I think President Carter is the most intelligent and kindest person of this country's presidents or any other country in the world. Instead of making huge money on speeches or becoming wealthy, he went to work for his community to help the poor. His unostentatiousness is admirable.
He set a high standard for both presidents and former presidents. We know for sure that the current president has no interest in living up to it, or the ability to do so, but when we get through this -- and I do, most of the time, believe the country will get through it, though the cost is going to be terrible -- I hope the 48th and subsequent presidents will do their best.
Now, #23A. Like so many other parts of the 2nd US Constitution, it fails any common sense, fairness, and logic test.
Makes no sense to bestow the vote when the very voters are deprived of voting representation in Congress that other citizens enjoy, Representative(s), Senators. If the District is separate and apart from the US (which it can't be due to being carved out to neighboring states, then residents must be separate and apart but they are not because they are Americans.
Same w/#26A. Bestowing the vote on 18-20-year-olds when they can't vote for any person for Federal elected office in their age range fails the same 3tests. Even 21-24-year-olds can't vote for any person who represents their age range.
Both Amendments continue the history and plain text of the 2nd US Constitution as being intentionally exclusionary in design and substance. And to date, no US President has said so.
I hadn't thought about that age-range angle -- about voters under 25 not being able to vote for anyone in their age group for federal office. The minimum-age requirement sure hasn't protected us from immature, unintelligent incompetents in high office.
Each and every time read/see/hear criticism of voter turnout in the 18-24 range from the same group of folk lecturing on civics am left speechless.
First of all there isn't any requirements to vote at all, none, nada, zilch, yet folk proceed w/their condemnation anyway. Secondly, we've been in that age range. While legally an adult, the prevailing thinking is that of a young person's view of all things including age. At 18-24 their biological parents are "young" yet that's not how the nature of a 18-24 sees it.
That age range gravitates to one or more cause celebre rather than using a political filter of our 2party system. Been the historical pattern. I respect that rather than condemn if or how they vote.
All that said, my primary focus is that 2nd US Constitution and how it wasn't expected to become the sole governing say even w/amendments. So, SCOTUS can say originalism blah blah blah but they overlook what the Founders and Framers said about the longevity of their work/word product. Not a one ever said/wrote it would stand the test of time. And it hasn't including pre-Trump.
I think President Carter is the most intelligent and kindest person of this country's presidents or any other country in the world. Instead of making huge money on speeches or becoming wealthy, he went to work for his community to help the poor. His unostentatiousness is admirable.
He set a high standard for both presidents and former presidents. We know for sure that the current president has no interest in living up to it, or the ability to do so, but when we get through this -- and I do, most of the time, believe the country will get through it, though the cost is going to be terrible -- I hope the 48th and subsequent presidents will do their best.
Your POV reminded me of my own country, where the cost has always been terrible.
The title of your Substack is so poetic - my congratulations on the title.
Gr8 read again.
Now, #23A. Like so many other parts of the 2nd US Constitution, it fails any common sense, fairness, and logic test.
Makes no sense to bestow the vote when the very voters are deprived of voting representation in Congress that other citizens enjoy, Representative(s), Senators. If the District is separate and apart from the US (which it can't be due to being carved out to neighboring states, then residents must be separate and apart but they are not because they are Americans.
Same w/#26A. Bestowing the vote on 18-20-year-olds when they can't vote for any person for Federal elected office in their age range fails the same 3tests. Even 21-24-year-olds can't vote for any person who represents their age range.
Both Amendments continue the history and plain text of the 2nd US Constitution as being intentionally exclusionary in design and substance. And to date, no US President has said so.
I hadn't thought about that age-range angle -- about voters under 25 not being able to vote for anyone in their age group for federal office. The minimum-age requirement sure hasn't protected us from immature, unintelligent incompetents in high office.
Each and every time read/see/hear criticism of voter turnout in the 18-24 range from the same group of folk lecturing on civics am left speechless.
First of all there isn't any requirements to vote at all, none, nada, zilch, yet folk proceed w/their condemnation anyway. Secondly, we've been in that age range. While legally an adult, the prevailing thinking is that of a young person's view of all things including age. At 18-24 their biological parents are "young" yet that's not how the nature of a 18-24 sees it.
That age range gravitates to one or more cause celebre rather than using a political filter of our 2party system. Been the historical pattern. I respect that rather than condemn if or how they vote.
All that said, my primary focus is that 2nd US Constitution and how it wasn't expected to become the sole governing say even w/amendments. So, SCOTUS can say originalism blah blah blah but they overlook what the Founders and Framers said about the longevity of their work/word product. Not a one ever said/wrote it would stand the test of time. And it hasn't including pre-Trump.