Posted on 08/14/2017 12:30:47 PM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
Many 18-year-olds are registered for their first semester of college classes, but very few of them are registered to vote. As adults in a democracy, young people have this great privilege and responsibility, yet very few take advantage of the opportunity. Their disregard is not the result of indifference or immaturity, but of an overwhelming amount of new responsibilities.
Assembly Constitutional Amendment 10 (ACA 10) is a bipartisan constitutional amendment that would lower the voting age from 18 to 17 in California. This may seem like a minor shift, but it would be pivotal in youth turnout for elections.
At 17, most teens are taking a civics class in school, yet they are unable to play a role in the subjects they are studying. ACA 10’s enactment would allow students to become active participants in the legislative process they are studying. Teachers could encourage voter registration, schools could be polling locations on election day, and voting will become as much of a senior class tradition as homecoming and pep rallies.
By passing ACA 10 and actively encouraging 17-year-olds to register and vote, voter turnout is likely to increase. After that first vote is cast at 17, a habit will be formed, and those who voted will then be more likely to vote in the next election. ACA 10 will catch youth at a time when they are still connected to their school, their home, and their community, rather than expecting their first ballot to be cast at a time when their lives are in transition.
The age of 18 will always be the time of class registration, a new place to live, and finding a job. Let 17 be the time to vote and support the passage of ACA 10.
(Excerpt) Read more at mercurynews.com ...
THAT'S PAYING TAXES !
But let’s first repeal the ill-conceived 17th Amendment (17A).
And the amendment to repeal 17A needs to have a provision requiring all candidate voters to first pass a basic constitutional law test which emphasizes the fed’s constitutionally limited powers, and associated limited power to appropriate taxes, before being allowed to vote.
Candidate voters need to understand the following clarifications of the fed’s powers by previous generations of state sovereignty-respecting Supreme Court justices.
“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
"State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress [emphases added]." —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
And speaking of voting …
Drain the swamp sewer! Drain the sewer!
Remember in November 2018 !
Since corrupt Congress is the biggest part of the sewer (imo) that Trump wants to drain, it is actually up to patriots to drain the sewer in the 2018 elections, patriots supporting Trump by electing as many new members of Congress as they can who will support Trump.
In the meanwhile, patriots need to make sure that there are plenty of Trump-supporting candidates on the primary ballots.
Also, unlike incumbent members of Congress who wrongly remained silent while misguided state officials abridged the constitutionally enumerated rights of citizens during the lawless Obama Administration, patriots need to make sure that candidates on the 2018 primary ballots commit to the following.
Candidates need to commit to making and enforcing 14th Amendment-related laws to prosecute misguided state officials who use state powers to abridge constitutionally enumerated protections, 1st Amendment-protected religious expression and free speech for example, such actions prohibited by Section 1 of the 14th Amendment.
”14th Amendment, Section 1: 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States [emphasis added]; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Again, drain the sewer! Drain the sewer!
Anybody who owns property,(land, housing, business, etc.) should be allowed to vote. Period.
17?
Oh HELL no.
The voting age should be raised to 26. According to Obamacare supporters, a person under age 26 can be carried on their parents’ medical insurance. DemocRATs consider voters under 26 to be children for medical insurance, so the voting age needs to be raised to be consistent.
The IRS considers full time college students under age 24 to be a dependent if a parent is providing more than half of their support. Raise the voting age to 24 to be consistent with the IRS.
Raise to 25 agreed.
Lots of people rent apartments ( hence they don't own any property and what 21 year old or even 30 year old owns property today? ) and some people can't serve in the military because they have health problems that preclude them from serving. Besides, do you REALLY want an 100% draft? You want queers and trans in the military, dopers, ALL women?
That is an excellent point.
Just think of the angst if we ever attempt to return to that common sense era.
There would be lots of blood in the streets.
Even ILLEGAL ALIENS ?
And the only women who can vote are the post-menopausal ones.
A less crazy idea would be to remove females suffrage and then give married men 2 votes!
What about those supported primarily by welfare programs?
+18
Hahahahaha
ACA 10 will catch youth at a time when they are still connected to their school, their home, and their community, rather than expecting their first ballot to be cast at a time when their lives are in transition.
Maybe I’m in the minority, but at that age, I was away at college, my life was in transition, but I still wanted to vote, so I took it upon myself to go register to vote. Then I actually voted in the elections when they occurred.
I didn’t need somebody to baby sit me to get me to be interested enough to vote.
Actually, some people are such that, they don’t follow politics, they don’t follow the news, they aren’t aware of what’s going on in the world. There are critical numbers of young people who are like that. Since they have no clue what’s going on, they really shouldn’t be voting. We shouldn’t make it easier for such people to vote.
Flame away.
If what I see coming out of college is the standard, the voting age should be 30.
BINGO..!! Give that man a cigar....
Like Hillary! and Fauxhantas Warren?
Illegals aren’t ‘anybody’. They are criminals, by what used to be the law.
Just think of the angst if we ever attempt to return to that common sense era.
There would be lots of blood in the streets.
In the last two years i've gotten heavily into the Civil War debate on these threads. What propelled me into the debate was learning some information about where the tax money to fund the government came from in 1860. (70-80% came from the South)
I've started to look at the issue as money flowing this way or that, and I started to notice a pattern. A lot of Washington Policies tend to make money flow in certain directions, and pretty much the same directions it has been flowing towards since the 1860s.
I almost got woke up back in 1995 when the Newly elected Republican Congress was trying to cut government spending and balance the budget. Judging by how the media treated them, you would have thought they were trying to decapitate puppies or something.
I said to myself at the time, "Why would any reasonable person be against the government balancing it's budget?"
I didn't realize at the time that there might have been people who make a lot of money from freewheeling government spending, and that such people might have a lot of influence in the media, and therefore perhaps this could explain why the media was so hostile to the idea of balancing the budget back in 1995?
I now simply look at everything as a money flow problem. Find out where the money is going, and *THAT* is your real opposition to balancing the Federal budget.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.