Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: groanup
The foundiong fathers never intended universal suffrage. Originally it was restricted to free white male property owners.

The property/income restriction should still be around.
No Representation without Taxation is just as important as the reverse.

So9

19 posted on 12/14/2004 10:44:42 AM PST by Servant of the 9 (Trust Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Servant of the 9

"...The property/income restriction should still be around.
No Representation without Taxation is just as important as the reverse."

Well said.


24 posted on 12/14/2004 10:48:41 AM PST by Monterrosa-24 (Technology advances but human nature is dependably stagnant)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]

To: Servant of the 9

Actually, suffrage was a matter for the states to determine and a few in New England allowed blacks who met the property requirements to vote at the time of the constiution.


38 posted on 12/14/2004 11:04:59 AM PST by Austin Willard Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]

To: Servant of the 9
The foundiong fathers never intended universal suffrage. Originally it was restricted to free white male property owners.

The property/income restriction should still be around. No Representation without Taxation is just as important as the reverse.

That's what I was thinking as I read this screed. I wonder if the good professor (ret.) would agree that those that earn their living off the state should not be allowed to vote themselves monies from the state?

77 posted on 12/14/2004 12:16:41 PM PST by randog (What the....?!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson