[frog in a pot]

Well, the language in the decision regarding real property ownership as a prerequisite to the right to vote in some states and not in others was probably of particular interest to you.

I thought this statement by the 1874 Minor court was refreshing: If the law is wrong, it ought to be changed; but the power for that is not with us.

Such a view acknowledges the standard before one even gets to judicial restraint!

[Danae]

bttt

[Tunehead54]

My interest in historic voting rights limited to property holders is of course based on today’s potential tipping point: Voters paying no taxes as a majority capable of extracting from a minority whatever they please.

Women’s sufferage - no problem - the only thing I agree with Obummer is that everyone should have “some skin in the game”.

With some 53% of “taxpayers” thinking they pay nothing there is no cost in their minds to tax increases, increased spending, bigger government, etc.

With our new majorities in many states and the possibility of taking Congress and the presidency I’m interested in anything to ensure that any voter has some skin in the game.

Poll taxes are out - right now - truth be told - Mr. Cain’s 9-9-9 plan might wake everybody up to the waste and growth of the federal government.

Everybody might begin to question the excesses of fed studies on jogging shrimp to limiting our internal energy production when its coming out of their own pockets.

The way I view it after President Cain’s administration (or even during it) we might go for 8-8-8, 7-7-7, 6-6-6 (oops - skip that one!) or 5-5-5. Just a thought ... ;-)