PostHeaderIcon Proposed Constitutional Amendment #5

(As promised (threatened?) in a previous article, I intend to submit a number of proposed amendments to our Constitution that, in my own judgment, would help restore a Constitutional Republic in our nation. Some of these are my own, some are based on Mark Levin’s The Liberty Amendments and some have been suggested by others).

Repeal of the 26th Amendment

The 26th amendment the the United States Constitution is hereby repealed. All legislation and regulation implemented under the authority of the 26th amendment is likewise rendered null and void.

The 26th amendment was implemented to give extend the voting franchise to people 18 years of age on the apparent assumption that people of such age have accrued a maturity level consistent with electing people to public office in the United States. All experience suggests just the opposite – that, in fact, the age of maturity and adult responsibility is generally being delayed into later years.

Please offer constructive comments as you see fit.

Troy L Robinson

12 Responses to “Proposed Constitutional Amendment #5”

  • Greg says:

    What age would you make it, then? 21 seems even then to be too immature, as you put it.

  • Larry Andrew says:

    I’m not one to use popular slogans but this one fits the bill on this suggested amendment….”If they are old enough to serve and die in the armed forces then they are old enough to vote.”

    I struggle with the concept of protecting our country using the cannon fodder available with young people who can be molded, etc. Some might argue that is why they should not be able to vote but I cannot justify withholding that right in this case.

    I vote no.

  • Larry Andrew says:

    Milliard, Errol D.A…..18 year old US Army private killed in Afghanistan by RPG.

  • Larry Andrew says:

    Errol died in July, 2013.

    • Troy says:

      I have never liked the notion that we send the flower of youth off to fight wars that were not of their making and often, not even of their understanding. Having said that, I realize that the tendency to agree to bear arms is usually more motivated by emotion and inexperience than by reason, ergo, the willingness to fight and die does not necessarily qualify one to make wise political choices.


      • Don’t discount patriotism and passion, Troy. If reason alone were at the helm,we would be off enjoying a largely carefree retirement, spending our few remaining years with a remarkable level of personal freedom, by adopting Harry Browne’s model of the world. We can spin it otherwise; but it is a stretch to label the level of concern we are experiencing for our posterity, as entirely rational. 😉 â—„Daveâ–º

  • Troy, I take your point regarding the modern efforts to extend childhood well beyond the traditional age of majority, a subject I lament often. I think the meme that a college degree is necessary for success in modern America, is part of the same agenda. Young folks, who grow up quickly and take on the responsibility of a job, and perhaps a family, while still in their teens, tend to loose youthful idealism and generally don’t vote Progressive, unless it is a union job.

    Personally, I would like to see suffrage returned only to taxpayers, as our Founders had it. I never had any issue with literacy tests and poll taxes. If one cannot read the English language, how could one understand the issues and make an intelligent choice? If one is not willing to pay the price of admission to the event, we probably shouldn’t trust his judgment either. I say make the poll tax steep enough that only serious citizens, who actually care about the outcome, will want to participate.

    In fact, I would entertain the notion of funding the Federal government entirely with a poll tax. Talk about having skin in the game… Here is an idea: what if we crossed a lottery with a corporation, established a high price for a ballot, and allowed citizens to purchase as many votes as they want. It would be like a stockholders meeting, or better yet, like voting for Rodeo Queen. Sure, the fat cats would have more influence on the outcome; but they already do now with their campaign donations, and they would at the same time be paying most of the taxes. This just came to me, and I have not thought it through; but it probably has merit, and couldn’t possibly be any more corrupting than the present arrangement. 🙂

    All that said, I can remember what it was like as a teenaged soldier, who couldn’t vote or even buy a beer in many locales. Besides, since the politicians are spending these kid’s future earnings, they probably deserve a say in how they are spent. It is one thing to float a long term bond for infrastructure construction, which future generations will use; but unemployment checks and foodstamps buy only current votes, at the expense of future generations who get nothing but the debt. This perspective would suggest lowering the voting age, rather than raising it, if the slogan, “No taxation without representation” still applies. 🙂

    Further, if the intent is to stop mindless kids from following their Marxist professors’ advice, it just might be shooting ourselves in the foot. If the Paulbots are any indication, political activism on college campuses is trending libertarian. Paul certainly had the most motivated, active, and aware college kids on his team. They were a force to be reckoned with. It would be a shame to disenfranchise them, and turn them off to politics entirely. That would be playing into the Progressives’ hand. Color me skeptical on the wisdom or need for this one. â—„Daveâ–º

    • Troy says:

      I am skeptical to extending the franchise to anyone so immature that they are more easily swayed by emotion than by reason — even when they are swayed toward my own way of thinking.


  • Troy says:

    As I think this over, perhaps we would be better served by an amendment that limits the voting privilege to those who pay taxes, a subject I have opined on in past articles.

    How about an amendment to the effect that one can only be franchised to vote in any precinct where they pay taxes in excess of any direct payments or benefits received from the government of that precinct?


  • Chris says:

    I wouldn’t object to a raise in the voting age to 21. As with many I have a problem with someone being mature enough for military but not mature enough to vote. Might I suggest a carve out for such people? All citizens in the military can vote regardless of age. I could justify that having seen what a short time in the military can do for a young persons sobriety of thought and sense of responsibility. Well the old military anyway. I don’t know about now.

    Such things as a poll tax or only letting those who pay taxes vote would never fly. Not now not ever. Beside the fact that I would not have been able to vote in 2012. I was unemployed most of 2011 but I knew who to blame. 🙂

Leave a Reply

Political Spectrum
Political Circle

Think Up/Down not Left/Right

Internal Links