Tuesday, October 07, 2014

Voters with Skin in the Game

By Douglas V. Gibbs

On the October 4, 2014 episode of Constitution Radio with Douglas V. Gibbs, JASmius, Alex and I verbalized the opinion that we concur with how the Founding Fathers conducted elections where only property owners were allowed to vote.  A listener in Orlando, Florida was bothered by that comment, and questioned my opinion on the matter.  He wrote if only property owners were supposed to be able to vote, it would have been "inked" in the body of the Constitution.  The following is my email response to his query:

Nathan,

The reason it wasn't "inked" is because it is a State authority, with the Congress having the authority to enact law if necessary in case there is a conflict. Remember, the way the Constitution is written, it grants authorities to the federal government, and what isn't granted to the federal government is a State authority. The States are indicated as being the ones to prescribe the manner in which elections are held, and the federal government through the voice of the people and the States in Congress is allowed to pass legislation if necessary regarding elections as a check and balance just in case. As for something being inked, it doesn't have to be inked to be a State authority, because the States hold original authority on ALL ISSUES, and only do not have authority if the authority is granted to the federal government without allowance for concurrent authorities, or if the authority is prohibited to the States. Elections are a concurrent authority depending on which part of it you are referring. The States hold all authorities on elections, how they are held, except when Congress may decide to make or alter such regulations (Article I, Section 4), Congress may determine the time of choosing Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their votes, but all other authorities regarding Electors for President Belong to the States (Article II, Section 1), States shall not deny a vote for reason of race, color, or previous condition of servitude (Amendment XV), and they may not apply a poll tax, or any other kind of tax, to the voting booth (Amendment XXIV). Otherwise, the States have all authority regarding elections, period.

Your argument is based on a false premise, and a failure to understand the basic construction of the Constitution. Also, your argument supports progressive arguments, and reveals that you are a part of the problem, not a part of the solution. I have no problem teaching you about the Constitution, and what was intended not just based on the language, but the writings and debates by the people of that time period. Remember, in a contract negotiation, the agreements in debate are as valid as the written words in the Contract, so the discussions in the federal convention, the ratifying conventions, and the other debates associated with the writing or ratification of the Constitution are also valid authorities regarding the originalist interpretation of the document. Therefore, your comment in another email about not caring what was talked about, only what is inked, is based on ignorance regarding contract negotiations.

Getting back to the property owners voting, based on research of history, the framers realized that civilizations met their doom when gifts from the treasury (entitlements and subsidies) became prominent, and eventually those living on the dole began to outnumber the producers. Therefore, it was determined that the best way to protect from that was to only allow the producers to vote. They have a dog in the race, so to speak, and those that are not producers can only be convinced to vote for a particular candidate if they are offered a gift from the treasury. Therefore, the prominent opinion of the politically educated and savvy, was that those that would bring down the system by demanding that their vote be bought should be left out of the voting process. The decision is a sound decision. We are not a pure democracy for a reason, and there had to be checks and balances at all turns, and limitations where necessary. . . and limiting the vote to property owners was a necessary limitation to ensure that only those with skin in the game were voting. If someone wanted to be able to vote, they weren't being denied the opportunity to vote, they were simply asked to meet certain criteria, and being a property owner was a part of that criteria.

Voting is a privilege, not a right, hence why certain criteria must be met, even in today's society. You need to be a citizen, you need to not be a felon, and so forth.

Blessings,

Douglas V. Gibbs
Constitution Radio, KCAA AM1050
Author, 25 Myths of the United States Constitution
at

No comments:

Post a Comment