« Troubleshooting Remote Desktop for XP | Main | Steve Jobs commencement speech at Stanford »

June 16, 2005

Repeal the 19th Amendment

There's been a lot of talk about repealing the 22nd Amendment, so that Bush can run again, but very little talk of repealing the 19th Amendment.

Women are more emotional than men, and tend to vote based on their emotions rather than logic. Granting women the right to vote has been the single greatest contributing factor to the rise of the welfare state in our country. So says the research paper by John Lott, Jr. and Larry Kenny of the prestigious John M. Olin Program in Law and Economics at the University of Chicago Law School.

This is an idea who's time has come. Let's get this country back on track by removing a majority of the liberal, emotional, uninformed voters in one fell swoop. Let's repeal the 19th Amendment and take this country back before it's too late.

Technorati tags:
Delicious tags:

Folksonomy:These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share web pages.
digg  Furl  Spurl  Reddit  blinkbits  BlinkList  blogmarks  connotea  De.lirio.us  Fark  feedmelinks  LinkaGoGo  Ma.gnolia  NewsVine  Netvouz  RawSugar  scuttle  Shadows  Simpy  Smarking  TailRank  Wists  YahooMyWeb

Posted by Peenie Wallie on June 16, 2005 at 11:38 PM


There's been a lot of talk about repealing the 22nd Amendment, so that Bush can run again,

There was similar talk during the Clinton and Reagan presidencies. In a nation of 290 million people, you are always going to find some people who think something is a good idea. I wouldn't read to much into this, or worry about it too much.

Unless acting Senator Binks can be convinced to grant unlimited emergency powers to the President...

Posted by: Supreme Chancellor Palpatine on June 17, 2005 at 08:41 AM

words to make a mother proud

Posted by: Grandmama on June 17, 2005 at 09:56 AM

In Robert Heinlein's 1959 novel Starship Troopers, the right to vote must be earned by serving a two year term of Federal Service (usually interpreted to mean serving in the military, although the exact meaning has been debated , since Heinlein later claimed otherwise). After its publication, Heinleine was denounced by critics as a right-wing facist. In his 1980 anthology Expanded Universe, Heinlein wrote more about the idea of earning a right to vote, making it very clear that the system of Starship Troopers wasn't the only way things could be done.

Heinlien came to the exact opposite conclusion that PeenieWallie does:

I think I know what offends most of my critics the most about STARSHIP TROOPERS: It is the dismaying idea that a voice in governing the state should be earned instead of being handed to anyone who is 18 years old and has a body temperature near 37 degrees C.

But there ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

Democracies usually collapse not too long after the plebs discover that they can vote themselves bread and circuses...for a while. Either read history or watch the daily papers; it is now happening here. Let's stipulate for discussion that some stabilizing qualification is needed (in addition to the body being warm) for a voter to vote responsibly with proper consideration for the future of his children and grandchildren - and yours. The Founding Fathers never intended to extend the franchise to everyone; their debates and the early laws show it. A man had to be a stable figure in the community through owning land or employing others or engaged in a journeyman trade or something.

But few pay attention to the Founding Fathers today - those ignorant, uneducated men - they didn't even have television (have you looked at Monticello lately?) - so let's try some other "poll taxes" to insure a responsible electorate.

a) Mark Twain's "The Curious Republic of Gondor" - if you have not read it, do so.

b) A state where anyone can buy for cash (or lay-away installment plan) one or more franchises, and this is the government's sole source of income other than services sold competitively and non-monopolistically. This would produce a new type of government with several rabbits tucked away in the hat. Rich people would take over the government? Would they, now? Is a wealthy man going to impoverish himself for the privilege of casting a couple of hundred votes? Buying an election today under the warm-body (and tombstone) system is much cheaper than buying a controlling number of franchises would be. The arithmetic on this one becomes unsolvable...but I suspect that paying a stiff price (call it 20,000 Swiss francs) for a franchise would be even less popular than serving two years.

c) A state that required a bare minimum of intelligence and education - e.g., step into the polling booth and find that the computer has generated a new quadratic equation just for you. Solve it, the computer unlocks the voting machine, you vote. But get a wrong answer and the voting machine fails to unlock, a loud bell sounds, a red light goes on over the booth - and you slink out, face red, you having just proved yourself too stupid and/or ignorant to take part in the decisions of grownups. Better luck next election! No lower age limit in this system - smart 12-yr-old girls vote every election while some of their mothers - and fathers - decline to be humiliated twice.

There are endless variations on this one. Here are two: Improving the Breed -- No red light, no bell...but the booth opens automatically - empty. Revenue -- You don't risk your life, just some gelt. It costs you 1/4 oz. troy of gold in local currency to enter the booth. Solve your quadratic and vote, and you get your money back. Flunk - and the state keeps it. With this one I guarantee that no one would vote who was not interested and would be most unlikely to vote if unsure of his ability to get that hundred bucks back.

I concede that I set the standards on both I.Q. and schooling too low in calling only for the solution of a quadratic since (if the programming limits the machine to integer roots) a person who deals with figures at all can solve that one with both hands behind him (her) and her-his eyes closed. But I recently discovered that a person can graduate from high school in Santa Cruz with a straight-A record, be about to enter the University of California on a scholarship...but be totally unable to do simple arithmetic. Let's not make things too difficult at the transition.

d) I don't insist on any particular method of achieving a responsible electorate; I just think that we need to tighten up the present warm-body criterion before it destroys us. How about this? For almost a century and a half women were not allowed to vote. For the past sixty years they have voted...but we have not seen the enormous improvement in government that the suffragettes promised us.

Perhaps we did not go far enough. Perhaps men are still corrupting the government... so let's try the next century and a half with males disenfranchised. (Fair is fair. My mother was past forty before she was permitted to vote.) But let's not stop there; at present men outnumber women in elective offices, on the bench, and in the legal profession by a proportion that is scandalous.

Make males ineligible to hold elective office, or to serve in the judiciary, elective or appointed, and also reserve the profession of law for women.

Impossible? That was exactly the situation the year I was born, but male instead of female, even in the few states that had female suffrage before the XIXth Amendment, with so few exceptions as to be unnoticed. As for rooting male lawyers out of their cozy niches, this would give us a pool of unskilled manual laborers - and laborers are very hard to hire this days; I've been trying to hire one at any wages he wants for the past three months, with no success.

The really good ones could stay on as law clerks to our present female lawyers, who will be overworked for a while. But not for long. Can you imagine female judges (with no male judges to reverse them) permitting attorneys to take six weeks to pick a jury? Or allowing a trial to ramble along for months?

Women are more practical than men. Biology forces it on them.

Speaking of that, let's go the whole hog. Until a female bears a child her socio-economic function is male no matter how orthodox her sexual preference. But a woman who is mother to a child knows she has a stake in the future. So let's limit the franchise and eligibility for office and the practice of law to mothers.

The phasing over should be made gentle. Let males serve out their terms but not succeed themselves. Male lawyers might be given as long as four years to retire or find other jobs while not admitting any more males into law schools. I don't have a candidate for President but the events of the past fifty years prove that anybody can sit in the Oval Office; it's just that some are more impressive in appearance than others.

Brethren and Sistern, have you ever stopped to think that there has not been one rational decision out of the Oval Office for fifty years?

An all-female government could not possibly be worse than what we have been enduring. Let's try it!

Posted by: Robert on June 17, 2005 at 11:19 AM

Robert seems to be on the right track, if only it weren't too late.

Posted by: Grandmama on June 18, 2005 at 11:03 AM

Save our country, save our culture!!!!

Time has shown that the female thought process is not conducive to running an effective country or society.

We MUST save ourselves and the females from themselves.

Please, repeal the amendment.

Posted by: Obbop on November 21, 2006 at 06:07 PM

Since, as we all know, it was women who spilled their blood at Valley Forge, Yorktown and every other battlefield fighting and dying to create these United States, why should men have the vote merely because they are 48% of the population? Contrary to some of your correspondents the real way to settle the issue is this: Require women to fight all the wars of the United States until the number of female casualties becomes equal to all the preceding male casualties. Then we shall see if the hard fighting feminists think that the combat exempt male suffragettes should have the vote.

As for those who think that women should run things because that will eliminate wars, tell it to Hillary Clinton salivating to bomb Iran, to Queen Elizabeth raiding Spanish galleons or to Indira Gandhi attacking Pakistan (she obviously learned the lessons of non-violence from her pacifist father).

Posted by: john thames on June 22, 2008 at 01:39 PM

Anyone who thinks that women will improve society should remember what women did to America with Alcohol Prohibition. The shit-for-brains made the country into a loony bin-and organizwd crime made zillions. A sex sufficiently stupid to crusade for a law like that should have no voice in public affairs.

Posted by: john thames on June 24, 2008 at 07:01 PM

Post a comment

Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)