• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Which Constitutional Amendments, if any, should be repealed?

Which Constitutional Amendments, if any, should be repealed?


  • Total voters
    52
Just curious... Why do you feel that poll taxes are acceptable?

Because I don't adhere to the modern idea that voting is a fundamental right.

To be clear, I don't think that poll taxes are a good idea, but insofar as states have general authority over presidential elections, I don't see why they should be prohibited from imposing a poll tax, if they choose to do so.
 
Because I don't adhere to the modern idea that voting is a fundamental right.

To be clear, I don't think that poll taxes are a good idea, but insofar as states have general authority over presidential elections, I don't see why they should be prohibited from imposing a poll tax, if they choose to do so.
Interesting point-of-view. What would the purpose of a poll tax be other than disenfranchisement*? I don't necessarily disagree that voting is not a fundamental right, but neither do I feel that unnecessary roadblocks should be put up to discourage anybody from doing it.

*-A term I do not use loosely, as I feel that it is way over-used and incorrectly used in today's society, but I think it applies here.

Side note: I disagree with those who feel that requiring (paid for) ID qualifies as a poll tax.
 
Interesting point-of-view. What would the purpose of a poll tax be other than disenfranchisement*? I don't necessarily disagree that voting is not a fundamental right, but neither do I feel that unnecessary roadblocks should be put up to discourage anybody from doing it.

*-A term I do not use loosely, as I feel that it is way over-used and incorrectly used in today's society, but I think it applies here.

Side note: I disagree with those who feel that requiring (paid for) ID qualifies as a poll tax.

Again, I'm not defending a poll tax as such, only the right of states to impose such if they choose to.

As far as why (non illegitimate reasons) a state might wish to impose a poll tax, they could be simply trying to raise revenue, they could use the money to help pay for the election itself, they could be trying to prevent people who have no concern with politics from voting, they could be of the opinion that contributing to society by paying such a tax should be required to participate in the elections, they could simply use it as a way of avoiding the costs of enforcing general taxation, or they could have some other reason. As I said, I'm not defending the prudence of poll taxes, but only that states should be allowed to do so.
 
Again, I'm not defending a poll tax as such, only the right of states to impose such if they choose to.

As far as why (non illegitimate reasons) a state might wish to impose a poll tax, they could be simply trying to raise revenue, they could use the money to help pay for the election itself, they could be trying to prevent people who have no concern with politics from voting, they could be of the opinion that contributing to society by paying such a tax should be required to participate in the elections, they could simply use it as a way of avoiding the costs of enforcing general taxation, or they could have some other reason. As I said, I'm not defending the prudence of poll taxes, but only that states should be allowed to do so.

Something tells me that one would take care of itself.
 
Something tells me that one would take care of itself.

Perhaps I should have been more specific, I meant those who have no concern with being the least bit knowledgeable about politics. Think of people who don't know who the VP is, or how many senators their state has, but vote anyway.
 
Perhaps I should have been more specific, I meant those who have no concern with being the least bit knowledgeable about politics. Think of people who don't know who the VP is, or how many senators their state has, but vote anyway.
Got'cha. In a similar vein, I have never been a fan of "get out the vote" campaigns. Either you already care enough to vote (and educate yourself, hopefully) or you don't. If you don't, please just stay home. You shouldn't be gumming up the process for everyone else.
 
Got'cha. In a similar vein, I have never been a fan of "get out the vote" campaigns. Either you already care enough to vote (and educate yourself, hopefully) or you don't. If you don't, please just stay home. You shouldn't be gumming up the process for everyone else.

I agree.
 
Which Constitutional Amendments, if any, should be repealed?
  • 1st
  • 2nd
  • 3rd
  • 4th
  • 5th
  • 16th
  • 17th
  • 22nd
  • Other (Please elaborate)
  • None
This poll presumes the reader/participant is at least minimally educated and knows which Amendments are which.

You may vote for more than one, as some people feel that several should be repealed.

We should make a new Constitution every 19 years. No amendments necessary, just put the new stuff in the new Constitution, leave out what you don't want anymore, reword things to fit modern dialect.

No more "interpreting" this right or that right, its either in there plane as day or it doesn't exist. Right to marry, right to abortion, right to military arms.
 
Last edited:
Because I don't adhere to the modern idea that voting is a fundamental right.

To be clear, I don't think that poll taxes are a good idea, but insofar as states have general authority over presidential elections, I don't see why they should be prohibited from imposing a poll tax, if they choose to do so.
Ummm, I could be wrong (the law of averages says it will happen eventually) but it looks to me that you think that a poll tax has something to do with voting. Are you sure you know what a poll tax is? I know when I was younger I thought it was a tax on voting.
 
Ummm, I could be wrong (the law of averages says it will happen eventually) but it looks to me that you think that a poll tax has something to do with voting. Are you sure you know what a poll tax is? I know when I was younger I thought it was a tax on voting.

A poll tax is a tax that must be payed in order for a person to vote.
 
A poll tax is a tax that must be payed in order for a person to vote.
No, it's not. It's clear you did no research. Do you really think people voted in 14th century England when they had a poll tax?
 
No, it's not. It's clear you did no research. Do you really think people voted in 14th century England when they had a poll tax?

You don't know what you're talking about.

There were elections in 14th century England.
 
A poll tax is a tax that must be payed in order for a person to vote.
A poll tax is simply a "per head" tax, often taken as a result of a census. (The head of every household, for example, may be required to pay a flat dollar amount as a tax.)

That southern states in the U.S. used the enactment or existence of a poll tax to disenfranchise poor (i.e. black) voters is unquestioned. In those cases voters were required to have paid their poll tax in order to vote, but the poll tax itself was not a "fee to vote" per se.

Minor distinction.
 
You don't know what you're talking about.

There were elections in 14th century England.

The poll tax of 1377 was on every person age 14 and older who was not a beggar. Are you really going to claim the franchise was that universal?

Honestly, while there may have been some elections, I'm not aware of them...certainly not for parliament.
 
The poll tax of 1377 was on every person age 14 and older who was not a beggar. Are you really going to claim the franchise was that universal?

Honestly, while there may have been some elections, I'm not aware of them...certainly not for parliament.

I stand corrected with respect to the poll tax.

Actually there were elections for the House of Commons, only about five percent of commoners could vote in them, but they did happen.
 
You both appear to be in agreement about the key points, as I see them:

(a) voting is a privilege, not a "right"
(b) everyone should not be permitted (much less encouraged) to vote

Personally, I wouldn't mind a repeal of the poll tax clause simply because I believe states should decide for themselves what voter qualifications should exist.

If New Hampshire, for example, holds that voter eligibility requires that the person paid state income taxes, or that the person own property or have a net worth of at least $X, that state has the right to do so and, if a New Hampshire residents wants to vote badly enough in that state, they will make better decisions with regards to the acquisition of property and wealth. Fortunately, individuals who do not meet voter eligibility requirements are free to move elsewhere. They don't even have to move out of the country as there are 49 other states they can find in such a scenario.

Of course doing this undermines two prevalent lies - that all people have a "right" to whatever it is they desire, and that a national government (rather than the respective state governments) should be the primary guarnator of such "rights".
 
If New Hampshire, for example, holds that voter eligibility requires ... that the person own property or have a net worth of at least $X

Strictly speaking the 24th would allow such a requirement as long as the person was not required to pay money as a condition of voting. (Modern EP jurisprudence would not, but nothing in the text or original meaning of the Constitution or the amendments prohibits it)
 
Perhaps I should have been more specific, I meant those who have no concern with being the least bit knowledgeable about politics. Think of people who don't know who the VP is, or how many senators their state has, but vote anyway.
Having enough money to pay a poll tax in no way indicates knowledge of the political landscape.
 
Again I'm not defending the prudence if poll taxes, only that states should be allowed to impose them.
I do not think states should be allowed to impose them.

Now, I might be OK with OTHER forms of "quality checking", but monetary does not strike me as a valid method.
 
I do not think states should be allowed to impose them.

Now, I might be OK with OTHER forms of "quality checking", but monetary does not strike me as a valid method.

Why shouldn't they be allowed to impose them?
 
Back
Top Bottom