Comment: Restrict the "right" to vote

(See in situ)


Restrict the "right" to vote

Fixing the Constitution without fixing the underlying problem -- the citizenry -- fixes nothing; or, at least, not for long.

The vast majority of Americans are NOT Americans. If the Constitution and Bill of Rights were put up for a popular referendum today, it would lose by an overwhelming margin. We've been actively importing and training enemies domestic for hundreds of years. Between those "citizens" who are actively OPPOSED to the philosophy and value-system upon which our Republic was founded, you have that vast swath of the population which really doesn't care -- they care only about comfort and getting more than they earn. Together these leaches (almost as many in the Republican party as in the Democratic party, and plenty of "independent" leaches as well) constitute a super-majority which includes probably more than 80% of the population.

9 out of 10 American's, can't even begin to express, cogently, the difference between a Republic and a Democracy. And of the nature of government and liberty? Government is always and everywhere the OPPOSITE of FREEDOM. To govern MEANS to restrict freedom; everything government does it does by restricting freedom in the system as a whole. How screwed are we if we aren't even aware of the meaning of the words we use? So how does government restrict freedom?

Even George Washington seemed a little confused. He said that "government is like fire" and waxed eloquent about the usefulness of fire. But more correctly government is like poison. Everything government does -- even its sometimes seeming benefits -- are derived by poisoning the freedom of someone somewhere. That's the whole of government action.

Can poison sometimes be useful? Yes. Most medicines are poison: X-rays are quite deadly but are used to image the internal body and kill cancer cells under the rule that sometimes you have to kill to heal. Arsenic is known as a way to kill people and rats but it has been used for centuries to fight some diseases, including cancer and syphilis. General anesthetics block pain by knocking you unconscious ... well down the road toward death.

When someone is careless with chemical poison we have plenty of avenues to hold them accountable. If there is reason to believe they are not competent or careful enough in manufacturing, storing, transporting, or applying poison they are restrained. If apply poison negligently they are civilly liable. If they deliberately cause, or even threaten, harm through poison they are locked up. If they might reasonably be suspected of always and everywhere spewing significant poison they may be quarantined. Premediated poisoning is punishable by incarceration or even death.

But if they deliberately worship and practice poisoning everything and everyone, avowing that the world can be made a better place if we just bury enough people deep enough in poison, we "respect" them and proclaim them "President of the United States". How stupid and toxic are we as a nation? Very stupid and toxic, indeed. Too stupid to live.

My suggestion for "fixing" the Constitution? Many things would help but the only suggestion I have to cut to the root of the problem is to restrict the right to vote to those who demonstrate they are responsible enough to vote. Restrict the "liberty"/ right to vote (yes, poison again). How?

The Founders attempted to do this, but they made a mess of it. They originally proposed that only real property owners could vote. To some extent this could be both rationally and morally defended (landowners demonstrated some degree of accountability and stability). However, their restrictions on the basis of race and sex are now seen as immoral and, I would argue, not even very rational.

The test for the right to vote should be a test for ability to discern, ability to reason, ability to be willful in a positive sense, and -- most of all -- a test which makes it highly likely that you comprehend and support the Constitution and Bill of Rights ... the heart of the Republic.

My proposal? My best thought to date is that a person EARNS the right to vote when they can stand in front of a crowd of 100+ of their peers (who have already been through this ordeal and honor) and recite, from memory, word for word, the entire Constitution and Bill of Rights. It would be nearly impossible for most people to get all the way through that memorization chore and not pick up the gist of the document. The lazy, disinterested, and corrupt would fall by the wayside. EARNING the right to vote would be something to be truly proud of. Perhaps an occasional idiot savant could memorize without comprehension, but I don't think an occasional idiot savant would be a real threat. In case, at the end of the recital I favor a simple question or two to establish basic comprehension.

Personally, I favor a quick quiz on the Tenth Amendment, judged by their peers -- all of whom had previously demonstrated their qualification to judge by making it through the same test. It takes real incompetence or corruption to NOT comprehend the meaning of the twenty eight simple words of the Tenth Amendment:

"Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Pretty tough to comprehend, huh? Must require an advanced degree, huh? Moral dwarves, such as Hopey, Dopey, and Gropey, would be vetted by their peers, not by mere lawyers nor even Supremes. They would be vetted BEFORE they took the oath of office or they would surely be vetted afterwards, at the end of a rope. All the legislators would be vetted because all legislators were first qualified as citizen voters. Ideally there would be a remedial test each time a legislator or "public servant" came back in to office or up for annual review. Pretty hard to fake allegiance; pretty stupid to try. The Supreme law of the land would be protected and defended by those who supremely cared for and comprehended the Constitution and BoR. Those who thought the Constitution was a "goddamned piece of paper" or something to be subverted in the quest for power by specializing in graft and "Constitutional law" in college, would never apply for office. Imagine that.

Bill of Rights /Amendment X: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Do you need a politician or judge to "interpret" those 28