• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Federal Employees Should Not Be Allowed To Vote, Says Pat Sajak

The beauty of the Constitution that protects their right to vote is that it lets him say whatever he chooses. Good for everyone.
 
Pat Sajak has been moonlighting as a conservative columnist and talk show host for many years.

Nothing in the Constitution supports his point. But this is becoming a wider topic of discussion on the
right side of the spectrum, as unionized government employees exert more and more influence in election
campaigns with a goal of securing more pay end benefits for themselves. It is about to put California into
bankruptcy. There is a conflict of interest there, though Pat's suggestion is neither Constitutional nor
practical.
 
I'm glad we live in a country where even moronic game show hosts like Pat Sajak have their ability to speak freely.

His point has no Constitutional basis, though, and is just downright idiotic. Its similar to when several commentators suggested that Judge Vaughn Walker, the judge who overturned Proposition 8 in California, should have recused himself from the trial because he is gay. Therefore, he can't decide on laws that affect gay men and women.

If you carry both of those examples (Judge Walker and Sajak's suggestion) out to their conclusions, then we should haven't human legislators deciding on laws that affect humans. We should just put all of our ideas into a computer and let it randomly select, as the computer would be completely unbiased. Obviously I'm kidding, but this is the fringe lunancy that has taken hold in this country (on both sides of the aisle).
 
Alexis de Tocqueville had it right...

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy."
 
P_T S_J_K _S _ M_R_N

I'd like to buy an A, an I, and an O, please.
 
gr8oldies said:
Homework: Find in the constitution where it guarantees a right to vote in a federal election.
Click to expand...

Article 1 Section 2 states that the members of the House are elected by the people: "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature."

The 17th Amendment (1913) mandates the election of Senators by the people, rather than by the states as it had been previously: "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures."

How the members of the Electoral College are chosen still depends on state laws. There is no federal requirement that We The People must be allowed to vote for them. However, with the exceptions of Massachusetts (1848 - no majority of popular vote between three candidates), Nevada (1864 - new state), Florida (1868 - readmission), & Colorado (1876 - new state), the people have chosen the electors in all states since 1832. In those cases, the state legislatures chose the electors.

The 19th and 26th Amendments do not address this issue directly. They allow women (19th) and 18- to 21-year-olds (26th) the right to vote in general.
 
gr8oldies said:
Homework: Find in the constitution where it guarantees a right to vote in a federal election.
Click to expand...

You're correct, a right to vote is not explicit in the Constitution. Nor are a laundry list of other rights we take for granted. That is why the Constitution established a Supreme Court to sort out these issues moving forward. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in Reynolds v. Sims (1964) and Harper v. Virginia State Board of Electors (1966) that a right to vote was implicit in the First Amendment, and subsequently supported by the equal protection and due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Regardless, Pat Sajak is free to have his opinion. Supreme Court precedent and its interpretation of the Constitution stand in his way, though.
 
One of the comments about the article by Ray Rahman

"Nice headline Ray, you have learned well. Who the hell pays attention to “I’m not suggesting that public employees should be denied the right to vote, but that there are certain cases in which their stake in the matter may be too great.” when ya lead with a headline like that.

You fit right in."

:D ;)
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom