Unintended consequences, sir.
Great in concept, difficult in practice.

The president proposed a form of national service.
If suffrage required meeting what his "terms of service" might be, would we be happy with the outcome?

Universal national service would be an expensive proposition...that's a lot of folks to feed, house, and keep out of trouble...

I will have to strongly disagree. To remove a Senator then one would have to go thru the Senate of one's state. I can so see any number of ways to abuse that system. The current method of removal is direct action via the ballot box. The latter is far faster and preferable rather than the former. Don't agree, lets wager the Nov elections.

As for removing MY right to vote one only has to look back in History to the Women's Suffragette movement...the name Alice Paul comes to mind. :D
That is a can of worms no one ever wants to open again. :munchin

In theory a lot of ideas proposed so far would work.

As a super-PC nation more would be done to define what a landowner and taxpayer "is" than actually enacting any legislation that would mean real action.

I agree that the book "Starship Troopers" from Heinlen (via TR) is the most sensible.

But again this becomes convoluted as to where do the rights begin and what gates must a person go through to earn his/her status as a citizen.

We'd end up eating our own heads just trying to get a handle and ward off the those that really don't deserve vs. those that have some real right.

Soldiers by majority represent what social classes? There is no way a polititcian would ever cede power to someone they perceive to be of a lesser person by virtue of upbrining.

You had to stir the pot didn't you! Tough one to really stand up and not be knocked down on.

I would respectfully contend that the rise of the "nanny state" is a direct result of women's suffrage. :munchin

I guess that we aren't the first folks to discuss the issue of "universal suffrage". I'm attaching a link to some of James Madison's thoughts on the subject.

Having read Madison's thoughts, it seems that the Founding generation were quite worried about the Property owners' rights. I don't know if that was done with a view that the Property owners were a type of gentry, or that Property owners were the "producers" of the day.

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/found...v1ch16s26.html

This pretty much says it all..
It would seem to be hypocritial to disenfranchise part of our society. When he hold ourselves and our government to be the be all and end of Democracy for all who live on these shores.
AM

Which one? :confused:

Nanny State - term used by politically conservative or libertarian groups (especially those that support the free market and capitalism) who object to excessive state action to protect people from the consequences of their actions by restricting citizen options.

Nanny State - term used by liberals and Libertarians to describe the state as being excessive in its protections of businesses and the business class - protections ostensibly made against the public good and the good of consumers.

And so it goes...

Richard's $.02 :munchin

:munchin

I strongly suspect that the desire to 'transform' the American armed services has played no small role in the Democratic Party's platforms in the last two presidential elections, the party's preferences for GWOT, and the 2010 QDR.

By 'transform,' I mean by changing the way America fights wars so that the 'elites' in the professions of arms are increasingly defined by expertise with technology rather than mastery over the art and science of warfare itself.

Coupled with the announced plans to revise significantly the armed services' policy on DADT, the dormant debate over women in combat roles, and other social issues, I suspect that the president wants to reshape fundamentally the factors that motivate men and women to volunteer for armed service.

This suspicion is one of the reasons why I think the question in the OP represents a Trojan horse.

RE Post #41 - Astounding - looks like we snagged another one. :eek: :eek:

BSMMIV - you certainly do not know how my wife thinks.

Richard's $.02 :munchin

It is, IMHO, a fair point. Senators were intended to represent the interests of the states in the central government. By making them essentially more powerful representatives, part of the delicate system of checks and balances designed by the founders was disrupted. Without a specific voice for the states, centralization of power can proceed with less resistance.

RE Post #44 - perhaps a little history for background and perspective -

One of the most common critiques of the Framers is that the government that they created was, in many ways, undemocratic. There is little doubt of this, and it is so by design. The Electoral College, by which we choose our President, is one example. The appointment of judges is another. And the selection of Senators not by the people but by the state legislatures, was yet another.

The Senatorial selection system eventually became fraught with problems, with consecutive state legislatures sending different Senators to Congress, forcing the Senate to work out who was the qualified candidate, or with the selection system being undermined by bribery and corruption. In several states, the selection of Senators was left up to the people in referenda, where the legislature approved the people's choice and sent him or her to the Senate. Articles written by early 20th-century muckrakers also provided grist for the popular-election mill.

The 17th Amendment did away with all the ambiguity with a simple premise — the Senators would be chosen by the people, just as Representatives are. Of course, since the candidates now had to cater to hundreds of thousands, or millions, of people instead of just a few hundred in a state's legislature, other issues (e.g., campaign finances) were introduced.

The 17th is not a panacea, but it brings government closer to the people.

The Amendment was passed by Congress on May 13, 1912, and was ratified on April 8, 1913 (330 days).*

And so it goes...;)

Richard's $.02 :munchin

*http://www.usconstitution.net/constamnotes.html