The Reformation Of Voting Rights

No I'm not a Republican nor am I a Democrat. I consider myself an American and an Independent who can think for himself. It seems I've been doing that for decades without a politician having to do that for me. Occasionally I broach this subject and love to watch the low information crowd either squirm or go berserk all the while knowing that I'm a student of history and like to use facts as the basis for my reaching certain conclusions.

I'm just as sure that many may think I'm cruel and insensitive when I make contentions about who should have the right to vote and who should not. Back when this nation was established our Founding Fathers actually placed restrictions on who was given the right to vote. Deny it if you care to and then go look it up. One of those restrictions required you to be a property owner in order to elect your fellow man to make policies that affected your community and nation.

There seem to be tipping points in most facets of life and living in a civilized society. I contend that we have reached one of those points. As society in this country has progressed there have been a few wrong turns made along the way in the way people see things. That's normal but rather than correct any wrong turns the present day politician seems to just barrel ahead like there will be no tomorrow. I'm thinking "tomorrow" has arrived.

Historically there was a time when you had to not only be a property owner but also a male. The rationale behind that centered on the Founders wanting the citizens of the nation who voted to outline public policies, decide on which taxes to levy and on whom and the amount of spending that was appropriate to keep the treasury in balance. It's called having some skin in the game in many circles. You have a vested interest. At that time women were the home makers and rarely involved in the inner workings of the republic but over time that changed and somehow the property ownership part of the deal went by the wayside too.

Along came the advent of the personal income tax via the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913. Interesting to note that the taxing of incomes over certain amounts occurred shortly after the Civil War by levying a 3% flat tax on incomes over $800 which evolved into a graduated tax which was abolished in 1872. In 1894 Congress passed a 2% income tax on amounts over $4,000 but that was quickly struck down as unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court.

Then in 1909 the progressives in Congress attached a provision for an income tax to a tariff bill. That caused the conservatives to propose a constitutional amendment in an attempt to kill the idea permanently. Their thinking was that never would 3/4ths of the states chomp on that concept. State legislature after legislature approved the amendment and they were off to the races.

Now let me interject a few more facts into this equation. Even in 1913 there were generous exemptions and deductions that caused less than 1 percent of the population to pay an income tax amounting to 1 percent of their net income. That 1% deal sound familiar? The tax code now is an almost impossible maze to navigate and we also have some hard data that shows that 47% of American households don't pay any income tax into the Treasury to help keep spending in a balance. Instead our career politicians play, and prey, upon that percentage for garnering more votes by offering more freebies without requiring a resulting contribution to the betterment of the nation. Does a $17 trillion national debt ring a bell?

How to correct the problem? It sounds cruel but fix the system so that every household either pays some form of flat tax, which means abolishing the 16th Amendment, or disallowing those who don't contribute any income tax to the Treassure from casting a ballot. Ben Franklin was onto something when he said, "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the Republic.

Many of the wolves are voting and when they vote they often are voting for more government bennies offered by our illustrious career politicians. The Founding Fathers obviously never saw that concept coming down the turnpike either. It was never meant to be a pick pocketing profession as it is now.

Then there is the anti-ID law crowd that says making someone prove who they are at the polls is disenfranchisement. Not even close. Those laws are intended to make sure anyone wanting to cast a ballot, regardless of being rich or poor, has the RIGHT to vote. Using the old driving privilege analogy further illustrates my point. Does requiring ID and car insurance disenfranchise a poor person from driving a car? Which should be more strenuous? The requirements set forth for driving an automobile or voting? Think before you answer please. We'll prohibit you from steering a car illegally but allow you to steer an entire country? Ben Franklin was obviously onto something.

Something To Think About...

I think it's perfectly reasonable and logical to allow those who have some skin in the game to make the rules for participating in the game. That's a nice way of saying there is no free lunch. To allow the non-skinners to structure society and the republic so that the skinners give them money they have never earned, and in many cases don't want to make an effort to earn, is out of whack. But looking at the way things are going that is exactly what has been happening and has gotten worse during the reign of King Obama and his merry band of progressive crooks.

Food for thought as you mull over that $17 trillion national debt. It's much higher than that but the smoke and mirrors are hard to see through. The last thing this nation ever needs again is another Obama figure.

Do I mind if you share this with your friends and followers? Not in the least.

As Always,

The Frog Prince


More by this Author

  • "Ineptocracy" Is A Word
    18

    Ineptocracy is the new system of government that Obama-Biden ushered in. It is a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society...


Comments 17 comments

Old Poolman profile image

Old Poolman 2 years ago from Rural Arizona

Jim, I could tell you an interesting story regarding the mindset of a neighbor who was raised on entitlements and food stamps. But this is not the place to do that.

Everything you say in this hub is true. As the years pass, we drift further away from the thinking of those who drafted our Constitution. There are now those who truly believe our Constitution is so outdated it should just be ignored and thrown away. I can only imagine how a new Constitution written by our current politicians would read. I imagine they would have to put it in the horror section at the local library.


Stu 2 years ago

Hi Frog. Although your ideas are controversial, they do make sense, and comport with Founder intent. Sadly, getting action on this is going to be impossible, because it would disable Congress from being able to bribe half the population with benefits in exchange for votes. I think the ultimate solution is on the benefit side. Federal entitlements can be phased under the aegis of the Tenth Amendment (absence of an enumerated federal power to operate such programs) and the General Welfare Clause (it is unconstitutional for the federal government to benefit one large group (recipients in this case) by harming another large group (taxpayers in this case)). Oddly, a Supreme Court decision dated about 85 years ago actually upheld Social Security on the grounds of the General Welfare Clause, even though the constructionist meaning of the General Welfare Clause makes Social Security illegal at the federal level (though such programs are legal at the State and municipal level). Essentially, the courts have come to activist conclusion that a federal law is legal if it is an enumerated federal power OR is in the general welfare of some large group. What the Constitution actually says, constructionistly, is that a federal law is legal if it is an enumerated federal power AND does not harm the general welfare of one large group to benefit the general welfare of another large group. I.e., the General Welfare Clause is NOT an expansion to federally enumerated powers, but is rather a restriction on the manner in which federally enumerated powers may be implemented via conventional federal code. Very few judges understand this critical point.


Ericdierker profile image

Ericdierker 2 years ago from Spring Valley, CA. U.S.A.

Great points and a very accurate history lesson. "Entitled because I breathe" is a very dangerous proposition.


FitnezzJim profile image

FitnezzJim 2 years ago from Fredericksburg, Virginia

It is an interesting concept, bringing back the idea that you need to own property in order to vote. The last time I heard it was from an elderly lady, who works in HealthCare and is of mixed race.

By the way, did you note that the new White House spokesman was standing up for the States Right to deal with Ebola by way of quarantine? This was stated even after the fundamental change of the last few years that forces States to conform to federal will on Health Care. What is Ebola anyway, if it is not a health issue?


tsadjatko profile image

tsadjatko 2 years ago from maybe (the guy or girl) next door

LOL, OP well said!

There will come a day however, maybe it is here now, when we will need a new constitution, well not a new constitution, keep the old one but start a new country and add one amendment...no liberals (progressives, communists, new agers whatever they decide to call themselves when they run out of old lies) allowed.

Wishful thinking I guess since the rising global warmed oceans will soon cover any possible new home for a country. (a hubber promoting the global warming rally coming up said he doesn't necessarily believe in man made global warming - I said well if it isn't man made man can't do anything about it, can he).

You are so right Frog, everyone needs some skin in the game but worse that that they need to be educated. You have to take tests to prove competency at anything you can possibly think of doing that can affect the public - why not voting? I'll tell you why, so that Politophiles (liberals for the most part but P...files come in both denominations) can take advantage, manipulate and game the system.

And get rid of the "new" gestapo, aka the IRS.


dahoglund profile image

dahoglund 2 years ago from Wisconsin Rapids

I favor the flat tax. It would be nice if the politicians had to give some sort of accounting to the citizens as to what is done with taxes collected. Everything should be done at the lowest level of government possible, as I believe the founders wanted. New immigrants should be able to demonstrate at least an intention and ability to contribute to American society.


breakfastpop profile image

breakfastpop 2 years ago

I agree with you and I am sure you are not surprised. I am so dismayed about the existence of voter fraud, the government's willingness to lie and the public's lack of information. In the end what kind of result are we going to get? It is my understanding that illegal aliens may decide the vote. Have we finally become a third world country?


bradmaster from orange county ca 2 years ago

Frog Prince

Great hub, and great message.

While the 16th amendment can't be held unconstitutional there is no reason that its implementation can't be held unconstitutional.

In addition, if the Income Tax was replaced by a National Sales Tax, this would effectively ignore the Internal Revenue Code, and its bureaucracy.

That is one of the reasons why I don't favor a flat tax.

The 16th amendment is very narrow in that its main issue was apportionment. Article I section 8 gave congress the power to tax without restriction on what can be taxed.

Congress can repeal the Income Tax Code and ignore Income Tax if they chose to do that.

As easily as Obamacare was passed, the tax code can be repealed.

The problem is that the federal government is too big, and its scope is too large to give up the revenue bunny of Income.

They got this way from the Supreme Court expanding the two lines of the Interstate Commerce Clause to usurp the states rights. The 10th Amendment is a residue for what the federal government doesn't claim. Then if that wasn't enough the feds always have the Supremacy Clause as trump.

Thanks


tsadjatko profile image

tsadjatko 2 years ago from maybe (the guy or girl) next door

Here you go, today's news. Maybe this explains how Obama got elected, and re-elected.

" The group, Virginia Voters Alliance, says that it compared how voters in Frederick County filled out jury duty statements compared with their voting records. The group’s investigation found that thousands of people in Frederick County who stated that they are not U.S. citizens on jury duty forms went on to cast votes in elections. Either they failed to tell the truth when they were summoned for jury duty, or they cast illegal votes. Both are crimes."

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2014/10/29/massive-non-c...


bradmaster 2 years ago

tsadjatko

One has to wonder how systemic this kind of voting is in the entire country?


Old Poolman profile image

Old Poolman 2 years ago from Rural Arizona

That plus voting machines that change the votes to a Democratic candidate makes me wonder how many elections are just a farce.


Hxprof 2 years ago from Clearwater, Florida

OP, with corrrupted voting machines in place it's clear to me that we no longer have a viable republic. But even without those, the majority of this country (it only takes 51%) is lost-entitlement mentality; what can my country do for ME. Ugly but true.


tsadjatko profile image

tsadjatko 2 years ago from maybe (the guy or girl) next door

Voter fraud can only work if the elections are close. This season according to the polls, which I don't trust, all the important ones for the senate are close. If the republicans fall short of securing the senate I will bet my life fraud was in play (Did I say life, sorry, I meant wife).

It's just this easy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcxGGnmRQAs


tsadjatko profile image

tsadjatko 2 years ago from maybe (the guy or girl) next door

McConnell wins! I wonder if Alison Lundergan Grimes will say who she voted for in this election.


tsadjatko profile image

tsadjatko 2 years ago from maybe (the guy or girl) next door

Given she didn't even mention McConnell's name in her "non-victory" speech I suppose we can assume she voted for Mitch?


Old Poolman profile image

Old Poolman 2 years ago from Rural Arizona

We have one here in Arizona where they are still counting votes and at one point they were only 36 votes apart. Now they have shipped all of the early voting ballots to another county for them to count because the machine count and the hand count don't agree.

Sounds to me like they will just keep counting until the "Right guy" wins.


tsadjatko profile image

tsadjatko 2 years ago from maybe (the guy or girl) next door

Did you hear, Jon Stewart was intervied by CNN and when asked if he voted he said:

"No,”

“No?!” exclaimed Christiane Amanpour .

“I just moved. I don’t know even where my thing is now,” he said.

Democrats went nuts on social media 'cause they need his viewers to vote (39 percent of Stewart's viewers are 18-to-39 years old and 36 percent of his viewers are 30-to-49 years old) ! so later he said he did vote and was just kidding! Seems nobody got his joke.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/20...

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working