Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Yes, but the Constitution never forbade blacks and women from voting.
The fact that in later Amendements "gave" the right to vote makes it implicit that the right did not exist previously. The right to hold political office is not subordinate to the right to vote. If that is so then women and blacks should not hold political office or legally can be barred from it, unless the right is delegated in the Constitution (remember the Equal Rights Amendment? If feminists say this must be passed for them to be equal, then there it is - it's perfectly legal to outlaw women from holding political office!). "Michael" wrote in message ... If memory serves the federal requirements speak to only age, and in the case of a President place of birth. The rest per the (almost defunct) 10th Amendment is left to the individual states. Two branches to follow on this topic. The requirement for birth in the US extends to all those listed in the Presidential Succession laws. Or does it? If some office is listed in the Presidential Line Of Succession does that not ipso fact mean those office holders must be US born or not be listed? Branch Two is the discussion of impeachment or replacement by whatever meansof a state elected representative or senator (representative at large) to the federal government. Let's assume a Senator, such as Bob Packwood of Oregon (R) or Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts (D) was 'recalled' as some states have the right to do or otherwide legally removed from office by their home state and prior to the normal end of their term. What would happen? M. "Bob Crantz" wrote in message ink.net... The 19th Amendment "gave" women the right to vote, and the Civil Rights Amendment "gave" blacks the right to vote, which implies that these are enumerated rights granted by the Constitution, then where does it say that women and blacks have the right to hold political office? Robert Kranz |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Our discussion completely aside the answer will be whatever the federal
government deems it to be. I can think of nothing in life that is allowed to exist or not exist without permission and regulatory guidance from that level. The way it's evolved the local and state governments a) exist only as an historically acceptable curiousity and act b) in accordance with the dictates of the federal level. The real questions are not what or how you and I think about things but how the national level will evolve, into what and how much more we will see in our lifetimes. For example and going back to state and local governments which now are little more than named sub units of the national level become Departments and Sub-Departments of the federal government with (first) names and numbers and (second) as numbers. After all if citizens can be known by their federal name/numbers then why not sub-political units. The questions you should be asking to be relevant in the 21st Century a Where is the capital of North American to be built? When the NorthAmericanUnion is established from the NAFTA springboard will we end up like the EC/EU with local laws, mores, culture, language remaining as is and a national economy,monetary system, military defense etc? Will we (Canada/USA) sink to the level of the Mexicans or raisethem to our standard of living? Get with the program . . . . .. history is useful only as a guide to what is coming next. M. "Bob Crantz" wrote in message ink.net... Yes, but the Constitution never forbade blacks and women from voting. The fact that in later Amendements "gave" the right to vote makes it implicit that the right did not exist previously. The right to hold political office is not subordinate to the right to vote. If that is so then women and blacks should not hold political office or legally can be barred from it, unless the right is delegated in the Constitution (remember the Equal Rights Amendment? If feminists say this must be passed for them to be equal, then there it is - it's perfectly legal to outlaw women from holding political office!). "Michael" wrote in message ... If memory serves the federal requirements speak to only age, and in the case of a President place of birth. The rest per the (almost defunct) 10th Amendment is left to the individual states. Two branches to follow on this topic. The requirement for birth in the US extends to all those listed in the Presidential Succession laws. Or does it? If some office is listed in the Presidential Line Of Succession does that not ipso fact mean those office holders must be US born or not be listed? Branch Two is the discussion of impeachment or replacement by whatever meansof a state elected representative or senator (representative at large) to the federal government. Let's assume a Senator, such as Bob Packwood of Oregon (R) or Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts (D) was 'recalled' as some states have the right to do or otherwide legally removed from office by their home state and prior to the normal end of their term. What would happen? M. "Bob Crantz" wrote in message ink.net... The 19th Amendment "gave" women the right to vote, and the Civil Rights Amendment "gave" blacks the right to vote, which implies that these are enumerated rights granted by the Constitution, then where does it say that women and blacks have the right to hold political office? Robert Kranz |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Reagan's own words on Second Amendment | ASA | |||
Photos - Nelsons Flagship, Victory | ASA | |||
OT--If you're a liberal, be careful what you ask for | General | |||
Off the Topic. I'm waiting to see... | General |