This is not a flaw at all. Constitutional amendments were intended to be few and far between. Most federal issues simply need an Act of Congress to be dealt with. The states were intended to have to most governing power. The federal government is supposed to only have limited, delegated powers under the 10th Amendment. Requiring a test wouldn't even be allowed in state elections because of the history of using such tests to disenfranchise black people, thus the resulting legislation and court decisions striking them down. You sound like an extremist when you talk about these things.
-
After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.
Socialized health care
- Thread starter FreakyLocz14
- Start date
This is not a flaw at all. Constitutional amendments were intended to be few and far between. Most federal issues simply need an Act of Congress to be dealt with. The states were intended to have to most governing power. The federal government is supposed to only have limited, delegated powers under the 10th Amendment. Requiring a test wouldn't even be allowed in state elections because of the history of using such tests to disenfranchise black people, thus the resulting legislation and court decisions striking them down. You sound like an extremist when you talk about these things.
lordofthereef
Android Expert
In your opinion...
I find it to be a flaw. Designing something incredibly difficult to change is, in my view, assuming that times won't require change.
I mentioned before that, generally speaking, politicians won't even touch ammending anything because they KNOW they won't get anywhere. Again, in MY eyes, that is a flaw.
Also, the difference in these tests, and those used to disenfranchise blacks are vast. In the time those tests were given, illiteracy rates among that community were high. This is not the case amongst any single community today, minority and otherwise.
You can call me or my views extreme if you wish. If you met me, you would probably think quite the contrary. I personally like to simply think that I have an open mind and don't view the Constitution as gospel, as plenty people seem to do.
ElasticNinja
Android Expert
A constitution SHOULD be hard to change - however it shouldn't cover unnecessary issues like the US or Irish ones do
If the constitution was modernised I'd disagree with Lord (probably)
Its not hard to send a leaflet to every home and publicise a website
Learn the stuff off, do an easy test
If your so lazy as to not do that you probably should have benifits restricted too...
If the constitution was modernised I'd disagree with Lord (probably)
Its not hard to send a leaflet to every home and publicise a website
Learn the stuff off, do an easy test
If your so lazy as to not do that you probably should have benifits restricted too...
lordofthereef
Android Expert
I think you said it more elegantly than I did. I agree, a constitution shouldn't be easy to change. BUT modernization would be the key. The great debate there is... how do you modernize? You can't modernize without ammending, and you won't get enough people to agree on anything to properly ammend.
There is this phenomenon where people can agree that there may be a good idea, but don't think it should be acted upon because it's "unconstitutional". Let's take this proposed test for example. I am not sure anyone thinks it would be an innately BAD idea (if so, I have not seen that opinion voiced, only that it would be unconstitutional). But no way, can't have it, it's unconstitutional (or can be spun that way - this statement is regarding any number of issues not just this one).
Ok, so we have this great idea, but its unconstitutional, let's make an amendment? Well guess what, we already assume we won't get enough people to agree on it, so let's not even try. -- THIS is the general mentality, and this is why I use the word "flawed", perhaps incorrectly.
ElasticNinja
Android Expert
Yeah its a vicious circle all right
I hope something will be done about ours, hopefully the government have something up their sleave
I hope something will be done about ours, hopefully the government have something up their sleave
lordofthereef
Android Expert
Historically it seems it takes years of disparity as a result of unwillingness to change for the change to start happening.
I don't know you personally, so I can only base judgments on what I've been seeing in this thread. Whether or not you are actually an extremist is beyond me.
The Constitution is the gospel of our government. If you want to have such legislation passed, you would needs to prove to the courts that it is constitutional. Given the history of literacy tests being used as a racist tool, they courts would apply the strict scrutiny standard to your proposed legislation if it should pass Congress and be signed into law by the President.
You must show that requiring some sort of exam to be passed prior to becoming eligible to vote meets the following
1) The government has a compelling interest in requiring such exams before one can vote. This generally refers to something necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely preferred. Examples include national security, preserving the lives of multiple individuals, and not violating explicit constitutional protections.
2) The legislation that requires this must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest.
3) The legislation must be the least restrictive means possible for advancing that interest. There cannot be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest
ElasticNinja
Android Expert
we are merely musing...
Such a test would likely only come with huge political reform
Such a test would likely only come with huge political reform
lordofthereef
Android Expert
Thank you sir. You seem to get where I am coming from.
lordofthereef
Android Expert
And I have issues with parts of it, which is part of what this discussion is about.