Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Ya-ta Boy]

XXVIII Amendment
(proposed)

When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one generation of people to alter the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and superior station to which the Laws of nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the change.

We hold this truth to be self-evident, that all people between the ages of 18 and 45 are equally awash in hormones and should therefore be denied any role in government whatsoever. They shall not hold office, local, state or national, nor shall they continue to hold the suffrage. They may however continue to be football team captains, prom queens and other positions of equal distinction.

The relevant portions of the XIX and XXVI Amendments are hereby revoked.

Proposed to Congress this day of June 15, 2005
**********

Input and advice from non-Americans of the requisite age is welcomed. Comments from anyone within the age range of 18 to 45 will be regarded with all the due respect they are entitled to, however little that may be.

[Leslie Cheswyck]

I thought it was something about the Superbowl. Ahhh crap, let's ban Roman numerals. No, wait.

All those between the ages of XVIII and XLV may not vote, eh? Sounds cooler when we write it that way. OK, good plan.


On a similar note I remember a discussion about a voting scheme supposedly put forward by Neville Shute, the author. You don't just get one vote all your life. It goes something like this:

One vote for...

I. attaining majority age (XVIII years).
II. serving in the military or other national service for at least one year.
III. obtaining a university degree.
IV. living overseas for at least one year.
V. marrying.
VI. running or having once run a business.
VII. reaching seniority age (LXV years).

Something like that.

Interesting discussion fodder. I admit it does have some appeal to me, my vote(s)---at this point worth three---overpowering some high school graduate's mere one vote.

On the other hand requirement #VI may be met by mowing lawns for the summer, or being born to some blue blood who can set you up.

BTW, this is a good topic for any advanced English class.

[mithridates]

Yeah, we could call it the Hitler + XV amendment!

[Ya-ta Boy]

I used to teach an Advanced Placement History class, which meant they were the cream of the senior class crop. During the part on electoral reform I always tried to convince them that high IQ should earn them extra votes to counter the 'James Anglens' of the world. (James was an infamous idiot in our school. He once ASKED his friend to shoot him in the hand.)

It wasn't all that hard to convince at least some of the kids. Once that was accomplished I shifted the debate to their weak belief in the ideals of the Declaration ('all men are created equal') and just what those words meant. It was entertaining to me and educational for them.

However, I am fairly serious about restricting the vote to people over XLV. A lot more is known now about how much biology affects people's thinking. The posts on this board have convinced me that otherwise intelligent people are suffering from a hormone overload. It's the kindest rationalization I can come up with for some of the nonsense posted here.

[flakfizer]

[Leslie Cheswyck]

[The Bobster]

[Ya-ta Boy]

[flakfizer]

[The Bobster]

[Bulsajo]

Restrictions on sufferage?
Great idea, universal suffrage has been a bust anyway.

But I think your admendment should be adjusted slightly, or taken to its logical conclusion if you will:

It should only be males (less hormonal surges and fluctuations, y'know),

between 35-60 (hey, too old is just as bad as too young- illness, disease take their toll- their minds are more on retirement than anything else),

with incomes of the national median income and plus or minus $30,000 each way (you can't trust the poor any more than the rich, right? somebody who is comfortable but neither struggling nor scheming to hang on to a financial empire are going to be the most clear-headed and impartial when it comes to fiscal matters, right?)

and with no religious affiliations- we don't need fanatics making the laws.

It's about as logical as the amendment in the OP, wouldn't you agree?

O, Brave new world!
Extra Soma for the disenfranchised!

[Nowhere Man]

Hmm.

"Don't trust anyone over the age of 30".

Could it be that those people are getting older now?

Are you not, by my calculations, of that generation?

[Nowhere Man]

And, for that matter, if you're arguing biology, I'd set them all the same.

A teacher told me that the drinking age was set at 21 because that's when one's liver is finally adult.

To me, that is retarded.

If you're old enough to be sent to war, then you should be old enough to decide whether such a war is justified. Otherwise, we have guys like our president, who despite his youthful hormonal imbalance, opted out of getting shot at and now finds, with his glands in synch, that it's fine to send other people to their deaths.

Nope. Nothing for me today. Thanks.

I thought it would be about how it would be ok to smoke a joint before you're assigned such duties as dying.

[flakfizer]

[The Bobster]