BS: US Democracy 33% cannot vote !

Subject: RE: BS: US Democracy 33% cannot vote !
From: pdq
Date: 07 Nov 06 - 09:14 PM

Spain relinquished its claim to Mexico in 1921. I twas more a matter of money and boredom than it was a military loss. Mexico was thought to have huge wealth in gold and silver and jewels. Although some booty was taken back the Spain, it was not the world of riches the Spanish had hoped for. They had better things to do than try to control an uncontrollable rabble that was/is Mexico.

Texas was claimed by the new government of Mexico, although the citizens were never asked. The demand that all Texas resident practice Roman Catholicism and pledge allegiance to Mexico did not sit well with Texans. That shit was just what they or their ancestors had left Europe to get away from.

Both California (in 1846) and Texas (in 1835) declared themselves to be independent republics against the imperial claims of Mexico. Here is a little bit about the Republic of Texas.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Republic of Texas

By 1835, Antonio López de Santa Anna had established himself as a dictator in Mexico. Among Anglo-American colonists and Tejanos alike, the call for Texas independence grew louder. On March 2, 1836, a delegation at Washington-on-the-Brazos adopted the Texas Declaration of Independence, and thus was born the Republic of Texas.

Santa Anna had brought his army to Texas to put down the rebellion, and events followed in quick succession. At the time the Declaration was issued, many Texans were fleeing their homes eastward ahead of Santa Anna's army, in what became known as the Runaway Scrape. The Alamo fell to Santa Anna on March 6, and over 300 unarmed Texan prisoners were massacred at Goliad on March 27. Sam Houston's revolutionary army was also retreating eastward as Santa Anna drove for the coast to capture Texas seaports. On April 21, the Texan army took a stand in the bayou country near present-day Houston at a site called San Jacinto. They attacked Santa Anna's army while it was sleeping, and, in a battle lasting only 18 minutes, routed the Mexican army and captured Santa Anna.

Many Texans favored immediate annexation by the United States. However, the proposals went nowhere, because of the risk of continued war with Mexico and Texas' shaky financial status. Even after San Jacinto, Mexico refused to recognize Texas's independence and continued to raid the Texas border. The new government had neither money nor credit, and no governmental structures were in place. Rebuffed by the United States, Texans went about the business of slowly forming a stable government and nation. Despite many difficulties and continued fighting both with Mexico and with Indian tribes, the Texas frontier continued to attract thousands of settlers each year.

In 1841, Santa Anna again became president of Mexico and renewed hostilities with Texas. By this time, sympathy for the Texan cause had grown in the United States, and in 1845, annexation was at last approved. Hostilities with Mexico and the Indians reached a settlement, and Texas was admitted as a state on December 29, 1845. The Republic of Texas, after nine years, eleven months, and seventeen days, was no more.

Subject: RE: BS: US Democracy 33% cannot vote !
From: GUEST,sorefingers
Date: 07 Nov 06 - 10:53 PM

Graham, your sources are unreliable because common law has been a check upon legislation since the earliest written accounts of such things. It is an arrogance of certain agencies which continues the myth which you repeat above.

One of the sources is the early writings which are incorporated into the OT or Torah. For example 'an eye for an eye'. Sure, in English law some of these things were obscured to the peasantry by Latinising them, others corrupted, but that does not establish their source there. Put the matter this way, because the English use Tea does NOT show that they invented it.

I find the attempt to railroad the dependency of Taxation upon enfrancisment utterly repulsive and unacceptable. I say, as the early American Republicans also said, no taxation without representation. It is not that complicated a thing to understand.

BTW Sorry about my typing and editing, I have very bad eye sight these days.

Subject: RE: BS: US Democracy 33% cannot vote !
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 08 Nov 06 - 12:10 AM

Several people here have argued about what the US Founding Fathers established as the "right to vote," and have made vigorous assertions about what "The Constitution says." It appears that few, including those making such assertions, have actually had a copy of the US Constitution and its amendments to consult on the subject.

In its original form, the US Constitution made no reference to the requirements for citizens to vote and provided no "definition of citizenship." There were detailed sections on how members of Congress shall conduct votes in Congress; but the requirements for individuals to be counted as citizens (to be eligible to vote) was left entirely to the states.

Each state was, and is, free to set its own requirements for voters. Many states then recognized citizenship for a far wider range of persons than were granted the right to vote, with ownership of a specified value in property being a very common criterion for voting. Membership in "the Church" was a requirement in some.

Several US Supreme Court decisions, and a few Amendments, have imposed limits on requirements that states may impose for voters, but most of those have been too recent to be called the "will of the Founders."

While the original Constitution requires that members of Congress be "citizens," there was no definition of what makes a person a citizen of the US or of any State. The first appearance that might be construed as "defining citizenship" appeared in 1898 with the 14th Amendment:

In part:

Amendment XIV - Citizenship rights. Ratified 7/9/1868.
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; 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.

Indirectly, the subsequent paragraphs of Amendment IV established the requirement that anyone age 21 or older could not be denied voting rights on the basis of age alone.

Amendment XV requires that race alone shall not bar a person from having all the rights of citizenship.

Amendment XV - Race no bar to vote. Ratified 2/3/1870.
1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

The 19th Amendment provided that citizens could not be barred from voting because of their sex.

Amendment XIX - Women's suffrage. Ratified 8/18/1920.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

The poll tax ban appeared only in 1964 with the 24th Amendment.

Amendment XXIV - Poll tax barred. Ratified 1/23/1964.
1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

The age for voting was lowered to 18 by:

Amendment XXVI - Voting age set to 18 years. Ratified 7/1/1971.
1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

Those who would like to make their own search for quibbles may find an excellent copy of the US Constitution: Amended at http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html


Side note:

As indicated, the US Constitution specifies some things a state cannot do in determining who may vote, but requirements not prohibited still may be imposed by each individual state; and it is quite possible for a state to allow voting by persons who would not have that right in another state. It is not necessary that voting for national offices be subject to the same requirements as voting for state or local issues except for the above limitations, and there have been quite a few places where different requirements have been applied.

From Notable Kansas Women:

"Susanna Madora Salter, Argonia, was elected the first woman mayor in the United States. She and her husband Lewis Salter lived in the Sumner County community where she cared for their young children and became an officer in the local Woman's Christian Temperance Union. Nominated for mayor as a joke, Salter surprised the group and received two-thirds of the votes. She was elected in April 1887, just weeks after Kansas women had gained the right to vote in city elections."

John

Subject: RE: BS: US Democracy 33% cannot vote !
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 08 Nov 06 - 01:23 AM

I'm afraid I'm also seeing much smoke and fumes in the debates about "the Common Law" here, with little flame or substance.

Each country, quite generally has its own body of Common Law, and as new judicial decisions enter into it, each body of Common Law continues to evolve.

The title of "The Classic Exposition of Common Law" in US jurisprudence might justifiably be applied to the book, The Common Law by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. This book was published in 1881, quite a while before Holmes became Chief Justice in Massachusetts and subsequently a Justice of the US Supreme Court. It is somewhat "dated" but remains a respected classic, and offers a reasonable notion of how Common Law has been incorporated into US Law.

A Dover Publications reprint was issued in 1991, with extensive (and helpful) notes and commentary. (ISBN 0-486-26746-6 for the US paperback) It's long, mostly boring, but necessary reading (perhaps) for anyone wanting to understand this aspect of the history and evolution of US law. Some supplemental sources may be needed to clearly discern a few "deviant" notions, or concepts that have evolved since publication.

It is quite clear that the body of Common Law most strongly incorporated into US practice comes directly and almost exclusively from British legal tradition. An attorney can present anything in argument, and anything accepted as "precedent" becomes part of the Common Law for that court that subsequent arguments may cite, but US courts traditionally have been most receptive to arguments based on British Common Law prior to the establishment of the US. There is thus, like the "UK Constitution" cited previously, no "fixed set of laws" that constitute the Common Law.

A possible exeption to the use of British Common Law, and a notable one if it's as it appears, occurs in Louisianna, where the state legal tradition is largely based on the Napoleanic Code.

There are few recent citations in court arguments going back to this older tradition, since a citation of the old law that has been accepted as precedent can itself be cited with better effect in the court where such precedent has been previously accepted.

There is no "law" that says that "the Common Law" is "the law" in any part of the US. Many local/state laws are "patterned after" precedents that derive from earlier (esp) British Common law, and earlier Common Law has had a strong influence on US legal precedent. That's about as far as it can be stretched.

John

Subject: RE: BS: US Democracy 33% cannot vote !
From: Grab
Date: 08 Nov 06 - 12:21 PM

Which "myth", sorefingers? That common law is set by precedent in courts? That's what common law *is*. The English didn't invent it - as others have said, different countries have their own versions of court case precedent - but the US naturally shares more with the English version than with other countries' versions, and the English legal system *did* give that body of precedents the name we now use for it.

But what I was trying to get at is that you claimed, very specifically, that common law precedent inherited from England at the time of the American Revolution gave you the right to vote if you'd paid tax. My point was that this cannot be the case, for the simple reason that at the time of the American Revolution, most of the UK population had no right to vote in spite of paying tax. This means that there's no way there can have been a common law precedent for the US to inherit.

I don't have a problem with "if you pay tax, you get to vote". It seems a fair system, and although some argument is possible, I'd agree with you in principle.

But this is where registering your address comes in - if you can show that you own property and hence pay local taxes, giving you a vote in that area is sensible. But you'd need to prove you live there and pay taxes there, because just being in the area at the time of the election wouldn't qualify you! So the registering process is essential, and that's why I disagreed with you about "for having moved to a new address and not informing Her Siezersssss new HomeSS about it". If you've moved and you've not registered to vote, how would they know? That's your fault and not the state's. Maybe they could slick things up by basing voting on who's registered for tax, but there's a separate item in the Constitution about not being barred from voting if you don't pay tax, which could get in the way. Still, if you've moved and you don't tell anyone you've moved, that's your mistake.

My biggest problem with what you said though is that you're painting all this as being the actions of "a Government which bases its appeal on good old fashioned Consurvative American values" and "Neo-cons". As much as I dislike both of those groups, it seems clear that all the laws/rules you're talking about (dual-nationality, US citizenship, etc) have been in place for much longer than Bush has been around. Sure, fixing these conditions would be good, but the fact that these conditions exist is not down to the current administration.

And the current administration has enough wrong with it that picking stuff to protest about which *isn't* its fault is positively bizarre... :-/

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: US Democracy 33% cannot vote !
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Nov 06 - 01:27 PM

People pay taxes just by living and breathing and eating in a place. Unless you are living in a place where there are no sales taxes and so forth on anything they might need to buy.

The logical thing is that if you are legally living in a country you should be entitled to vote there.

Subject: RE: BS: US Democracy 33% cannot vote !
From: GUEST,sorefingers
Date: 08 Nov 06 - 07:53 PM

Mr John-in-Kansas, well put and stated, but again sources are misleading you! First it's "English Common Law" according to them, and second it wasn't and isn't exclusively their's! They inherited their system from Rome. The Romans in their turn got their Laws from another source and so on. So they did not invent Justice either.

Common Law is 'court's precedent'. Ok, but what happens when one crooked judge has a politicians hand in his pocket and his own hand in the state treasury?

IOW Rubbish. Common Law is formed from several sources including relgious, moral, long established tradition and other practices. There IS no legal basis for it. That's the whole point. Priciples established in legislation and court rulings which take substance from it, for whatever reason, are relatively ephemeral. Now if you took a part of the Law of Sumer or Egypt and compared it to today's expression of a similar practice, then I can see why you might be getting confused. But you didn't. So I don't see why you have a problem with the3 biblical root for current common law intead of erroneous "English Common Law" ..which when examined closely BTW isn't really common law. I think when you read enough English Law, common or otherwise, you'll very soon realize it's really Regal, or Royal Law. IOW laws of the Monarchy for the 'people', or in their terminology ' subjects'.

Subject: RE: BS: US Democracy 33% cannot vote !
From: GUEST,sorefingers
Date: 08 Nov 06 - 07:58 PM

Here's a link to comments by an expert in the subject.

Common law

Subject: RE: BS: US Democracy 33% cannot vote !
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 09 Nov 06 - 12:18 AM

Sore -

There is an immense differece between the history of all common law and the derivation of the manner in which it is applied currently within any given legal jurisdiction.

For the sake of not arguing the point, which seems fruitless, I will concede that all common law derives from that instant when one big monkey whacked another monkey, because the second monkey had whacked another monkey. The big monkey said "don't do that again." That was the first law and all else derives from it.

John

Subject: RE: BS: US Democracy 33% cannot vote !
From: GUEST,peaceandquiet4now
Date: 18 Nov 06 - 04:18 PM

From the UK Parliament site - stating clearly that citizens of Commonwealth countries may vote in British elections.


The following people are not entitled to vote in parliamentary elections:

peers and peeresses in their own right, who are members of the House of Lords
young people under 18 years of age
foreign nationals other than citizens of the Irish Republic resident in Britain (citizens of Commonwealth countries may vote)
patients detained under mental health legislation
sentenced prisoners
people convicted within the previous five years of corrupt or illegal election practices.