland Force - Bolt Action
"The best medicine for Wraithlords? Multilasers. The best way to kill an Avatar? Lasguns."
"Time to pour out some liquor for the pinkmisted Harlequins"
Res Ipsa Loquitor
2010/12/02 15:29:47
Subject: Tea party leader: Restricting vote to property owners ‘makes a lot of sense’
mattyrm wrote:America is scary... i think we should start granting asylum to people from NY and CA.
Palin making those ridiculous wikileaks comments was awesome as well.
I always argued my missus should leave California and come here on the grounds that it might one day end up in the ocean after a big earthquake, but i think i can just say "50% of the country are lunatics" these days.
I hope Palin becomes president and then bans everything thats not sanctioned by her interpretation of the bible!
Matt, do you do your own research into someone's stance before you just condemn them to the trash heap of history or do you believe what the news tells you?
The American media has no interest in seeing Americans think independently, neither does our government. The minute our Government detects that a vast majority of it's "subjects" becomes skeptical they will lose the game they've been playing for the last 110+ years.
As for repealing the 16th Amendment, didn't the 18th Amendment get repealed? Wasn't it bad policy? The 16th Amendment is worse. It's Marxsist. The 18th Amendment was a result of Progressive politicians and the Turbo-Christians (i.e. Pat Buchanan Christian, or a fascist) in the Temperance Movement.
I wouldn't go as far as to say Property Owners are the only people that can vote, Federal Income tax payers should be the only people that can vote. There's too large of a parasite class in this nation that pays no federal income tax, and thusly votes for more largess.
The 17th Amendment has turned our Senate into a smaller version of the House. It was supposed to be a forum for representatives from the States to be able to interact with the Federal Government, and apporpriate logical things for their states when the need arised, not some amalgam of what they were never supposed to be.
The 26th is fine, don't know why this guy doesn't like it. The 27th is one worth removing completely.
The 1st clause of the 14th Amendment needs to be re-written (or interpereted better) it goes as follows:
"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
What's in bold is always ignored in a debate about illegal immigrants, in order for someone to be subject to the juridiction of the United States, they will have needed to apply for a Visa, gotten a green card or have become a naturized citizen. This also applies to their children. If they sneak in and make no effort to become a citizen, they need to be deported, that's one of the few things the Federal Government is responsible for (but alas, they drop the ball there too).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mr Mystery wrote:
reds8n wrote:
Mr Mystery wrote:I think invaders can be classed as illegal immigrants.
That pretty much means that 99% of the countries in the world are founded by illegal immigrants then no ?
Yup, so everyone might as well chill the feth out about where everyone else comes from.
That is pretty easy to say when the UK isn't being overrun with Illegals that have no inncoulations, can barely read Spanish, use our public services without paying any federal taxes and are completely unaccounted for as to who they are.
This doesn't even take into account the serious problem on the Border with all of the drug cartels, which are waging an open war with anyone who is in the way.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/12/02 15:40:30
Catachan LIX "Lords Of Destruction" - Put Away
1943-1944 Era 1250 point Großdeutchland Force - Bolt Action
"The best medicine for Wraithlords? Multilasers. The best way to kill an Avatar? Lasguns."
"Time to pour out some liquor for the pinkmisted Harlequins"
The Undying Spawn of Shub-Niggurath 
Waaagh! Gorskar = 2050pts
Fjälnir Ironfist's Great Company = 1800pts
Guflag's Mercenary Ogres = 2000pts
Catachan LIX "Lords Of Destruction" 
