What is happening to this country?
 

It is really sad when older Black Americans are telling me that they are hearing comments from main-stream media, that they haven't heard since the 50s and 60s. What's worse is that a lot of them are saying President Obama is our generation's Martin Luther King Jr. Under more desirable circumstances, this would be a compliment, or a positive comparison. However, they are making that association to refer to the negative energy, and tone in America before and during the Civil Rights Movement. Now, there is this Tea Party. Am I the only one who sees that this is a way to express racist ideologies, and opinions, and hide behind a so-called movement that is supposed to seek out and support real change? Tom Tancredo said that America should bring back Literacy Testing in order to register to vote!
The Obama administration is under a microscope! Pres. Obama can't stop to tie his shoe, without it being major news on CNN! FoxNews will say he's not tying his shoe properly, and will find a way to convince their loyal conservative fan-base that this is somehow leading to the failure of their beloved country.
When I register to vote, I think I'm leaning more toward being an independent. There is no issue that I am completely to the right or left on. How can anyone be 100% conservative, or 100% liberal on every issue facing this country. Our Senators and Congress Men and Women are obviously not. They can't agree on anything-even in their own parties! Well, the Republicans seem to have a collective agenda: "Take Obama down, no matter what it takes!"

Ummm...there's a thread for that

Actually, I think a far better idea would be NO political parties. Wouldn't it be nice if a person could run solely on what he/she believed without having to bend his ideas to fit some ridiculous platform - which honestly half the time doesn't represent the majority of the party members? Political parties are a holdover from the days when half the voters were illiterate and could only make out "R" or "D" on the ballot. Those days are over.

QFT!

Commercial: "Wanna type about this mess? There's an app for that." *click*

HAHAHAHAH....!!!! :D

Ann Coulter has an ad at the top of this page. That is my cue to stay the heck outta here.

That's all.

She's watching us.

I got the "Free Newt!" ad. (I really hope this doesn't have to do with a sex service.)

Yes. and this is a bad thing how?Well duh! Newsflash for you honey, but that kind of goes with being President.

Yea, but no one criticized any other presidents!!!

:rolleyes:

Actually I am of the belief that political parties in the United States are a hold over from our British heritage. By that I mean the major role parties play n politics in the UK. But that being said, while I am all for getting rid of them, I don't see it happening. While the first Constitutional President was not affliated with any parties, the formation of the American parties started during his administration. They are going to form naturally when people with similar beliefs try to work with each other to get their goals accomplished.

Vito, the problem with a literacy test is that historically, it was a test devised to deny suffrage to minorities. On the other hand it allowed (and denied) some illiterate whites to vote as it tested one's knowledge of the federal government.

Why should you have to take a test to pick a candidate?


Sample of the test

Why should you have to take a test to do a lot of things?

Yeah because it sure as hell doesn't help with driving...hehehehe

Yes I understand the historical issues with a literacy test in the past. That being said, illiteracy, whither real or functional, is a growing problem in this country. I also have no problem making sure citizens know at least the basics on how their government is run. We require immigrants to take a test, a pretty hard one, before they can become citizens. Why not hold our own people, with the benefit of education, to the same standards?

I see that as more a problem with the educational system than the electoral system.

Why should anyone have to take a test to vote for a candidate?

This was a tool that was used in the South and by most counts an unfair tool at that.

Again, it's a test that has allowed districts to skirt around rules as to whom they would allow to vote. This is why it was outlawed by the Civil Rights Act in the first place. If allowed to return there is no guarantee anyone could make that could ensure citizens that this wouldn't happen again.

Just like agzg just said, literacy is not a problem for the electoral system. The electoral system's job is simply to make sure that whomever is voting is a legal resident in the district that they are voting in.

Like others have said before, Pres Obama IS going to be criticized and disliked because of the position he is in. Deal with it, because it is not going to change. You don't have to mother the President, he's a full grown man. If Obama couldn't handle it, he wouldn't have been in politics in the first place.

If you think that the people involved with the tea party movement are racists then you MUST think that Obama supporters are in the "Black Power" movement, right? While I'm sure there are some people involved that are racist, to paint such a broad brush on a group of people is unfair and unreasonable.

I remember last summer hearing people say things such as, " You don't like Obama cuz you're racist". I can't tell you how much that bothered me seeing real people with real concerns get shot down and stigmatized so easily. I have nothing against the man personally, but some of his policies have to go. I felt the same way about Bush and Clinton.

I don't know the reasoning behind Tancredo wanting to bring voter testing back, but I don't see the harm in educated voters. I think since it was a tea party they where most likely bitching about Acorn taking people to the polls to vote for Obama.

I've said before that in my opinion, only tax payers should be allowed to vote, or at least have their vote mean more. Not because of racist ideologies, but I believe that tax payers are the ones who are truly vested into this country and really affected by certain tax policy. I saw a story on CNN a few months back that only 47% of working Americans paid taxes. How is it fair for the tax-payers to allow the non tax payers to vote on issues or candidates that affect taxes when they don't pay any to begin with.

I'm an independent voter myself. I've typically voted D in the past but I've been slowly leaning to right as I get older. Reminds me of the quote by Winston Churchill,
"Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has not heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains.”
Sorry for the scattered rant, busy morning!

Why should anyone have to take a test to vote for a candidate? They should at least have a general idea of what exactly their vote is doing. I mean why should somebody have to take a test to become a citizen? I feel that everybody should be held to the same standards. IF immigrants have to have a certain amount of knowledge to become citizens and thus gain the vote, why should people born here be any different?

And who says that a test will prove that? It's a slippery slope you walk when you tell someone that they have to be tested in order to vote. And the only standard that anyone has to be held to in order to VOTE is proof that they are a legal citizen.

You want them to be literate, pay for them to go to school.

Question: What specific requirements would be needed to render someone qualified to take the test?

Also, what would count for someone being exampt from taking the test?

What would count as 'special cases'?

All I'm saying is that all citizens should be held to the same standards. And we do pay for people to go to school. There wouldn't be any qualifications on who could or couldn't take the test.

Here are the standards that are similar in just about all 50 states:

United States citizen;

At least 18 years of age on or before the next general election;

Has not been convicted more than once of a disqualifying crime; and not under guardianship for mental disability.

That is all you need. A degree or diploma is not required.

You want to start making people take tests to vote then next up we may as well do it for people who serve on juries because I guarantee you there are more than enough people who don't have a full working knowledge of the law. But we don't. Bottom line is a bad precedence is being set by creating tests just to let someone check a box on a ballot.


Voting Rights Act of 1965, § 2, as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. § 1973.

(a) No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision in a manner which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color, or in contravention of the guarantees set forth in section 1973b(f)(2) of this title, as provided in subsection (b) of this section.

(b) A violation of subsection (a) of this section is established if, based on the totality of circumstances, it is shown that the political processes leading to nomination or election in the State or political subdivision are not equally open to participation by members of a class of citizens protected by subsection (a) of this section in that its members have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice. The extent to which members of a protected class have been elected to office in the State or political subdivision is one circumstance which may be considered: Provided, That nothing in this section establishes a right to have members of a protected class elected in numbers equal to their proportion in the population.

The citizenship test is to gain citizenship. Not to gain the right to vote. The right to vote is just one itty bitty piece of citizenship (that, as we know, many natural-born and naturalized citizens alike do not exercise).

ETA: I'd be interested in seeing a study comparing literacy rates with voting rates, and also the voting rate of those deemed "illiterate."

I would imagine the percentage would not be very high.

Eh. I guess I am just saying that maybe all citizens of the United States have to have the same qualifications to be citizens, regardless of birth.

You're not talking about a literacy test -- the sole purpose of that is to screen out the people who can't read. Historically, that overwhelmingly meant minorities.

You're talking about a knowledge test -- a test to see how well people understand government and/or the positions of the candidates. I have a very hard time imagining how this could be done constitutionally.

Welp, you'll have to get the US Constitution amended to change that. I really don't see that happening.

I mean, this already happens. Everywhere.

Obviously the historical implications of a literacy test (or poll tax, or anything related) would make it untenable. However, it's kind of disingenuous to think that the opposite of "knowledge tests" doesn't happen, as well - candidates and parties have preyed on an uneducated electorate for centuries now, and we find that not only acceptable, but borderline commendable ("what a great politician/organizer/etc.").

I doubt anybody is against a more-educated electorate in general, right? We just want it in the form of giving education to the unlearned. Is that actually reasonable?

Are people better off because they have the privilege of making a silly, uninformed vote more likely dictated by personal biases and party lines than by any semblance of understanding about the ramifications of that vote?

Or, conversely - would anything even change if we instituted a de facto intellectual floor for voting (even ignoring the potential for institutional racism involved)?

LOL. It's not kind of disingenuous; it's compeletely disingenuous.

Let me be more clear, if you want 'literate' voters, pay for them to take a standardized voter literacy class with a government approved standardized test.

As far their voting biases, that is up to the citizen, isn't it? Regardless if they are better off or not. We already saw how personal biases and beliefs played a significant role in the last election among all lines, racial, educational and socioeconomic lines.

No, the problem is deported immigrants who keep coming back.

That, and everybody looking like a fool with their pants on the ground.

lololololololol at both of these!

Well it wouldn't be the first time. The constitution as written doesn't even mention citizenship at all. That was added on later. And honestly, I don't think it needs to be amended. Congress has the power to determine what qualifications for citizenship there are. Just get rid of a lot of the pointless stuff things. Maybe just have a simple residency requirement. Also I don't like the fact that immigrants are required to learn English to be citizens. I agree with it on a practical level, but there is no legal justification for it. It's not like English is the official language of the United States.

Giddy-up!

Hmm... so you say that the law requires one to learn some English to be a citizen, but then you say there's no legal justification for it?

Well, the law states that those who wish to be naturalized need to learn English. But English has no official standing in the United States, so why that requirement?

Do you honestly believe that?

No, it would be 28th time -- in 221 years. ;)

It absolutely would have to be amended. The Fourteenth Amendment says "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." That means being born here = citizenship. Trying to add anything to that would unquestionably be unconstitutional as the Constitution is currently framed. I can't imagine any amendment changing that gaining any steam at all.

No, Congress has the power to determine the requirements for naturalization. (Article I, § 8) Congress has no power to add any citizenship requirement for someone born in the US.

I disagree, Congress has before in the past deemed who is and who isn't a citizen. Jus soli didn't just appear in the books.