I'm all for sufrage of those 18 years or older...with a few stipulations.
The Amendment should read thus:
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.
Section 2. Each citizen shall satisfactorily complete a college-level Political Science and Economics course, or possess a Bachelor's degree from an accredited institution of higher education, or be currently serving or have served in the United States Military in order to achieve voting status.
Section 3. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Why such regulations on who can vote? Good question. When this Republic was founded, voting was restricted to those citizens who owned land and/or paid a certain amount in taxes. The reason being that only citizens who had a legitimate stake in society had the right to decide who would lead.
My current rationale is analogous. Only people that understand the basic US political structure, as well as the foundations of our economic system should be allowed to decide who should lead.
I mean really, if you don't understand that both McCain's and Obama's platforms spell certain economic doom for the next 4 years, you shouldn't vote (see here for non-partisan analysis). Unless of course you understand that, and still think their platforms are beneficial, then you can still vote. Either way, you ought to have some grasp on what the implications of their platforms are before you vote.
Since there is no way to ensure that every voting American actually understands what they are voting for, an arbitrary yet beneficial requirement like a couple college courses, a degree, or military service seems like a great way to enforce said ideal.
"What nerve," you might exclaim. We already do this in our country with driver's licenses. Yep, some arbitrary written and practical requirements, while seemingly useless for some, are arguably very beneficial for the whole of society. I think you'd see the same results out of a similar voter's license.
My proposed amendment wouldn't discriminate, and there'd have to be a provision for all pre-18 year olds to take the required courses. We'd all be smarter, more informed voters voting for the same stupid people.
10/31/08
10/22/08
Prop 8
My hiatus is due to the denial I've been in after realizing the whole bigfoot thing was a hoax.
On a different note, here is my latest explanation of my support for Proposition 8. It was written in response to this post and the comments. Read them all if you have an hour or so, as they provide some context to the response.
"Shannon Davis summed up what I feel is the strongest argument defining "fundamental rights" and explicating court decisions outlawing polygamy. I will try and add to those to the best of my ability. Her arguments lead us to more philosophical assumptions. We delve into the realm of moral relativity.
You are agnostic, but you have morals. Therefore morals are not inherently religious. So I have a question. Do Prop 8 opponents support NAMBLA (http://www.nambla.org/)? Do a consenting adult and a consenting minor have the fundamental right to have intercourse? Can a 45 year old man have intercourse with your 9 year old son? Assume both parties consent. I would hopefully assume that most people, including you, don't condone that. So is it a "fundamental right" to do that? NAMBLA thinks so.
You see, just about everyone has some commonality in their morals. We have another example in child pornography. So long as little children consent, why can't they monetarily benefit by posing in sexually explicit, or implicit for that matter, ways? The answers to this question will cover the field, but all arguments ultimately boil down to the fact that something is inherently wrong. And there we have it. That word that moral relativists can't stand. Wrong.
Polygamy is wrong.
Child pornography is wrong.
Sexual relationships between boys and men is wrong.
Things that are wrong...are wrong.
Who ultimately decides what is wrong? Well, that's a completely different argument. But when it comes to moral boundaries and the law, someone has to draw the line. Society would quickly spiral into absolute chaos were moral relativism to reign.
In the current debate, a seeming majority of the people, be it due to religion or some other motive force, feel that gay marriage is wrong. Californians have been given the opportunity to draw a moral line in the dirt. People of all backgrounds are voting to do just that. The fortunate or unfortunate result is that the majority will decide what "fundamental rights" people actually have. Californians will place a moral absolute (albeit most likely temporary) on the definition of marriage based on what the majority feels is right or wrong.
But let us not confuse moral rights with "fundamental rights." Fortunately for the GLBT community, society will not deprive them of any fundamental right. Every one of them can still be legally married to someone of the opposite sex. For others who want to enjoy a Registered Domestic Partnership with some of the same sex, they according to the California Family Code section 295.5, "Shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses." So the FACT is Kevin, domestic partnerships ARE the same thing legally. The reality is, they are different because they are not marriages. They never will be. So let's not call a spade a club.
I perchance say the vast majority of the world population views marriage as an institution that transcends government. But marriage inherently implicates governmental recognition. However, government doesn't ultimately possess the right to define marriage. The people, the society, the culture of California do.
Marriage between a man and a woman is culturally deemed a moral right and a civic fundamental right. Domestic partnerships between any two consenting adults, enjoying everything that spouses enjoy, is a civic fundamental right.
And finally, the Civil Rights Movement and the Gay Rights Movement are hardly comparable. Regardless of how hard I try, I can not, in no way, be African American. In fact, I would have loved to have been African American when I was applying to dental school. But it just can't happen. It's impossible. I can't choose my race. I can choose to marry someone of the opposite sex, or to enter a domestic partnership with some of the same sex. Humans' ability to choose differentiates these two movements. If you want, we can take this argument down the same moral relativity path to drill in the point. But our choices have consequences that individuals can't ultimately choose. So, after a bunch of logical connections...blah, blah, blah...homosexuals can't be married because homosexual couples can't marry. Society at large has already determined that consequence. Homosexual couples are only deprived of something their choices have already excluded them from.
In my mind, one of the few powers still possessed by the people is the ability to vote on ballot propositions. I am confident that the people of California will, as a majority, uphold the worldwide time-honored, evolutionarily sound, liberally unpopular definition of marriage."
On a different note, here is my latest explanation of my support for Proposition 8. It was written in response to this post and the comments. Read them all if you have an hour or so, as they provide some context to the response.
"Shannon Davis summed up what I feel is the strongest argument defining "fundamental rights" and explicating court decisions outlawing polygamy. I will try and add to those to the best of my ability. Her arguments lead us to more philosophical assumptions. We delve into the realm of moral relativity.
You are agnostic, but you have morals. Therefore morals are not inherently religious. So I have a question. Do Prop 8 opponents support NAMBLA (http://www.nambla.org/)? Do a consenting adult and a consenting minor have the fundamental right to have intercourse? Can a 45 year old man have intercourse with your 9 year old son? Assume both parties consent. I would hopefully assume that most people, including you, don't condone that. So is it a "fundamental right" to do that? NAMBLA thinks so.
You see, just about everyone has some commonality in their morals. We have another example in child pornography. So long as little children consent, why can't they monetarily benefit by posing in sexually explicit, or implicit for that matter, ways? The answers to this question will cover the field, but all arguments ultimately boil down to the fact that something is inherently wrong. And there we have it. That word that moral relativists can't stand. Wrong.
Polygamy is wrong.
Child pornography is wrong.
Sexual relationships between boys and men is wrong.
Things that are wrong...are wrong.
Who ultimately decides what is wrong? Well, that's a completely different argument. But when it comes to moral boundaries and the law, someone has to draw the line. Society would quickly spiral into absolute chaos were moral relativism to reign.
In the current debate, a seeming majority of the people, be it due to religion or some other motive force, feel that gay marriage is wrong. Californians have been given the opportunity to draw a moral line in the dirt. People of all backgrounds are voting to do just that. The fortunate or unfortunate result is that the majority will decide what "fundamental rights" people actually have. Californians will place a moral absolute (albeit most likely temporary) on the definition of marriage based on what the majority feels is right or wrong.
But let us not confuse moral rights with "fundamental rights." Fortunately for the GLBT community, society will not deprive them of any fundamental right. Every one of them can still be legally married to someone of the opposite sex. For others who want to enjoy a Registered Domestic Partnership with some of the same sex, they according to the California Family Code section 295.5, "Shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses." So the FACT is Kevin, domestic partnerships ARE the same thing legally. The reality is, they are different because they are not marriages. They never will be. So let's not call a spade a club.
I perchance say the vast majority of the world population views marriage as an institution that transcends government. But marriage inherently implicates governmental recognition. However, government doesn't ultimately possess the right to define marriage. The people, the society, the culture of California do.
Marriage between a man and a woman is culturally deemed a moral right and a civic fundamental right. Domestic partnerships between any two consenting adults, enjoying everything that spouses enjoy, is a civic fundamental right.
And finally, the Civil Rights Movement and the Gay Rights Movement are hardly comparable. Regardless of how hard I try, I can not, in no way, be African American. In fact, I would have loved to have been African American when I was applying to dental school. But it just can't happen. It's impossible. I can't choose my race. I can choose to marry someone of the opposite sex, or to enter a domestic partnership with some of the same sex. Humans' ability to choose differentiates these two movements. If you want, we can take this argument down the same moral relativity path to drill in the point. But our choices have consequences that individuals can't ultimately choose. So, after a bunch of logical connections...blah, blah, blah...homosexuals can't be married because homosexual couples can't marry. Society at large has already determined that consequence. Homosexual couples are only deprived of something their choices have already excluded them from.
In my mind, one of the few powers still possessed by the people is the ability to vote on ballot propositions. I am confident that the people of California will, as a majority, uphold the worldwide time-honored, evolutionarily sound, liberally unpopular definition of marriage."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
