But it doesn't say that Hap. It only says that Congressional representation cannot be affected by those in rebellion and only male rebels at that.

"...But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State."

Specifically it recognizes the fact that the right of voting may be vacated for participation in rebelleion or other crime.

But the Constitution does not provide for the right to be removed. It only mentions whether congressional representation is affected and then concerning males only.

You'll note I never said it was against the US Constitution for a State to deny a person their voting rights, I only asked since your post doesn't distinguish between Federal and State.

oh, they sure do lock up more:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ts_by_year.gif

:-?

Oh, you potential dirty drug user, to Siberia with you! :O:


But the attempt to stop the outside sources is exactly what our countries tried to do in the last decades, with not much success...

I agree with you 100% on that issue!

Drinking a 12-pack or throwing in some funny OTC drugs before going to the election makes a wise voter? :doh:

It does not provide a mechanism for it to be removed - thus it is a state by state issue (which as I noted to mookie - different states have different guidelines). However, the 14th amendment makes it clear that the removal of the right to vote due to criminal activity was recognized in the amendment itself. Thus making it "constitutional". Its not directly spelled out, but explicitly provided for.

I see. So when you say:

You're talking about just your own state.

See, I don't think so. Sure, nobody has an obligation to hire workers, but, it's a common fact that business owners often hire when the economy gets better, and they need more help due to increased demand. This is where the Tea Party's pledge comes into play. Essentially, It's holding hostages again (or at least a mad ranting trying to, luckily nobody actually has to do what they say). To me, It stinks of a tactic to try to keep the US economy artificially depressed, or at least appear so. Nobody gets hired, keeps unemployment numbers high, and cash flow to workers lower, so less is spent, meaning economy stays down. This will make Obama look bad, and that's what the tea party wants. Sadly, this tactic would also hurt the american people and economy. But who cares as long as the tea party isn't in the presidency...right?

Gimpy,

First of all - that was a singular blog by a singular person - so its not a "memo" or creed or pledge. Just as a single OWS post can be the writings of a wacko, so too would this be (Obama being dictator and Congress allowing it tells me it is). The difference is the reaction to such statements by others on the respective sites, and the pervasiveness of such types of comments. On that score - OWS has a lot more "wacko's" in general.

However, to the point your making - there are a lot of businesses out therer that COULD hire - but are not. They refuse to do so because of a lack of long term financial policy stability. They don't know what kind of hammering they are going to get from the government on taxes. They know they are going to get slaughtered on Obamacare if it is upheld as constitutional. The long term fiscal outlook for the country is in question, and businesses are being targetted as the cash cow to fix it all.

Were you in business for yourself - would you be willing to gamble your future success - both long and short term - by growing your employees with that kind of uncertainty - especially when you have very little to no control over those factors that affect you? Of course not - its a NATURAL reaction to pull back and wait till things firm up. This is a continuation of that.

The administration laments the lack of hiring and the slow to non-existent growth. Yet they do not take action to resolve the questions for business. One is the result of the other.

Lastly I have to ask:

With real unemployment running around 14%, median wages and the standard of living dropping as it has over the last 3 years, government debt ballooning even further, the lack of any coherent fiscal policy, insistence on failed or rejected policies (see stimulus and Obamacare, respectively), - does the tea party really need to do anything to make Obama look bad????

I agreed with your post up to this point. This is not a continuation of that. It's taking it a step further, asking business owners not to hire employees, under any circumstances, good times or bad, in order to spite the current administration and score political points. That's ridiculous and it is indeed economic terrorism. It's playing politics with peoples livelihoods.

Did you read the link? Nowhere did it ask ANYONE to do anything.

Nor it is playing politics with people's livelihoods even if it had asked others to sign on - because its NOT THIERS - not their job, not their business, until AFTER that job is offered. Again its this expectation of business should provide. It has no reason to do so.

Well ultimately there is no "constitutional right to vote". At least not in a federal election. It may be true that a state's constitution contains some sort of guarantee of your right to vote in an election....but that's as far as it goes.

The Framers in no way intended to grant a universal right to vote in federal elections in the Constitution. As for the states ... well, it's pretty much up to them. What the US Constitution does do, by virtue of the 14th, 15th and 19th Amendments, is set forth some parameters upon which a state cannot limit the voting franchise IF that state decides to offer a right to vote in its state constitution. In other words, a state can't formulate a constitution which says you can vote in a state or local election unless you're black, or a woman, etc. The same rule would apply to any federal elections as well.

But as far as taking voters off the rolls....it happens all the time. Felons in prison are stripped off the rolls for example. If illegal aliens are participating in elections...they need to be removed as well. Personally, for me, I don't want someone who can't stay away from the crack pipe deciding how much taxes I will pay, what laws will govern my choices, and how my property can be used.

If we decriminalize, like mookie says, then the point will be moot. And it will be up to the individual states.

But it is economic terrorism. It's a call to directly sabotage a primary mechanism in the workings of the economy and encourage action through putting people in jeopardy through economic action. Don't tell me that's not it - that's a natural working mechanism of capitalism. When you do something like that, you're wilfully disrupting it. I am willing to concede however that the person who wrote the blog post doesn't actually understand anything about how the capitalist system works and is not an economic terrorist but just stupid.

Absolute BS. My own company downsized recently because of the anti-business climate provided by the current administration. The healthcare law, forced down the thtroats of the American people by the Democrat Party in a lame duck session is economic terrorism due to the outrageous costs levied on businesses. The American people threw these Democrats out, and they forced their law on an unwilling populace. I would say that's the ultimate form of playing politics with people's livelihoods right there.

So the answer is yes then. Thanks for the reply.

Only problem CCIP.....it ain't happening. Businesses simply aren't making their hiring decisions based on any calls like this. I do see people on the left trying to find ways to shift blame for their utterly devastated economy on someone else though....