M.LeBlanc: It's not in the Constitution

In many stories, letters and comments, the authors refer to a "constitutional right to vote," usually in the context of voter ID or some similar obstacle thrown in the way of certain classes. It is a noble sentiment, but there is one small problem — there is no constitutional right to vote.

Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S Constitution requires each state to have a republican form of government, which implies voting — technically — within the states. That's it.

In the amendments, the 10th Amendment, the last of the Bill of Rights, confirms that voting is a state issue, since it is not explicitly mentioned elsewhere. Later amendments require the states not to restrict voting due to race, gender, or failure to pay some tax.

Every one of those amendments begins with the words "The right of citizens of the United States to vote ..." For ideological reasons, some today shorten that to "The right to vote ..."

It is disappointing that, after all these years, the most frequent reference to our most important founding document is to something that is not in it.

Mike LeBlanc, East Wilton

What do you think of this story?

Login to post comments

In order to make comments, you must create a subscription.

In order to comment on SunJournal.com, you must hold a valid subscription allowing access to this website. You must use your real name and include the town in which you live in your SunJournal.com profile. To subscribe or link your existing subscription click here.

Login or create an account here.

Our policy prohibits comments that are:

  • Defamatory, abusive, obscene, racist, or otherwise hateful
  • Excessively foul and/or vulgar
  • Inappropriately sexual
  • Baseless personal attacks or otherwise threatening
  • Contain illegal material, or material that infringes on the rights of others
  • Commercial postings attempting to sell a product/item
If you violate this policy, your comment will be removed and your account may be banned from posting comments.



 's picture


I'm still trying to find where they used the word "guns" in the constitution.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Let me spell it for you -

Let me spell it for you - ARMS.

 's picture


No. "Guns" I think starts with a "g". Maybe you had one of those "collectivist" public educations?

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Arms, used as a noun, are

Arms, used as a noun, are weapons – handguns, rifles, and shotguns members to the set of weapons.

Bear arms is to carry or be equipped with weapons. The right to bear arms is the right to carry weapons (i.e. handguns, rifles, and shotguns).

I’ll refrain from criticizing your public education.

Andrew Jones's picture

Do you know what a synonym

Do you know what a synonym is?

 's picture


No. "Guns" I think starts with a "g".

 's picture

Professor Hugo Riml ...

... obviously has a tomato fetish which upsets his ability to think clearly, exacerbated by all those years pushing broom below deck. SCOTUS does not interpret the Constitution - at least it's not supposed to - it interprets law according to the Constitution - and is obviously not perfect, given its recent rulings on the ACA. It didn't say what the Constitution meant, it said what the law meant.

You and I interpret the Constitution, through our elected representatives, first in Congress, later in the state legislatures, by the amendment process.

RONALD RIML's picture

Why be a Victim of Your Own Ignorance of America, Mike???,

One would think a conscientious citizen would educate himself about the unique relationship between the Supreme Court and Constitution.

The Court and Constitutional Interpretation

"The republic endures and this is the symbol of its faith."
Cornerstone Address - Supreme Court Building

"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"-These words, written above the main entrance to the Supreme Court Building, express the ultimate responsibility of the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court is the highest tribunal in the Nation for all cases and controversies arising under the Constitution or the laws of the United States. As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court is "distinctly American in concept and function," as Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes observed. Few other courts in the world have the same authority of constitutional interpretation and none have exercised it for as long or with as much influence. A century and a half ago, the French political observer Alexis de Tocqueville noted the unique position of the Supreme Court in the history of nations and of jurisprudence. "The representative system of government has been adopted in several states of Europe," he remarked, "but I am unaware that any nation of the globe has hitherto organized a judicial power in the same manner as the Americans. . . . A more imposing judicial power was never constituted by any people."

The unique position of the Supreme Court stems, in large part, from the deep commitment of the American people to the Rule of Law and to constitutional government. The United States has demonstrated an unprecedented determination to preserve and protect its written Constitution, thereby providing the American "experiment in democracy" with the oldest written Constitution still in force.

The Constitution of the United States is a carefully balanced document. It is designed to provide for a national government sufficiently strong and flexible to meet the needs of the republic, yet sufficiently limited and just to protect the guaranteed rights of citizens; it permits a balance between society's need for order and the individual's right to freedom. To assure these ends, the Framers of the Constitution created three independent and coequal branches of government. That this Constitution has provided continuous democratic government through the periodic stresses of more than two centuries illustrates the genius of the American system of government.

The complex role of the Supreme Court in this system derives from its authority to invalidate legislation or executive actions which, in the Court's considered judgment, conflict with the Constitution. This power of "judicial review" has given the Court a crucial responsibility in assuring individual rights, as well as in maintaining a "living Constitution" whose broad provisions are continually applied to complicated new situations.

While the function of judicial review is not explicitly provided in the Constitution, it had been anticipated before the adoption of that document. Prior to 1789, state courts had already overturned legislative acts which conflicted with state constitutions. Moreover, many of the Founding Fathers expected the Supreme Court to assume this role in regard to the Constitution; Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, for example, had underlined the importance of judicial review in the Federalist Papers, which urged adoption of the Constitution.

Hamilton had written that through the practice of judicial review the Court ensured that the will of the whole people, as expressed in their Constitution, would be supreme over the will of a legislature, whose statutes might express only the temporary will of part of the people. And Madison had written that constitutional interpretation must be left to the reasoned judgment of independent judges, rather than to the tumult and conflict of the political process. If every constitutional question were to be decided by public political bargaining, Madison argued, the Constitution would be reduced to a battleground of competing factions, political passion and partisan spirit.

Despite this background the Court's power of judicial review was not confirmed until 1803, when it was invoked by Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison. In this decision, the Chief Justice asserted that the Supreme Court's responsibility to overturn unconstitutional legislation was a necessary consequence of its sworn duty to uphold the Constitution. That oath could not be fulfilled any other way. "It is emphatically the province of the judicial department to say what the law is," he declared.

In retrospect, it is evident that constitutional interpretation and application were made necessary by the very nature of the Constitution. The Founding Fathers had wisely worded that document in rather general terms leaving it open to future elaboration to meet changing conditions. As Chief Justice Marshall noted in McCulloch v. Maryland, a constitution that attempted to detail every aspect of its own application "would partake of the prolixity of a legal code, and could scarcely be embraced by the human mind. . . . Its nature, therefore, requires that only its great outlines should be marked, its important objects designated, and the minor ingredients which compose those objects be deduced from the nature of the objects themselves."

The Constitution limits the Court to dealing with "Cases" and "Controversies." John Jay, the first Chief Justice, clarified this restraint early in the Court's history by declining to advise President George Washington on the constitutional implications of a proposed foreign policy decision. The Court does not give advisory opinions; rather, its function is limited only to deciding specific cases.

The Justices must exercise considerable discretion in deciding which cases to hear, since more than 10,000 civil and criminal cases are filed in the Supreme Court each year from the various state and federal courts. The Supreme Court also has "original jurisdiction" in a very small number of cases arising out of disputes between States or between a State and the Federal Government.

When the Supreme Court rules on a constitutional issue, that judgment is virtually final; its decisions can be altered only by the rarely used procedure of constitutional amendment or by a new ruling of the Court. However, when the Court interprets a statute, new legislative action can be taken.

Chief Justice Marshall expressed the challenge which the Supreme Court faces in maintaining free government by noting: "We must never forget that it is a constitution we are expounding . . . intended to endure for ages to come, and consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs."

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Ronald, I would much


I would much appreciate your original thought – if you got it.

 's picture

He has no original thoughts.

How many LTTEs has Ron submitted? Zero. Well, maybe he has sent some, but how many have been published? When the editor removes the juvenile language, there's nothing left.

He sits on his thumb down there on the Riml estate, camped on the internet, ready to be his reactionary self whenever anyone criticizes his lord and master. No, I don't mean Dennis Connor, his other man-crush. He better send his trousers to the dry cleaners again to take care of those dirty knees.

Ron, you have been (hyper)active the past few days. It's obviously time for another trip to Togus.

RONALD RIML's picture

There's no reason to make stuff up like Mike does.

We have a United States Supreme Court; one of whom's function is to interpret the Constitution.

Intelligent folks read and heed their decisions. Others should simply mind their own business and grow tomatoes or whatever.

 's picture

Voting is a privilege...

...not a right.

 's picture

Another great copy & paste job ...

... from Professor Riml and the usual Bolshevik bile from Komrad Albrecht.

You know as well as I do that 99 people out of 100 invoke the "right" with clasped hands and a reverent gaze heavenward and mean exactly a simply stated right like "free speech" as in amendment #1.

If nothing else, perhaps I have nudged a few folks to read the document, probably for the first time.

RONALD RIML's picture

Much more to the Constitution than the 'Document'

Mike LeBlanc writes: "If nothing else, perhaps I have nudged a few folks to read the document, probably for the first time."

So who now gets to tell us what that 'Document' means? - With authority, of course.

It isn't each individual reader; nor 'Professor Riml' as Mike calls me, the TeaParty, President Obama, Rush Limbaugh or Chris Mathews.

It is the Supreme Court of the United States.

And how do they settle Constitutional Questions? By Supreme Court Decision. That also included the 'Right to Vote' - as many other questions are settled.

Don't for one second believe that if Mike LeBlanc can't find something in the Constitution, that it does not exist. Research what the Supreme Court of the United States has decided.

Not some Tomato Farmer.

RONALD RIML's picture

So I caught you at your "Know-Nothing" best.....

You ignorance of Constitutional Law is not an excuse........ It's the Judicial - not the not the Legislative nor Executive branches that is empowered with interpreting the Constitution. And the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of that interpretation.

Go back to tomato farming until you get an actual grasp of our Nation's History, the concept of 'Judicial Review,' and the impact of Marbury V. Madison.

That you don't see something in the Constitution doesn't mean it hasn't been found there. Your ignorance may be bliss, but it remains ignorance nonetheless.

RONALD RIML's picture

Don't go before the Supreme Court with that, Mike.....

This case law has long been decided.........

"While the right to vote in federal elections is conferred by Art. I, § 2, of the Constitution (United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299, 314-315), the right to vote in state elections is nowhere expressly mentioned. It is argued that the right to vote in state elections is implicit, particularly by reason of the First Amendment, and that it may not constitutionally be conditioned upon the payment of a tax or fee. Cf. Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105, 113. [n2] We do not stop to canvass the relation between voting and political expression. For it is enough to say that, once the franchise is granted to the electorate, lines may not be drawn which are inconsistent with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That is to say, the right of suffrage is subject to the imposition of state standards which are not discriminatory and which do not contravene any restriction that Congress, acting pursuant to its constitutional powers, has imposed.

Read remainder of Supreme Court Decision here.

Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Voter ID applies equally to

Voter ID applies equally to all voters, so there is no violation of the 14th Amendment.

RONALD RIML's picture

Ability to get ID may not be same - Court Case Yesterday



The Pennsylvania Supreme Court sent a case involving a controversial voter-identification law back to a lower court for review, dimming prospects that the law will be in effect for this year's presidential election.

In a 4-2 ruling, the justices ordered a Commonwealth Court judge to block the law unless he determines that there will be "no voter disenfranchisement" and that alternative IDs issued by the state are easy to obtain. The opinion is due by Oct. 2.

David S. Cohen, an associate law professor at Drexel University in Philadelphia, said the ruling sets a high standard. "It would take miraculous lawyering to prove with certainty that no one will be disenfranchised by this law," he said.

The Pennsylvania measure, known as Act 18, was signed into law by Republican Gov. Tom Corbett. It would require 8.2 million registered voters to present a state-approved photo ID, such as a driver's license or a new, free, state-issued voter ID card at the polls. The state estimated earlier this year that about 89,000 Pennsylvania voters, or 1%, might lack an acceptable ID. Opponents of the law say the number is far higher.

Ron Ruman, a spokesman for the Pennsylvania Department of State, said the state is hopeful the Commonwealth Court judge will find that "any registered voter who wants an ID can get one." He said the state has issued roughly 9,000 voter IDs since March.

David Gersch, a Washington attorney representing the American Civil Liberties Union and citizen plaintiffs, previously said opponents don't object to requiring a photo ID as long as the state guarantees that all registered voters can obtain one. "We think the commonwealth is going to have trouble," he said of the Tuesday ruling.

Pennsylvania's law is among the strictest of 31 voter-ID measures in place around the U.S. In other cases, states have mailed the necessary ID to all voters or said a person can sign an affidavit at the polls attesting to their identity if they forget to bring their ID. Pennsylvania Republicans say the law is intended to prevent voter fraud. Democrats have said they believe the law would disproportionately impact poor urban voters and others more likely to vote for President Barack Obama and other Democrats."

 's picture


"This" should have been replaced by "The right to vote" in sentence 2

 's picture

Pure Evil

Confirming Mitt Romney's contempt, disdain, and hatred of the American people at his Boca Raton Fundraiser on May 17th of this year, the idea that voting is not a fundamental right of every American citizen represents the pure political evil that elites, the aristocracy, are morally, politically, and intellectually superior to the rest of us. This is easily found in the Constitution as the Supreme Court has if only you want to see and are not blinded by the 20th Century philosophy of evil called Randism - radical capitalism based on pure egotism, greed, and individualism first espoused by Ayn Rand and now heard constantly from the Republican Party. This cult of individualism can see nothing but itself.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Another point of fact is that

Another point of fact is that I’m okay with you pursuing collectivism with like minded people, but you are not okay with me pursuing individualism. Why? You need my money - simply put. I don’t need anything from you. There is a lot of strength and freedom in that last sentence.

 's picture

OH don't try to sell me your envy.

I don't need your money. We don't need your arrogance or your pity. There is a lot of arrogrance and stupidity in your last sentence. What we don't need is your obstructionism. Republicans and their "philosophy" wrecked the economy and your obstructionism prevented any solution to the mess you caused. You can play John Galt all you want. He was a fictional character in a fictional story by a emotionally damaged social reject.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

I refuse to acquiesce on

I refuse to acquiesce on obstructionism for the following reasons:

1. One or more individuals want me to pay for goods or services that I disagree with.
2. One or more individuals want to perpetuate debt spending.
3. One or more individuals think the few of us left pulling the wagon should pay for all their food, healthcare, transportation, house, ..., etc.

I refuse to acquiesce!

America epitomizes freedom (perhaps not so much anymore), you are free to associate collectively with likeminded individuals. I also have the freedom to associate with likeminded individuals.

If you don’t need me, then don’t ask me to fund your brand of idealism through the tax code. If you don’t need me, all the better.

There something wrong when being poor in America means you have a house, car, one or more TVs, ... etc.

 's picture

Ah! something we agree on, but I doubt we mean the same thing

"One or more individuals want to perpetuate debt spending." Why I refuse to vote for any Republican. Starting with a National Debt of less than $1 trillion Republicans by irresponsible spending, totally false economic theories which have failed every single time they have been used, and in total disregard for the National interest have built the debt to $16 trillion with nothing to show for it. Republicans have provided their plan for the future - not a balanced budget until well past 2040, no deficit reduction, and even at that their numbers don't add up because they include spending cuts that they know are politically impossible in a democracy to implement. So they instead intend to bankrupt the country in order to force those spending cuts.
On the rest its foolish. Everyone pays for spending they disagree with and always will. That's the compromise at the base of any country, nation, or free society. Thoreaus are impressive moral characters but they can't govern a Nation.
To the last of course. That is the funamental principle of Western Civilization certainly since biblical times. It's the heart of Christianity social thought and the practice of this country from its very beginnings. To believe that we owe no alligience to our fellow man well that's always been unthinkable. To reject it means demonstrating the contempt, disdain, and hatred of humanity that Mitt Romney has so elogently stated as a core Republican principle. There is a middle ground. But that's hard to reach when your core belief is based on hatred and not facts.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

1. Don’t be irrational and

1. Don’t be irrational and blame a $16 Trillion debt solely on the republicans. Any reader with no axe to grind knows both parties are responsible. Your partisanship is really shinning brightly.
2. Has the Obama administration even produced a budget plan – no. At lease someone is talking about spending reductions.
3. There is a big difference between Christian charity (which is voluntary) and government redistribution (which is forced).
4. In my opinion, we are too far left of center. The middle ground is 10 miles back in the opposite direction. It is childish to claim some is hateful just because they don’t agree with you. You sound like my son when he was 5 years old, and I would refuse to buy what he wanted - kind of like throwing a tantrum. “You’re mean because you don’t want to fork over more taxes.” Perhaps tuff love is required for both situations. No Jonathan, you don’t always get what you want. However, you can always work more and give the government more money if that is what you want.

Better living through a smaller, non-democratic controlled government.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Compared to collectivism,

Compared to collectivism, I’ll take individualism hands down. Individualism deals with you being in control of your own destiny, both successes and failures, without government intervention.

I rather die free and poor than controlled and secure.

 's picture

Well some of us like Mickey Mouse and Superman too

Then again some of us like to live in the real world and deal with real problems and find real solutions.The choice isn't individualism vs collectivism.The choice is how to organize the collective we live in for the mutual advantage of everyone. That's called the Constitution which conservatives as Romney and Gravel well stated reject.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Most of the problems are

Most of the problems are self-imposed. Collectivism is good for the power structure and those how receive the benefits, not to those who have to pay the bill. I would recommend people study how scientology, a collective organization, benefits the few elite at the expense of the many.

RONALD RIML's picture

And, with 'Individualism'

You'll also die unburied - a stinking, bloating mess.

Just like your philosophy.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Ronald, Another point of view

Another point of view is that your philosophy would not exist if it were not for individuals like me. That is, we earn money to support your philosophy – a simple fact. More of us should not be afraid to say it.

 's picture

Simple Lie

All or nothing. Be a slave. Every dicatator has espoused exactly your feelings. They don't last long. My philosophy is the philosophy of te Founding Fathers as stated in all the Constitution not misrepresented by cherry picked misquotes. My philosophy built the country yours would destroy it.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

The founding fathers

The founding fathers supported very limited collectivism, which I does not include forcing others to pay for those 50% that get a free ride off the federal government – their healthcare, housing, transportation, electricity, heating oil, garbage collection, property taxes, and the list goes on.

When the weight of a tyrannical government drags you down to the lowest common denominator, it is our duty to cast it off. Just like racism is an ugly form of collectivism against dissimilar peoples, so is the collectivist view that the rich should contribute disproportionally or demonize them simply for being successful.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

I’m dead. My stench will only

I’m dead. My stench will only annoy the living.

The truth however, is that the disposition of my dead body is already planned and paid; the strength of individualism and individual responsibility is demenstrated by example - again.

AL PELLETIER's picture


Hope you get your monies worth, and soon.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

I want to take this

I want to take this opportunity to use Al’s response as a teaching moment for all readers about character. While many of us differ on political views, I’ve never seen fiscal conservatives on this blog libel people by calling them a racist or wish the demise of a patron.

However, I lament that I cannot make the same claim of progressives who post here. While I’m thick skinned and impervious to such insulate, such behavior speaks volumes about character – those who have it and those who don’t.

Al, I wish you a long life even though you lack charter.

 's picture

No you don't Lament anything

And yes it does speak volumes. Characterizing a racist as a racist is no libel its truth to power. The Republican lie that all the racists reformed in 1968, that Republicans have not followed a well documented plan to recruit racists (Atwater even apologized for doing this immediately before his death), or the fact that the current Romney campaign has admitted that they are targetting white male voters with a campaign built on racist code words and actions - promotion of birtherism which is built on the idea that no black man is qualified to be President and its varients that Obama is a Muslim believed by a third of Republicans, culture that holds that white (anglo-saxon) values, character, and way-of-life is under assault by minorities and their allies (the line that got Michael Savage barred from the UK ad which Romney repeated in Europe several times) , welfare ads that work on the mis-preception that most people on welfare are black, the voter suppression strategy that is obviously a plan directed by the RNC and which is expressly indended to bar poor, urban blacks from voting and is no different that the poll tax and literacy tests used in the Jim Crow south to bar legal black voters from the polls. If it quacks like a duck it just might be a duck.
I've had too many Republican and so called unenrolled voters hang up on me saying they would never vote for that n.....r not to know that racism is alive and well in Maine.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Form an individual who finds

Form an individual who finds a racist around every corner and under the bed next to the boogieman.
This is a standard progressive tactic – call everyone you disagree with a racist. This type of behavior is like crying wolf. People become desensitized to this nonsense and summary ignore the cries which gives opportunity to real racism.

Make sure to check under your bed tonight, you might find a racist.

RONALD RIML's picture

We 'Progressives' are accused of many awful crimes...

This, no doubt, being a defensive tactic practiced by the Idi Amin's of the Reactionary Conservative Base of the Fox Wolfpack Weasel Station of Amerika........

MARK GRAVEL's picture

I would not call progressives

I would not call progressives evil, perhaps a bit idealistic, naive to human nature, or misguided. Progressives also fail to realize that not every one buys in to the collective. I actually think some progressives may fear to stand on their own – fear of failure perhaps.

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.

Thomas Jefferson

Dear Thomas, we have become an entitlement nation. I apologize for my fellow citizen's behavior and for their failure to carry the torch of freedom. We have failed.

Joe Morin's picture

So true...

Conservatives think liberals are naive & Liberals think conservatives are evil... It makes it easier for them. Assuming the conservative's motives are sinister allows one to morally reject any of their arguments regardless of merit.

 's picture


to some degree you have to talk to people in the terms they understand. Conservatives's worldview is good/evil, black/white with no room for compromise so its useless to talk to them like a nuanced college professor. They simple won't understand. Please note the "to some degree".

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Everything you write has the

Everything you write has the R-bad, D-good theme. Just the other day, you claimed the republicans are responsible for the $16Trillion debt – not a single democrat was complicit. Hmm, what color is the pot and kettle?

RONALD RIML's picture

Like a number of cops and military I worked with

Binary Buggers........

MARK GRAVEL's picture

All decisions are a series of

All decisions are a series of binary (i.e yes/no) choices.

So, if one does not use binary logic, what type of logic do they use, if any? Fuzzy logic old mister Z80?

RONALD RIML's picture

You've never worked with analog devices..........?

Much less creative ones?

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Actually I have in the early

Actually I have in the early 1980’s; the AirForce still had some tube and differential gear based avionics.

RONALD RIML's picture

My, you were a "Johnny Come Lately"

I learned digital theory - along with analog - back in '64/5.

The two were integrated together for the Target Evaluation and Weapons Designation Systems on the first Guided Missile Cruisers in the 50's.

Until miniaturization, digital simply not viable. Choices not nuanced enough - similar to those folks I mentioned.

RONALD RIML's picture

My, you were a "Johnny Come Lately"

I learned digital theory - along with analog - back in '64/5.

The two were integrated together for the Target Evaluation and Weapons Designation Systems on the first Guided Missile Cruisers in the 50's.

Until miniaturization, digital simply not viable. Choices not nuanced enough - similar to those folks I mentioned.

 's picture

Isn't it wonderful watching Conservatives use Jefferson

Social Security is not an entitlement - I and millions of others have purchased it. Medicare is not an entitlement - I and millions of others paid for it throughout our working lives. Health care is not an entitlement - I either paid for it (Medicare) or I paid for it (Private insurance). Conservatives think, no conservatives never think, feel that people think Health Care should be an entittlement. If by entittlement, you mean something they don't pay for but are given, well their feelings are wrong again. People know that adequate health care is one of the steps necessary to keep our country strong, our economy vital and competitive, and a prerequisit to the pursuit of happiness and is therefore one of the responsibilities of the National Government like regulating the value of money.
Seeing Conservatives trying to use Jefferson one of the 18th century's great progressive intellectual leaders and an atheist and a rationalist to defend their fanciful failed policies is amusing particularly when it drives them as they regularly do to inventing quotes attributed to Jefferson that he never said, wrote or thought. And of course, they ignore his one glaring defect, Jefferson could never overcome his aggressive racism. Well amnesia is a necessary condition of Conservatism. Jefferson's independent agrian farmer living on 10 free acres (given to him by the government no less) in utopian bliss (on the shoulders of an African slave economy) was just as much a fantasy then as conservative budgets are now.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Since you are likely to

Since you are likely to receive more SS for which you paid is the reason the system is broke. Let’s cut you off once you hit that balance of what you paid. As it stands SS is a pyramid scheme as see by $60 Trillion in unfunded liabilities.

You completely ignore the fact the Obama does not even have a budget.

 's picture

Not complete nonsense but close.

SS is not a pyramid scheme any more than an annuity is. That doesn't mean it was well designed, well implemented, or well maintained over the some 75+ years of its existence. $60 trillion unfunded doesn't exist. Medicare has a $25 trillion unfunded liability if health care cost grow at the rate of the last decade (over 6%). The AFA has cut that increase to 4% and I hope other measures are taken, when Republicans agree to stop obstructing the nation's progress and deal with real problems, further. Medicare unfunded liability would disappear. SS has a $21.4 trillion unfunded liability and does need minor adjustments as were made in the 80's to wipe it out. Each must be watched but neither is unmanageable or an immediate problem. That's what unfunded liabilities are FUTRE liabilities that MAY BE incurred not that must be incurred.
First, this is simply spin. Obama doesn't need a budget. A budget does not pay the bills. We would like a budget, but there is no sense in working on one since the Republicans in the house have defeated and will defeat what ever Obama presents and the Senate will defeat anything the House presents. So until we have a Congress which will work with the President in the National interest the budget will have to wait along with the 120 bills the Republicans have blocked in the Senate, the hundreds more that the have put holds on, the appointees that the have blocked or held in their attempt to sabotage the economy.

RONALD RIML's picture

Lord Knows Jefferson didn't waste the Labors of his Slaves

Not when ol' Thomas was entitled to breed with them.

Jefferson-Hemmings Family Reunion

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Progressive tactic 101 – when

Progressive tactic 101 – when in doubt or you disagree, link it to racism. It is really amazing (or pathetic) how so many people here can link a fart to something racist.

Since you did not directly challenge the statement, I’ll consider it spot on.

RONALD RIML's picture

Racism?? You brought up 'Entitlement'

And when one person owns another - they certainly are 'Entitled' - I merely pointed that out.

You brought up "Race' - I didn't. So we know where you are at.

 's picture

Yes, we do

We know I don't need amnesia.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Your implied meaning is

Your implied meaning is obvious...

MARK GRAVEL's picture



MARK GRAVEL's picture

Charter - Character.

Charter - Character.

RONALD RIML's picture

So you're not the only one who 'Built' that disposal.......

You paid someone to take care of it. Thanks for letting us in on that. ;)

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Unless my friends or

Unless my friends or relatives become skilled in the arts of funereal services and cremation between now and my passing, I have no choice but to outsource that function. Moreover, I will not burden those I have left behind with the cost - a good citizen with impeccable character says I.


Stay informed — Get the news delivered for free in your inbox.

I'm interested in ...