Tea Party Nation Founder: 'A Wise Idea' To Only Let Property Owners Vote

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Judson Phillips, the founder of the group Tea Party Nation, has defended his comments that the Founding Fathers' original plan to only allow property owners to vote "makes a lot of sense" because "property owners have a little bit more of a vested interest in the community than non-property owners."

In an email to ThinkProgress yesterday, Phillips doubled down, referring to the radio broadcast last week in which he made the comments: "During the course of our discussion, I mentioned that the Founding Fathers limited voting rights to property owners. I commented this was a wise idea."

He continued:

Apparently, two weeks after the show, some liberal stumbled across it and today, that comment has turned into liberal headlines such as, "Tea Party Nation President says It Makes A Lot of Sense to Restrict Voting to Property Owners" and "Tea Party Leaders Attack Constitution." Suddenly, this has morphed from a discussion between two tea partiers into articles claiming that I want to change the Constitution to restrict voting to property owners.

http://tpmmuckraker....y_l.php?ref=fpi

[Danno 1,228]

I would be happy if there were a simple quiz required.

[Sgt. McGee 27]

I would prefer that only people who federal income tax liability be able to vote in general elections. If you pay no tax (or, more accurately, if you have zero or negative liability, meaning that you get your entire withheld amount (or more) back every year), you shouldn't have ANY say in how the government's setting things up.

Of course, that doesn't mean that I want people to be disenfranchised, but maybe we should make sure everyone pays federal income tax...

[luckytxn 2,264]

How about we put it up for a referendum and if it passes we do it that way. That way the people that bother to come out and vote will have a say on it.

[twowls 217]

How about we put it up for a referendum and if it passes we do it that way. That way the people that bother to come out and vote will have a say on it.

No honey. Everybody gets representation as a matter of constitutionality. Even the people that would be fired if they took off work to vote.

[Danno 1,228]

No honey. Everybody gets representation as a matter of constitutionality. Even the people that would be fired if they took off work to vote.

You seem to be missing the concept of: No taxation without representation... and how it should work in reverse too.

[peejay 327]

You seem to be missing the concept of: No taxation without representation... and how it should work in reverse too.

How true! When you have masses of people that pay no income taxes and/or collect significant sustenance from the taxpayer and politicians that habitually use public tax money to dole out ever increasing enticements for these people to vote for them....there you have it.

And I get tired of hearing the same lame argument that paying sales tax entitles people to a free lunch.

Edited December 5, 2010 by peejay

[Peikko 1,575]

How true! When you have masses of people that pay no income taxes and/or collect significant sustenance from the taxpayer and politicians that habitually use public tax money to dole out ever increasing enticements for these people to vote for them....there you have it.

And I get tired of hearing the same lame argument that paying sales tax entitles people to a free lunch.

You have every right to be tired of what you call lame arguments, but absolutely no constitutional basis for disenfranchising the poor. Nice try though

[spookyturtle 9,466]

And maybe only white men should be able to vote too.

[Peikko 1,575]

And maybe only white men should be able to vote too.

There you go, we have a winner

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Owning land is essentially a private enterprise. But suppose such an idea were to actually happen, where only land owners could vote - what about public land? Who owns public land? The public and that would technically make them landowners.

Of course there are other problems, like who votes for the family household's land? The husband? The wife? Both? Could they add their children onto their deed so they could vote too? Would there by a limitation on the number of owners to a deed of property? I'd buy a little one foot by one foot piece of land and add everyone who wanted to vote on to the deed, thereby making them eligible to vote. I'd do that just because I think every USC should be able to vote, but that's just the kind of person I am.

ETA: If you have a mortgage, technically you don't own the deed to your home...the bank does.

Edited December 5, 2010 by 8TBVBN

[peejay 327]

You have every right to be tired of what you call lame arguments, but absolutely no constitutional basis for disenfranchising the poor. Nice try though

Where did I advocate disenfranchising the poor? Nice try though.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Speaking of banks owning titles, only bankers should vote! What a wonderful world that would be!

[scandal 951]

Why not cut to the chase? Since obviously the intent here is to only allow those who support Tea Party proposals the right to vote, why pussyfoot about Property Ownership or district gerrymandering or other voting restrictions?

Just come right out there and say what you mean: the vote should be given only to registered GOP voters, take it away from Democrats or Independents. Better yet - give it only to voters who agree to vote strictly for Tea Party candidates.

Heck, we can save even more time and money by abolishing any competitive parties or ideologies and having only Tea Party candidates on the ballot. It works in totalitarian governments so why not here?

Democracy? Choice? Who needs all that. The Tea Party already has all the answers, elections are just a periodic formality to reaffirm this obvious fact. Hear hear. Motion seconded, motion passed.

[Dan J 277]

You seem to be missing the concept of: No taxation without representation... and how it should work in reverse too.

There are a lot of legal immigrants and people where on work visas who pays taxes but cannot vote.