Shouldn't this anger ALL Americans?

#10
#10
FLVOL69 said:
If a non citizen can be elected to the highest office in the land, why not? Nothing is sacred anymore.. Burn the ****ing constitution !!
Click to expand...

Where in the Constitution does it say that non-US citizens cannot vote in non-Federal elections?

Answer: No where
 
#11
#11
therealUT said:
Where in the Constitution does it say that non-US citizens cannot vote in non-Federal elections?

Answer: No where
Click to expand...

Right on cue.. I never said that directly in regards to voting, however there are laws in place to address these issues.
 
#12
#12
therealUT said:
Where in the Constitution does it say that non-US citizens cannot vote in non-Federal elections?

Answer: No where
Click to expand...
Historically I believe all that was required was residency (and property). This was even the case when the rules were made by the founding fathers. Of course it's possible they weren't as familiar with the constitution as others
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#13
#13
therealUT said:
Where in the Constitution does it say that non-US citizens cannot vote in non-Federal elections?

Answer: No where
Click to expand...

I beleive you are correct. But on the other side of the equation there is nothing in the constitution that says the federal government has to bail out a bankrupt city.
 
#14
#14
FLVOL69 said:
Right on cue.. I never said that directly in regards to voting, however there are laws in place to address these issues.
Click to expand...

Are you speaking of Federal, State, or local/municipal laws?

The pre-amendment Constitution and the Founding Fathers were quite explicit in their thoughts regarding where and when the Federal Government can interfere in State and local matters. If it is Federal laws that you point to which declare that a municipality cannot decide who can or cannot vote in municipal elections, then we can address what it is about those Federal laws that keeps them within the bounds of the Constitution (namely, why is the Voting Rights Act considered to be Constitutional).

If it is State law, then one would have to consult the specific state's constitution.

Regardless, I fail to see why one would be outraged in seeing that municipalities which currently have rules regarding who can and cannot vote are debating whether or not those rules ought to be changed, and changed through a process that only includes those that are currently allowed to vote in said municipality.
 
#16
#16
Carl Pickens said:
Regardless of party affiliation or ideaology shouldn't this raise the ire of all US citizens?[/url]
Click to expand...

The thing that SHOULD raise the ire of all US citizens is that a much, much higher percentage of non-citizens would vote, compared to the average citizen voting percentage.
 
#18
#18
I would like to encourage every city listed in that article to allow every human, and household mammalian pet to vote. And vote as many times as they wish.
 
#19
#19
Velo Vol said:
If someone who isn't a "real" American enjoys something in this country, it's grounds for outrage.
Click to expand...

if by "real" you mean legitimate citizen, then yes. Why should non-citizens be allowed to decide laws of the citizens?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#20
#20
theFallGuy said:
if by "real" you mean legitimate citizen, then yes. Why should non-citizens be allowed to decided laws of the citizens?
Click to expand...

One might well add, why should someone who lives and resides in the municipality that is Memphis be deciding the laws for those who live and reside in the municipality that is Washington, D.C.?
 
#21
#21
therealUT said:
One might well add, why should someone who lives and resides in the municipality that is Memphis be deciding the laws for those who live and reside in the municipality that is Washington, D.C.?
Click to expand...

Yet it happens more and more often given the massive growth in scope of the Federal government.

"Should" apparently has nothing to do with it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#22
#22
volinbham said:
Yet it happens more and more often given the massive growth in scope of the Federal government.

"Should" apparently has nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...

I agree, the Federal Government is inflated. That said, I don't know how someone could (not saying you do, but it's obvious others in here do) hold that the Federal Government is too large, that the Constitution is being shat upon, and be massively upset over how a city in a different state is deciding to run their own city affairs.
 
#23
#23
therealUT said:
I agree, the Federal Government is inflated. That said, I don't know how someone could (not saying you do, but it's obvious others in here do) hold that the Federal Government is too large, that the Constitution is being shat upon, and be massively upset over how a city in a different state is deciding to run their own city affairs.
Click to expand...

My primary concern about it is that I don't want it in my city and I know that these things spread.

So, I think D.C. can do whatever they want ultimately (though I can still take a position on the rightness or wrongness of it) but I can see how this will eventually effect me.
 
#24
#24
therealUT said:
I agree, the Federal Government is inflated. That said, I don't know how someone could (not saying you do, but it's obvious others in here do) hold that the Federal Government is too large, that the Constitution is being shat upon, and be massively upset over how a city in a different state is deciding to run their own city affairs.
Click to expand...

local politicians eventually become state politicians eventually become DC politicians. These ideas migrate with them to Washington.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top