26 minutes ago, PoconoDon said:

No, it presupposes nothing of the sort. You offer a false premise and I must reject it. The rest I accept as hyperbole. A plain reading of the text is usually enough for our understanding to be correct however, where 2 or more disagree as to the meaning of the words in the Constitution, there must be a final mechanism to resolve the argument. That final mechanism is the SCOTUS. By the rule of law, we all are bound by their holdings and therefore, they tell us what the words mean within a particular context.

Started with Marbury v. Madison (1803) because judicial review isn’t in the Constitution either.

32 minutes ago, Dave Moss said:

Started with Marbury v. Madison (1803) because judicial review isn’t in the Constitution either.

True and the 2 other branches didn't object to the SCOTUS assuming that role in government.

19 minutes ago, PoconoDon said:

True and the 2 other branches didn't object to the SCOTUS assuming that role in government.

I don’t know about that.  Jefferson and John Marshall hated each other

1 hour ago, PoconoDon said:

No, it presupposes nothing of the sort. You offer a false premise and I must reject it. The rest I accept as hyperbole. A plain reading of the text is usually enough for our understanding to be correct however, where 2 or more disagree as to the meaning of the words in the Constitution, there must be a final mechanism to resolve the argument. That final mechanism is the SCOTUS. By the rule of law, we all are bound by their holdings and therefore, they tell us what the words mean within a particular context.

Or in other words they decide the controversy at hand.  They do not however tell us what the words mean.  To do so would be to wield legislative power, which is not granted to them, it’s granted to congress 

In so deciding, they are themselves bound by the 4th amendment… no person can be deprived of life liberty of property without due process of law.  … that means they can’t just make up what they think the law says, as mentioned above.  The controversy must be decided according to law first, although I admit there are sometimes ambiguities.

1 minute ago, Dave Moss said:

I don’t know about that.  Jefferson and John Marshall hated each other

They never fought it out. The SCOTUS defined their own role and the other two branches just shrugged and went about their business.

Marbury v Madison was correct, they can call a law unconstitutional… but only in as much as a law actually is unconstitutional 

1 minute ago, Seventy_Yard_FG said:

Or in other words they decide the controversy at hand.  They do not however tell us what the words mean.  To do so would be to wield legislative power, which is not granted to them, it’s granted to congress 

Congress writes a law with some intent in mind. If challenged to pass Constitutional muster the SCOTUS interprets both the law and the Constitution. They decide what both mean in a particular context. If they find the law conflicts with the Constitution that law is rendered null. It's a simple concept. Intent comes from Congress and interpretation comes from the SCOTUS.  They can't decide the issue without explanation and that explanation requires analysis of the language (meaning). Believe what you want but by your logic the SCOTUS is pointless. Read their opinions and holdings and you'll find them replete with language analysis as they parse out the meaning of the words and how they apply that meaning. 

11 hours ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

Because of the social dynamics. 13% of the nation only a couple generations removed from slavery, whose melanin levels make them easy to separate into a tribal underclass, and a nation generally not very motivated to do anything about it.

Flip those numbers and make it a true minority rule situation? Even if you adjust spending and tax levels you're setting up a situation where maybe 1/3 of the nation is "allowed" a voice in political representation? Eat the rich will become more than just a bumper sticker on a Prius.

Universal suffrage may have its issues, but making the vote contingent on one's economic status is stupid on its face.

This isn't 1787 America where our form of government is experimental and questions of how to determine voting eligibility is an abstract idea being debated. We know that government policies can be very effective at entrenching a permanent ruling class.

Which is exactly what would happen.

 

Edit: melatonin -> melanin.

No.

Universal suffrage is stupid on its face. 

Literally.

You are inviting all of the dumbest, least competent, high time preference people in the state to have an equal voice to the smartest, most competent, low time preference people.

If we want to go by historical standards, elitism is much more tried and has proven to be incredibly effective. Universal suffrage has about 100 years of history and the result include world wars and the progressive decline of their countries in everything from financial positioning to birth rates.

8 hours ago, PoconoDon said:

Congress writes a law with some intent in mind. If challenged to pass Constitutional muster the SCOTUS interprets both the law and the Constitution. They decide what both mean in a particular context. If they find the law conflicts with the Constitution that law is rendered null. It's a simple concept. Intent comes from Congress and interpretation comes from the SCOTUS.  They can't decide the issue without explanation and that explanation requires analysis of the language (meaning). Believe what you want but by your logic the SCOTUS is pointless. Read their opinions and holdings and you'll find them replete with language analysis as they parse out the meaning of the words and how they apply that meaning. 

This isn’t necessarily true.  A law can be unconstitutional as it relates to a particular case, or it can be challenged on the grounds that it would be unconstitutional in almost every case.

Congressional intent and the intent of the framers is impossible to know.  We go by the text.

The SCOTUS in not pointless by my logic.  Some of the laws do require people who are very knowledgeable about legal terminology.  For this you want people who are good readers and able to correctly construe the text.  Then there’s the matter of matching the facts of certain cases to the law, which often requires judgment

10 hours ago, ToastJenkins said:

Word salad

we have more tolerance for violence no doubt. But thats a two way street

just accept that the whole of human history contradicts your theoretical 

Total copout.

Some cultures are conditioned to rule by "elites" and for "the masses" to have little to no political power.

The US isn't one of them. 

There's a reason why Chinese and US cultures are very different, and people tolerate very different behaviors from their respective governments. 

It's also the reason gun buybacks and much stronger gun control works in Australia and much of Europe but does not here.

Reserve government representation based on economic status and you'll have a revolt in the US.

7 hours ago, TEW said:

No.

Universal suffrage is stupid on its face. 

Literally.

You are inviting all of the dumbest, least competent, high time preference people in the state to have an equal voice to the smartest, most competent, low time preference people.

If we want to go by historical standards, elitism is much more tried and has proven to be incredibly effective. Universal suffrage has about 100 years of history and the result include world wars and the progressive decline of their countries in everything from financial positioning to birth rates.

This is just wrong.

The last 100 years has seen a huge reduction in state conflicts, at least in the West where something approaching universal suffrage has been in place. 

Europe was constantly at war with itself when elites could readily send commoners to battle for whatever. Since WWII, also coinciding with stronger representation in government from citizens of ALL economic classes, there have been far fewer conflicts.

You cite Germany, but following the Reichstag fire and Hitler's election the opposition was literally outlawed. There was nothing democratic about how he used state power to make his party's control permanent, which resulted in WWII. His and Putin's trajectory have a lot in common .. and it's worth nothing that Trump would have absolutely opted for the same course if our people and system would have allowed it.

You show some serious ignorance of history if you think universal suffrage has increased engagement in war. 

It's a whole lot harder to get support for war when you include government representation among the population most likely to be cannon fodder. 

9 hours ago, TEW said:

If we want to go by historical standards, elitism is much more tried and has proven to be incredibly effective. Universal suffrage has about 100 years of history and the result include world wars and the progressive decline of their countries in everything from financial positioning to birth rates.

lol ok and the time prior to universal suffrage included slavery, world wars, civil wars, fighting and wars just pretty much everywhere.  Univariate analysis is never a good thing...

9 hours ago, TEW said:

No.

Universal suffrage is stupid on its face. 

Literally.

You are inviting all of the dumbest, least competent, high time preference people in the state to have an equal voice to the smartest, most competent, low time preference people.

If we want to go by historical standards, elitism is much more tried and has proven to be incredibly effective. Universal suffrage has about 100 years of history and the result include world wars and the progressive decline of their countries in everything from financial positioning to birth rates.

Uneducated and uniformed as usual.

1 hour ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

This is just wrong.

The last 100 years has seen a huge reduction in state conflicts, at least in the West where something approaching universal suffrage has been in place. 

Europe was constantly at war with itself when elites could readily send commoners to battle for whatever. Since WWII, also coinciding with stronger representation in government from citizens of ALL economic classes, there have been far fewer conflicts.

You cite Germany, but following the Reichstag fire and Hitler's election the opposition was literally outlawed. There was nothing democratic about how he used state power to make his party's control permanent, which resulted in WWII. His and Putin's trajectory have a lot in common .. and it's worth nothing that Trump would have absolutely opted for the same course if our people and system would have allowed it.

You show some serious ignorance of history if you think universal suffrage has increased engagement in war. 

It's a whole lot harder to get support for war when you include government representation among the population most likely to be cannon fodder. 

TEW's knowledge of history is laughable. From calling Clarence Thomas the first black justice on the SCOTUS, to saying the soviets didn't have ICBMs until the 70's and now this nonsense about universal suffrage only being a thing for the last 100 years which has led to "world wars" and the decline of civilization. I've honestly never seen anyone so oblivious to their own stupidity.

And to be clear, I don't think anyone would ever confuse me with a populist, but this concept of gating access to voting based on economic status is antithetical to democracy itself. And if you pay attention to the people who advocate for it, it's almost always just a thinly veiled argument to lock out minorities and women from voting. 

1 hour ago, we_gotta_believe said:

TEW's knowledge of history is laughable. From calling Clarence Thomas the first black justice on the SCOTUS, to saying the soviets didn't have ICBMs until the 70's and now this nonsense about universal suffrage only being a thing for the last 100 years which has led to "world wars" and the decline of civilization. I've honestly never seen anyone so oblivious to their own stupidity.

And to be clear, I don't think anyone would ever confuse me with a populist, but this concept of gating access to voting based on economic status is antithetical to democracy itself. And if you pay attention to the people who advocate for it, it's almost always just a thinly veiled argument to lock out minorities and women from voting. 

Those who speak for democracy are often thinly veiled arguments for freeloading off of others.  We can both play this game where we attack the man, not the argument and we’ll get nowhere

plato had it right in the republic… philosopher king is what we need

9 minutes ago, Seventy_Yard_FG said:

Those who speak for democracy are often thinly veiled arguments for freeloading off of others.  We can both play this game where we attack the man, not the argument and we’ll get nowhere

plato had it right in the republic… philosopher king is what we need

Yeah, I'm freeloading off of you. That's it.

2 hours ago, we_gotta_believe said:

TEW's knowledge of history is laughable. From calling Clarence Thomas the first black justice on the SCOTUS, to saying the soviets didn't have ICBMs until the 70's and now this nonsense about universal suffrage only being a thing for the last 100 years which has led to "world wars" and the decline of civilization. I've honestly never seen anyone so oblivious to their own stupidity.

And to be clear, I don't think anyone would ever confuse me with a populist, but this concept of gating access to voting based on economic status is antithetical to democracy itself. And if you pay attention to the people who advocate for it, it's almost always just a thinly veiled argument to lock out minorities and women from voting. 

The notion of having "the best and brightest" carry more weight in terms of government representation is an attractive one, but in practice it's fraught with other issues. And it goes against the egalitarian principle that at least most of us tend to have.

I'd also argue that the voting public is already slanted favorably towards higher wage earners when you look at who actually votes. The young and poor tend to vote less consistently and frequently as it is. (And FWIW the bulk of this voting gap has less to do with eligibility laws and more to do with general political apathy among the young and poor vs more engagement among those who have earned enough of a living to worry about losing it.)

All that said I'd be much more inclined towards a system that requires an IQ test than economic status. That's a non-starter as well for a variety of reasons, and would have some significant overlap with one on socioeconomic terms, but at least it's on the basis of intelligence and not just bank account status.

There's plenty of sociopaths who may luck into a median score on an IQ test that make good money because of their willingness to be brutal, not their intelligence. And you'll never convince me that a 70 year old Trump would score better than 100 on a proper IQ test.

1 hour ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

The notion of having "the best and brightest" carry more weight in terms of government representation is an attractive one, but in practice it's fraught with other issues. And it goes against the egalitarian principle that at least most of us tend to have.

I'd also argue that the voting public is already slanted favorably towards higher wage earners when you look at who actually votes. The young and poor tend to vote less consistently and frequently as it is. (And FWIW the bulk of this voting gap has less to do with eligibility laws and more to do with general political apathy among the young and poor vs more engagement among those who have earned enough of a living to worry about losing it.)

All that said I'd be much more inclined towards a system that requires an IQ test than economic status. That's a non-starter as well for a variety of reasons, and would have some significant overlap with one on socioeconomic terms, but at least it's on the basis of intelligence and not just bank account status.

There's plenty of sociopaths who may luck into a median score on an IQ test that make good money because of their willingness to be brutal, not their intelligence. And you'll never convince me that a 70 year old Trump would score better than 100 on a proper IQ test.

Income and IQ are highly correlated. I’ve seen it as high as .7.. It’s basically the same thing, only without the benefit of an incentive structure.

4 hours ago, Phillyterp85 said:

lol ok and the time prior to universal suffrage included slavery, world wars, civil wars, fighting and wars just pretty much everywhere.  Univariate analysis is never a good thing...

We still have wars and slavery today. But the slavery issue was resolved without universal suffrage, so the idea that universal suffrage is needed to solve the issues of the lowest rungs of society doesn’t hold.

The issue now is accountability. We have none today in our leadership. They simply blame "the other side” and because we have universal suffrage it works with the voter base. In a feudal system/dictatorship, you have extreme ownership. In a limited representative government based on stake holders, at least the voters have an incentive to change ship.

38 minutes ago, TEW said:

Income and IQ are highly correlated. I’ve seen it as high as .7.. It’s basically the same thing, only without the benefit of an incentive structure.

Sure. But it gives those with intelligence born to lower means the ability to advocate for themselves in government.

Your approach quite literally tells those of the least means that government will be utterly unresponsive to their situation. While at the same in giving high income voters that much more incentive to pass policies assuring their continued place in the power structure.

One of the great advantages of our form of government is that every economic class has some level of input into policy. I know it's sometimes at the disadvantage of "producers" in that they have to make some concessions to the poors, but it makes for a more representative government.

And FWIW I say this as someone whose tax liabilities are in the six figures. I'm just a big proponent of inclusive egalitarian government.

33 minutes ago, TEW said:

We still have wars and slavery today. But the slavery issue was resolved without universal suffrage, so the idea that universal suffrage is needed to solve the issues of the lowest rungs of society doesn’t hold.

The issue now is accountability. We have none today in our leadership. They simply blame "the other side” and because we have universal suffrage it works with the voter base. In a feudal system/dictatorship, you have extreme ownership. In a limited representative government based on stake holders, at least the voters have an incentive to change ship.

Blaming "the other side" has nothing to do with universal suffrage. And some of the apparently well off posters here still appear clueless on a wide variety of issues.

Oh, and slavery was resolved .. with a civil war that killed off a sizable percentage of our population.

10 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

Blaming "the other side" has nothing to do with universal suffrage. And some of the apparently well off posters here still appear clueless on a wide variety of issues.

Oh, and slavery was resolved .. with a civil war that killed off a sizable percentage of our population.

It has everything to do with universal suffrage. The electorate buys into it because of their own incentives.

There are other countries besides the US you know. You can go all the way back to the Roman Empire and Ancient Greece to see the evolution of abolition. In more modern times, the Brits ended slavery without a civil war. So did basically every other European country. The US is the outlier in having a civil war.

The guy who just got done stating universal suffrage caused both world wars is now trying to give out history lessons.

27 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

Sure. But it gives those with intelligence born to lower means the ability to advocate for themselves in government.

Your approach quite literally tells those of the least means that government will be utterly unresponsive to their situation. While at the same in giving high income voters that much more incentive to pass policies assuring their continued place in the power structure.

One of the great advantages of our form of government is that every economic class has some level of input into policy. I know it's sometimes at the disadvantage of "producers" in that they have to make some concessions to the poors, but it makes for a more representative government.

And FWIW I say this as someone whose tax liabilities are in the six figures. I'm just a big proponent of inclusive egalitarian government.

No, it literally tells them that they aren’t contributing enough to have a say. You can be responsive to people without them having a decision making ability.