Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
WHO is trying to re-define residency? Hint: it's the authors of the new legislation, not those of us defending the rights of adults to vote where they spend the majority of their time. Just because they aren't going to be there the rest of their lives? Do you plan on states actually asking new residents how long they intend to reside in that state? And if someone only plans on living there a year or two, they shouldn't get to vote? Ridiculous!
Well, that would depend on the State. Were I the one who decides the criteria, I would generally follow that you must live there for a year before being considered a resident.
I live in Maryland. If all those who come from out of state to attend college here became residents immediatly upon demand, I could ultimately care less if they could vote- it could conceivably benefit me personally as this place cannot get any more left than it is.
However, they could also begin to claim in-state tuition and other benefits. No, no, no. I happilly subsidize Maryland residents' tuiton and unhappily subsidiae illegal aliens' tuition. I am not going to add people from the 49 other states to that list. Nor should they add my son if he ever attends the state university of another State.
Being a student is clearly a transient phase. Its a special status. And all things considered- things you not so slyly choose to ignore or not answer- its best to tie it to home residency.
Those amendments apply to those QUALIFIED to vote. They do not grant you a RIGHT to vote. If voting were a "right" then the govt could not strip the right from felons.
And here I was starting to think that I was too harsh and that Moth was right that you were just trolling.
Fourteenth Amendment
Quote:
nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law
States can deprive a person's right to vote if they have been convicted of a felony because there has, at least in theory, been due process of law.
Quote:
...the exclusion of felons from the vote has an affirmative sanction in s 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment, a sanction which was not present in the case of the other restrictions on the franchise which were invalidated in the cases on which respondents rely. We hold that the understanding of those who adopted the Fourteenth Amendment, as reflected in the express language of s 2 and in the historical and judicial interpretation of the Amendment's applicability to state laws disenfranchising felons, is of controlling significance...
Richardson v. Ramirez, 418 U.S. 24, 54 (1974)
Citizens can be and are deprived of rights all the time. A person in a custodial interrogation can waive their right to counsel; a criminal defendant can waive their right to a jury trial; a person can be deprived of their life by the government through due process of law.
A general right of adult citizens to vote is thoroughly ingrained in the history, spirit and text of our Constitution.
Well, that would depend on the State. Were I the one who decides the criteria, I would generally follow that you must live there for a year before being considered a resident.
I live in Maryland. If all those who come from out of state to attend college here became residents immediatly upon demand, I could ultimately care less if they could vote- it could conceivably benefit me personally as this place cannot get any more left than it is.
However, they could also begin to claim in-state tuition and other benefits. No, no, no. I happilly subsidize Maryland residents' tuiton and unhappily subsidiae illegal aliens' tuition. I am not going to add people from the 49 other states to that list. Nor should they add my son if he ever attends the state university of another State.
Being a student is clearly a transient phase. Its a special status. And all things considered- things you not so slyly choose to ignore or not answer- its best to tie it to home residency.
So, if you move from Massachusetts to California, you need to continue to vote in Massachusetts, a state you've left and have no intention of returning to, for 12 full months, before you are considered a resident in California. So, tags expire on your car, but hey, you're not a resident yet. Taxes due on the house you bought, but hey, you're not a resident yet. I think the person being sly here is you, because I'm the one who said leave the laws alone, for the very reasons outlined in your second paragraph. Redundant laws and laws that define residency for one group differently than they define residency for other groups serve only to confuse the law. Students should not be treated differently than any other adult who are qualified to vote. Their transience has nothing to do with it, because there are plenty of adults who are transient and who aren't students. There are lots of companies who move managers from one state to another every couple of years, to broaden their experience and also to weaken their ties to particular locales because they want the strongest ties to be to the company. Should those people forego voting? Per your rationale, they should.
Well this was about proposed legislation. No one claimed this would pass, but whether or not this passes or not, the idea that we will try to limit those from voting on campus (or anywhere else they are legally entitled to vote) because we do not like their ideology or how they vote goes against everything we are suppose to stand for.
So, if you move from Massachusetts to California, you need to continue to vote in Massachusetts, a state you've left and have no intention of returning to, for 12 full months, before you are considered a resident in California. So, tags expire on your car, but hey, you're not a resident yet. Taxes due on the house you bought, but hey, you're not a resident yet. I think the person being sly here is you, because I'm the one who said leave the laws alone, for the very reasons outlined in your second paragraph. Redundant laws and laws that define residency for one group differently than they define residency for other groups serve only to confuse the law. Students should not be treated differently than any other adult who are qualified to vote. Their transience has nothing to do with it, because there are plenty of adults who are transient and who aren't students. There are lots of companies who move managers from one state to another every couple of years, to broaden their experience and also to weaken their ties to particular locales because they want the strongest ties to be to the company. Should those people forego voting? Per your rationale, they should.
Students are not treated differently. You are making things up again. Anyone who is 18 and over may vote.
Well this was about proposed legislation. No one claimed this would pass, but whether or not this passes or not, the idea that we will try to limit those from voting on campus (or anywhere else they are legally entitled to vote) because we do not like their ideology or how they vote goes against everything we are suppose to stand for.
or anywhere else they are legally entitled to vote
Who said anything about that? What the hell do you think is going on here? Nobody is talking about restricting the right to vote.
So people who rent apartments and don't own cars don't get to vote? Many college students work and do pay income taxes.
I didn't have a drivers license when I was in college. I didn't own a car. I didn't own a house, I rented an apartment. I was eighteen years old. I voted where I lived. I just didn't happen to live in the same state as my parents. Are you telling me that I should have voted where my parents lived? Why?
What are you talking about?
Nowhere did I say that renters without cars don't get to vote, I simply stated that renting an apt somewhere doesn't qualify as paying property taxes to the locality.
And if you voted, without being a RESIDENT of the district you were voting in, then you may have broken the law.
Now, if you actually graduated college, and are able to comprehend what was plainly written, I was responding to a post from you stating you paid taxes by driving through tolls, buying things and paying sales taxes, and by renting an apt. That's not the same as residency.
You vote, where you are a resident. If you declared residency where you went to college, then that's where you are a resident.
or anywhere else they are legally entitled to vote
Who said anything about that? What the hell do you think is going on here? Nobody is talking about restricting the right to vote.
Not restricting the right to vote, but restricting the right of where someone is currently legally entitled to vote, for no other reason other than not liking their ideology or how they vote.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
?
