Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: "Old enough to fight, old enough to vote"

Posted 9 years ago on Feb. 19, 2012, 6:42 p.m. EST by alterorabolish1 (569)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Congress and the state legislatures felt increasing pressure to pass the Constitutional amendment because of the Vietnam War, in which many young men who were ineligible to vote were conscripted to fight in the war, thus lacking any means to influence the people sending them off to risk their lives. "Old enough to fight, old enough to vote," was a common slogan used by proponents of lowering the voting age. The slogan traced its roots to World War II, when President Franklin D. Roosevelt lowered the military draft age to eighteen.

On March 10, 1971, the Senate voted 94–0 in favor of proposing a Constitutional amendment to guarantee that the voting age could not be higher than 18.[7] On March 23, 1971, the House of Representatives voted 401–19 in favor of the proposed amendment.[8] Within four months after the Congress submitted it to the states, the amendment was ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures, the shortest time in which any proposed amendment has received the number of ratifications needed for adoption.

It was unacceptable to Americans that men were drafted and forced to fight in a war when they were not even allowed to vote. Very few dared to get in the way of this Amendment!

"Money is not Speech" has similar support but we're told it takes time to pass an Amendment. That's just bullshit. We insist that our Congress address this now! We want to know who is against having this debate!



Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (23478) 9 years ago

This is a great comparison. And, this time, we are all being affected by Citizen's United.

[-] 1 points by alterorabolish1 (569) 9 years ago

How can we create the same insistence that was felt at that time? It should be just as unacceptable that money is influencing elections and laws, giving some advantages and others the shaft. Everyone knows that is unfair.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (23478) 9 years ago

Well. I've said it before. Occupy the Supreme Court.

[-] 1 points by alterorabolish1 (569) 9 years ago

I like the idea of Occupying the Supreme Court. How can we tell the story in such a compelling way, that few dare get in the way?

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23478) 9 years ago

I don't know. I'm really not an organizer at all so probably a bad person to ask. LOL! But, I just have this vision, along with therising, of thousands of people occupying the Supreme Court for a day. I think that would be pretty powerful.

[-] 1 points by alterorabolish1 (569) 9 years ago

It would indeed be very powerful, maybe the spark we need. Would that compel our Senate to vote 94-0 to propose a Constitutional amendment as they did for 18 year olds the right to vote? We need many millions of Americans watching, waiting, and expecting our Senate to propose this Amendment. We need for this to become, "The News", without allowing distractions.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23478) 9 years ago

I think it should be this movement's primary initial goal, personally.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 9 years ago

And old enough to drink too.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 9 years ago

Virtually everything we want hinges on disarming our opponent –
ARE YOU SERIOUS? Join the NYC OWS Corporations are not People and Money is not Speech Working Group

by stopping the flood of bribes into our government.
This is the first REAL step to
REAL change .

government OF the people BY the people FOR the people

Join the NYC OWS Corporations are not People and Money is not Speech Working Group
………….( even if you are not near NYC )


join us even if you are not in the NY area
check out our comprehensive analysis of
the 17 existing proposed amendments
and our detailed historical timeline of corporate personhood

We can continue,

as a movement of demands
as a movement of declarations
as a movement of marches


Are you ready
.....................FOR ACTION ?
Are you ready
.....................TO DO SOMETHING REAL ?
Are you ready
......................TO JOIN 83% OF YOUR FELLOW AMERICANS ?

We must not
DEMAND that we WANT THEM.to give to US
We must

Because of the Supreme Court's decision,
we cannot accomplish anything significant, without FIRST -

Overturning Citizens United !!!
Ending Corporate Personhood !!!

83% of Americans already agree on it
as stated in the ABC/Washington Post poll


In the the PFAW Poll -

85% of voters say that corporations have too much influence over the political system today.
77% think Congress should support an amendment to limit the amount corporations can spend on elections.
74% say that they would be more likely to vote for a candidate for Congress who pledged to support a Constitutional Amendment limiting corporate spending in elections.


Section 1 {A corporation is not a person and can be regulated}
The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons { human beings } only. Artificial entities, such as corporations, limited liability companies, and other entities, established by the laws of any State, the United States, or any foreign state shall have no rights under this Constitution and are subject to regulation by the People, through Federal, State, or local law. The privileges of artificial entities shall be determined by the People, through Federal, State, or local law, and shall not be construed to be inherent or inalienable.

Section 2 { Money is not speech }
Federal, State and local government shall regulate, limit, or prohibit contributions and expenditures, including a candidate’s own contributions and expenditures, and may restrict all financing to “public financing” for the purpose of influencing in any way the election of any candidate for public office or any ballot measure. As above, all foreign contributions are forbidden.

Section 3 { Transparency & Disclosure }
Federal, State and local government shall require that any permissible contributions and expenditures be publicly disclosed less than 60 days after the transaction and before the election.

Section 4 { Voter Suppression }
Federal, State and local government shall not require any new forms of id for voting, beyond what was needed to register for previously registered voters. College photo-id ( including for out-of-state students ) must be acceptable. Federal, State and local government shall permit early voting for at least the 6 days before the election day.

Section 5 { Election Day & Registration }
Federal, State and local government may make election day a holiday. Federal, State and local government must allow simultaneous registration and voting on election day.

Section 6 { Eliminate the Electoral College – one man one vote } The electoral college is abolished and the President and Vice-President will be elected by popular vote. .

Section 7 { Eliminate the Filibuster } Unless specified in the Constitution , all voting in the House and Senate shall be based on a simple majority.

Section 8 Nothing contained in this amendment shall be construed to abridge the freedom of the press .

{NOTE: sections 4, 5, 6, 7 are not required to overturn CU – just my wish list }


Our primary goal should be to pass a constitutional amendment to counter Supreme Court decision Citizens United (2010) , that enables unlimited amounts of anonymous money to flood into our political system.
We don’t have to explain or persuade people to accept our position – we only have to persuade them to ACT based on their own position. Pursuing this goal will prove to the world that we, at OWS, are a serious realistic Movement, with serious realistic goals. Achieving this goal will make virtually every other goal – jobs, taxes, infrastructure, Medicare – much easier to achieve –
by disarming our greatest enemy – GREED.


THE SUCCESS STORY OF THE AMENDING PROCESS The Prohibition movement started as a disjointed effort by conservative teetotalers who thought the consumption of alcohol was immoral. They ransacked saloons and garnered press coverage here and there for a few years. Then they began to gain support from the liberals because many considered alcohol partially responsible for spousal and child abuse, among other social ills. This odd alliance, after many years of failing to influence change consistently across jurisdictions, decided to concentrate on one issue nationally—a constitutional amendment. They pressured all politicians on every level to sign a pledge to support the amendment. Any who did not, they defeated easily at the ballot box since they controlled a huge number of liberal, and conservative and independent swing votes in every election. By being a single-issue constituency attacking from all sides of the political spectrum, they very quickly amassed enough votes (2/3) to pass the amendment in Congress. And, within just 17 months, they were successful in getting ¾ of the state legislatures to ratify the constitutional amendment into law. (Others were ratified even faster: Eight —took less than a year. The 26th, granting 18-year-olds the right to vote, took just three months and eight days.)

If they could tie the left and right into a success - WHY CAN'T WE ??????????


83% of Americans ( and 76% of the Rs ) have already opposed CU in
the ABC/Washington post poll and the above
We don’t have to work to convince people on the validity of our position.
This Amendment { sections 1+2 }is REQUIRED to overturn CU.
And all other electoral reform can be passed through the normal legislative process. 4
OWS and the FORUM pages are chock full of ( mostly ) excellent ideas to improve our country.
All of them have strong advocates – and some have strong opposition.
None of them has been “pre-approved” by 83% of Americans !
Pursuing this goal – is exactly what Americans want.
What do we want? Look at that almost endless list of demands – goals - aims.
Tax the rich. End the Fed. Jobs for all, Medicare for all. So easy to state our demands! Can you imagine how hard it would be to formulate a “sales pitch” for any of these to convince your Republican friends to vote for any of them?
83% of Americans have ALREADY “voted” against CU. And 76% of the Rs did too.
All we have to do ask Americans is to pressure their representatives – by letters - emails – petitions.

Wanna take your family on vacation?
Convince the 7 year old and the 10 year old to go to Mt Rushmore.
Then try to convince them to go to Disneyland.
Prioritizing this goal will introduce us to the world – not as a bunch of hippie radical anarchist socialist commie rabblerousers – but as a responsible, mature movement that is fighting for what America wants.


I feel that using the tactics of the NRA, the AARP, the TP, the anti-SOPA – who all represent a minority – who have successfully used their voting power and political pressure to achieve their minority goals - plus the Prohibition Amendment tactics – bringing all sides together - is a straight path for us to success that cannot fail to enable us to create and complete one task that the MAJORITY want.

There are at least seventeen different Constitutional Amendments in the works.
Help us support these moves to get the money out of our political system.

Join the NYC OWS Corporations are not People and Money is not Speech Working Group
Plan details http://bit.ly/vK2pGI

regular meetings Wednesdays 6-8PM @ 60 Wall St – The Attrium

..███░░ ░███░..░███.░.█░░░█░░░░.████░.░███░░░

[-] 1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 9 years ago

Old enough to fight, old enough to drink, smoke, and vote

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 9 years ago

you see that was because the warmongers and the warprofitteers wanted this amendment passed.. they of course do not want any amendment that would limit thier ability to profit so this one is up to the people.. and you know ~~all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

[-] 2 points by alterorabolish1 (569) 9 years ago

All experience has also shown movements that improved fairness in the world. The struggle and sometimes suffering has eventually succeeded when the cause is just as this one surely is.

[-] 1 points by shield (222) 9 years ago

I don't disagree with the idea that money is not speech. But should not one have the right to do with their earnings what they wish? Is that not the core principle of property ownership?

[-] 1 points by alterorabolish1 (569) 9 years ago

They can do what they wish with their earnings, but they're not allowed to wish for unfair advantages for themselves. All people are equal has already been established, and that means no exemptions.

[-] 1 points by shield (222) 9 years ago

Yes, but equal in what respect? I think that the language was intended to convey equality of rights, but that is an unpopular opinion.

[-] 1 points by alterorabolish1 (569) 9 years ago

Equal in respect to government. The language described the sentiment that everyone could accept equality and there should be no exemptions.

[-] 1 points by shield (222) 9 years ago

what the hell does "Equal in respect to government." mean? If taken literally, it would mean that everyone should respect the government equally. But that's not what you meant (I hope). So what did you mean?

[-] 1 points by alterorabolish1 (569) 9 years ago

The government is like the referees at a football game that insure both teams play understanding the same rules. These referees decisions are completely visible to everyone, and instant replay confirms the truth. I look forward to every aspect of government working the same way. Equality is a worthy ideal.

[-] 1 points by rayolite (461) 9 years ago

Hah, "Very few dared to get in the way of this Amendment!" It appears that people were better informed in that time, than they are now. Today all they will tell you is, "The public is too mislead to amend." And, they are right.

However, can you get any of those who want to amend to seek correction of the misleading before attempting to amend. Noooooooo, wierd, unreasonable fears can't get in the way of much except common sense.

[-] 1 points by alterorabolish1 (569) 9 years ago

There must come an end to, "Political Realities". We somehow need to all shout at the same time.

[-] 1 points by forourfutures (393) 9 years ago

If I'm not mistaken, I think occupy tried that, and it worked. They called it the "human mic". But I think it only worked because they are all shouting the same thing. If we all shouted at the same time, currently, it would be noise.

[-] 1 points by alterorabolish1 (569) 9 years ago

Let's all shout the same thing at the same time.

[-] 1 points by forourfutures (393) 9 years ago

Okay, how do we get the script out?

[-] 1 points by alterorabolish1 (569) 9 years ago

We are going to need the "news" to be big enough. It's going to take some brave people in the media to make it happen.

[-] 1 points by forourfutures (393) 9 years ago

With Article V we can prempt your point about bravery. They will be shamed if they don't after we revise the First Amendment. They will lose their social standing.

Unfortunately, the the question, "how do we get the script out?" still stands, but we don't have to use media, we just have to get on the right message board.


it is going to be some work. People are enamored with the social fluff of OWS and well confused so some of what is being shared halfway makes sense.

For example. The "Demands". They are real. However, the strategy for gaining the authority to see they are met is non existent. What we see are groups compulsively involved with tossing "eurosocialist speak" about, as if it was going to work in a nation that already has a fixed social contract. Or thinks it does.

They are so decieved they get angry if you suggest that the rights used to protest are directly protected at the root level of defense of the constitution. They don't know that the US government has not been constituional for 140 years. They don't know that is what they are really protesting That forum link above is a a place where functional strategy is fomenting.

[-] 0 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 9 years ago

boy you sound like an angry leftist. You know that your Unions and environmentalist lobbyist use money to influence politics. Are they including in your demands? Oh and you want a list? Are you going after the people who are against your imaginary proposal?