I could write a page to myself about what I think is wrong with American voting system, but I have the Texas Bar Exam in a few days, so maybe I'll do that later.

 

For now, I say, read things like:

 

Strong Democracy - Benjamin Barber,

Democracy's Value - I. Shapiro & C. Hacker-Cordon

A More Perfect Constitution - Benjamin Barber

 

Democracy and Its Critics: Robert A Dahl,

Political Constitutionalism by Richard Bellamy,

 

Principles of Constitutional Design - Donald S. Lutz ,

 

 

Read Articles Like:

 

Democracy as a Universal Value - Amartya Sen (John's Hopkins)

Democracry and Difference - Banhabib (Yale)

Fugitive Democracy - Woolin (Princeton)

Deliberative Democracy and the Institutions of Judicial Review in "Constitutionalism" - Zurn (Cambridge)

 

 

Those are what I cut my teeth on when it come to Constitutionalism and they aren't the worst start you could imagine.

I could write a page to myself about what I think is wrong with American voting system, but I have the Texas Bar Exam in a few days, so maybe I'll do that later.

 

For now, I say, read things like:

 

Strong Democracy - Benjamin Barber,

Democracy's Value - I. Shapiro & C. Hacker-Cordon

A More Perfect Constitution - Benjamin Barber

 

Democracy and Its Critics: Robert A Dahl,

Political Constitutionalism by Richard Bellamy,

 

Principles of Constitutional Design - Donald S. Lutz ,

 

 

Read Articles Like:

 

Democracy as a Universal Value - Amartya Sen (John's Hopkins)

Democracry and Difference - Banhabib (Yale)

Fugitive Democracy - Woolin (Princeton)

Deliberative Democracy and the Institutions of Judicial Review in "Constitutionalism" - Zurn (Cambridge)

 

 

Those are what I cut my teeth on when it come to Constitutionalism and they aren't the worst start you could imagine.

 

If spindoc ever gives me a root canal, I'll start in on these in an effort to deflect the pain.

Inalienable:

unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor.

 

No such word as unalienable.

 

Both are considered correct and synonymous in modern usage.

 

"Unalienable" is the form used by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence.

 

Well...inalienable was used in some drafts of the Constitution. Unalienable is what went in. Many, many websites claim they are synonyms. But technically they are not.

 

?Unalienable? vs. ?Inalienable? | Adask's law

 

if we look at Bouvier’s Law Dictionary (A.D. 1856) we’ll see:

 

 

“INALIENABLE. A word denoting the condition of those things the property in which cannot be lawfully transferred from one person to another. Public highways and rivers are inalienable. There are also many rights which are inalienable, as the rights of liberty or of speech.”

 

 

“UNALIENABLE. Incapable of being transferred. Things which are not in commerce, as, public roads, are in their nature unalienable. Some things are unalienable in consequence of particular provisions of the law forbidding their sale or transfer; as, pensions granted by the government. The natural rights of life and liberty are unalienable.”

 

 

Clearly, the words are not synonymous. While “inalienable” rights can’t be “lawfully” transferred “to another,” they might nevertheless be waived by the holder or perhaps “unlawfully” (privately??) “transferred” to someone else. However, those rights which are “unalienable” are absolutely incapable of being transferred lawfully, unlawfully, administratively, privately or by implication or operation of law. that which you have, which is “unalienable,” is your wrists in an absolute sense that cannot possibly be discarded, transferred, sold, or otherwise abandoned.

 

 

Inalienable - can not not be transferred but could be waived by the holder. Unalienable - permanent, unable to lose or ever forfeit. But I digress.

 

The original Bill of Rights protected people's natural unalienable rights from the government. Many of the later Amendments, especially after the Civil War basically had to grant rights to overcome states (usually the Southern ones as Hatz pointed out on the 19th) lack of recognizing what were later deemed basic man-made rights. After all God probably does not have view on who votes in man-made governmental elections.

 

I guess there is an 'unalienable' right to ignorance of the government process and that right does not prevent people from participating in a representative democracy. So 'passing a test' does not fly with our representative democracy.

Perhaps we should revert back to only property-owning white males being eligible to vote. That would take care of things.

 

Well, you sure took that down an ugly road.:no:

 

And by the way, just to clarify for anyone who might wonder...any opinion I have formed about voters or the voting process during my few years of working the polls has been done so watching the overwhelming majority of approximately 95% white voters vote in the precinct I work in.

 

As a conservative...yep it's a conundrum for me. But maybe if people knew they might not get to vote if they couldn't pass some sort of simple test, maybe, just maybe they would get more engaged and at least know what they are registered as when they show up and know who they can and can't vote for in a primary and know the difference between the primary and a general election.

 

It will never happen...and in reality probably shouldn't if for no other reason than simply because no one would ever agree what should be on a test or how to do it...it's too hard, not hard enough, it's biased, too expensive, has to be in 500 languages and 3 kinds of brail. I just wish more people would take voting more seriously and put some thought and effort into it, that's all. Is that not at it's core a patriotic wish?

Well...inalienable was used in some drafts of the Constitution. Unalienable is what went in. Many, many websites claim they are synonyms. But technically they are not.

 

?Unalienable? vs. ?Inalienable? | Adask's law

 

 

 

Inalienable - can not not be transferred but could be waived by the holder. Unalienable - permanent, unable to lose or ever forfeit. But I digress.

 

The original Bill of Rights protected people's natural unalienable rights from the government. Many of the later Amendments, especially after the Civil War basically had to grant rights to overcome states (usually the Southern ones as Hatz pointed out on the 19th) lack of recognizing what were later deemed basic man-made rights. After all God probably does not have view on who votes in man-made governmental elections.

 

I guess there is an 'unalienable' right to ignorance of the government process and that right does not prevent people from participating in a representative democracy. So 'passing a test' does not fly with our representative democracy.

 

 

One man's opinion, and a good one. As I said in my post, the two were not considered historically identical but in modern usage... they are.

I just wish more people would take voting more seriously and put some thought and effort into it, that's all. Is that not at it's core a patriotic wish?

 

Absolutely, unequivocally... yes.

One man's opinion, and a good one. As I said in my post, the two were not considered historically identical but in modern usage... they are.

 

Yes. I would hate to be lawyer arguing about natural law (vs. positive law) or unalienable rights in today's world in actual court.

Yes. I would hate to be lawyer arguing about natural law (vs. positive law) or unalienable rights in today's world in actual court.

 

I don't think it's ever been particularly fun. Natural rights are a tricky concept. They are, by definition, pre-constitutional and extra-constitutional.

 

But I also didn't think that either "unalienable" or "inalienable" was anywhere in the Constitution. That's a phrase from the Declaration.

Overlooked in all this mish mosh of discussion is the fact that a significant number of races have no meaningful issues. Do we vote on "the issues" when we vote for state auditor, state treasurer, constable, even fiscal court and city commission members? Often, the answer is no. Another example: Where do Grimes and McConnell specifically disagree in agriculture policy or even on the issue of foreign aid? Don't know. With the demise of newspapers and the rise of partisan websites, the ability to separate fact from fiction is becoming more difficult.

Overlooked in all this mish mosh of discussion is the fact that a significant number of races have no meaningful issues. Do we vote on "the issues" when we vote for state auditor, state treasurer, constable, even fiscal court and city commission members? Often, the answer is no. Another example: Where do Grimes and McConnell specifically disagree in agriculture policy or even on the issue of foreign aid? Don't know. With the demise of newspapers and the rise of partisan websites, the ability to separate fact from fiction is becoming more difficult.

 

Valid point on the local, "sometimes don't mean a whole lot" races. Wait...did I just agree with Twotwoplace on something? Oh my gosh!:lol2: But...some of those races in some places are taken very seriously. I remember a big discussion on here a while back on, I believe it was the Campbell County jailer's race? So some races/positions that might not mean a whole lot in some places can mean a whole lot in other places.

I admit to blindly voting in the race one year for Jefferson County Soil and Water Conservation something or another. Never even knew JC had such an office, and couldn't tell you what each candidate's platforms were. Oh..and when I lived in St. Matthews, there were offices I had no idea who were running. I voted based on name (like..Tonini...they own a Catholic store, and I worked for them way, way back in the day), and then I voted for any women listed. Hey...I'm an ignorant American voter...but at least I voted.

Well, you sure took that down an ugly road.:no:

 

And by the way, just to clarify for anyone who might wonder...any opinion I have formed about voters or the voting process during my few years of working the polls has been done so watching the overwhelming majority of approximately 95% white voters vote in the precinct I work in.

 

As a conservative...yep it's a conundrum for me. But maybe if people knew they might not get to vote if they couldn't pass some sort of simple test, maybe, just maybe they would get more engaged and at least know what they are registered as when they show up and know who they can and can't vote for in a primary and know the difference between the primary and a general election.

 

It will never happen...and in reality probably shouldn't if for no other reason than simply because no one would ever agree what should be on a test or how to do it...it's too hard, not hard enough, it's biased, too expensive, has to be in 500 languages and 3 kinds of brail. I just wish more people would take voting more seriously and put some thought and effort into it, that's all. Is that not at it's core a patriotic wish?

 

That's often what happens with slippery slopes.:sneaky:

I don't think it's ever been particularly fun. Natural rights are a tricky concept. They are, by definition, pre-constitutional and extra-constitutional.

 

But I also didn't think that either "unalienable" or "inalienable" was anywhere in the Constitution. That's a phrase from the Declaration.

 

Correct - its part of the Declaration of Independence.

 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

 

I have seen interesting arguments over why it important to not lose sight that 'unalienable' is supposedly non-waiverable and natural-based vs. the supposedly waiverable 'inalienable' rights. Mainly when discussed on what might negatively happen if a Constitutional Convention were held since most the amendments of the original Bill of Rights were direct instructions to Government to not tread on natural rights (from our Creator).

I admit to blindly voting in the race one year for Jefferson County Soil and Water Conservation something or another. Never even knew JC had such an office, and couldn't tell you what each candidate's platforms were. Oh..and when I lived in St. Matthews, there were offices I had no idea who were running. I voted based on name (like..Tonini...they own a Catholic store, and I worked for them way, way back in the day), and then I voted for any women listed. Hey...I'm an ignorant American voter...but at least I voted.

 

Do not feel bad. You would have to work hard to form a 'well informed' opinion on every office or ballot entry. I do not do a lot of research on who is running for dog-catcher. But I do know when I am voting in primary vs. general election.

Aren't civics classes mandated in Kentucky schools? Doesn't matter. We still have right-wing AM radio.

In many areas, we are also fortunate enough to have right-wing FM talk radio too. And, because so many conservatives are too busy working during the day catch their shows, radio hosts such as Mark Levin make podcasts available for our convenience.