Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Diddle E. Squat
Though actually one could argue better to keep the 19th amendment, but revert back to the voter definition of colonial times: property owners.
8 posted on 09/24/2002 8:56:53 AM PDT by Diddle E. Squat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]


To: Diddle E. Squat
If you're going to restrict voting to property owners, then no taxes of any kind can be levied on non-property owners. Property owners would have to pick up sales taxes and the like (if there are any).
11 posted on 09/24/2002 9:09:56 AM PDT by BikerNYC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: Diddle E. Squat
...revert back to the voter definition of colonial times: property owners.

Right. Since the Constitution originally grants no one the right to vote, all 'voters rights' amendments are political and frivilous IMHO.

57 posted on 09/24/2002 3:28:19 PM PDT by LisaFab
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: Diddle E. Squat
Though actually one could argue better to keep the 19th amendment, but revert back to the voter definition of colonial times: property owners.

Amen to that....or taxpayers in general sans the sales tax.

We would never have to worry about liberalism again....oh goody!! then maybe Conservatives and Libertarians would be able to really duke it out relevantly.

76 posted on 09/25/2002 10:15:03 PM PDT by wardaddy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: Diddle E. Squat
I'd settle for just taxpayers
97 posted on 09/29/2002 8:50:36 PM PDT by rb22982
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson