• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

But Would My Doublewide Count?

WildCat said:
We weren't talking about New Yorkers in general, but police, teachers, and firefighters.

Does NYC have residency requirements for these jobs?
Click to expand...

For the most part, yes there are residency requirements for civil service in New York. That only means that you live there and pay taxes there, not that you own property.

ETA: Teachers do not have that requirement
 
Last edited:
Careyp74 said:
For the most part, yes there are residency requirements for civil service in New York. That only means that you live there and pay taxes there, not that you own property.

ETA: Teachers do not have that requirement
Click to expand...

Cops don't have residency requirement in NYC. My cousin lived in Rockland County when he was a NYC cop.
 
If voting were restricted to property owners, then some one would come up with a simple ownership of a square inch lot to satisfy the requirement.

Let's make the requirement that you have to have at least 5 million dollars in assets. That'll show the unwashes hordes who's boss. Let them eat cake, but not tea cake. Preferably supermarket sheet cake loaded with fake buttercream frosting.
 
WildCat said:
We weren't talking about New Yorkers in general, but police, teachers, and firefighters.

Does NYC have residency requirements for these jobs?
Click to expand...

You think police, firefighters, and teachers are so different from the general public in NYC that absolutely all of them own, and not just one third of them, like everyone else there? It's an interesting question since I've never lived on the East Coast,nor NYC, and I don't know how things work there, but that doesn't sound right to me.

Either way, you'd agree that even ONE NYFD firefighter denied the right to vote pretty much destroys this guys un-American idea, not that it was ever sensible to begin with.
 
If we did that, you'd see groups organizing land trusts where people put in a nominal fee and get sufficient property rights to vote. What a stupid idea.
 
Unabogie said:
Either way, you'd agree that even ONE NYFD firefighter denied the right to vote pretty much destroys this guys un-American idea, not that it was ever sensible to begin with.
Click to expand...
Look, I think it's idiotic and mindless to say that only property owners should get to vote. I just have my doubts that the groups you mentioned aren't paid enough to buy property.
 
WildCat said:
Wasn't that a basic assumption of this thread to begin with?
Click to expand...

I guess so.

But that brings up an interesting point. Anybody, correct me if I'm wrong. As far as I can tell, there would be nothing unconstitutional about limiting the vote to property-owners. Or, for that matter, to left-handed people, or people who own digital wristwatches.

The Amendments to the US Constitution dealing with voting are:

Fifteenth Amendment (1870): Prohibits the federal government and the states from using a citizen's race, color, or previous status as a slave as a qualification for voting.

Nineteenth Amendment (1920): Prohibits the federal government and the states from forbidding any citizen to vote due to their sex.

Twenty-fourth Amendment (1964): Prohibits the federal government and the states from requiring the payment of a tax as a qualification for voting for federal officials.

Twenty-sixth Amendment (1971): Prohibits the federal government and the states from forbidding any citizen of age 18 or greater to vote on account of their age.

Race/color, sex, taxes, age. Anything else seems to be fair game.
 
WildCat said:
Sorry, not soldiers. They have government housing.
Click to expand...

Have you been in the military? What you've just stated here is only corrrect for a small percentage of the military. I rented because I was a single guy and didn't really want to live on the ship where I worked. Even the married people had to wait on a list to get government housing, many of them renting but being subsidized by the government with an allowance.
 
thaiboxerken said:
Have you been in the military? What you've just stated here is only corrrect for a small percentage of the military. I rented because I was a single guy and didn't really want to live on the ship where I worked. Even the married people had to wait on a list to get government housing, many of them renting but being subsidized by the government with an allowance.
Click to expand...

I owned a house in San Diego when I was on active duty. (Inherited it, actually.)
 
thaiboxerken said:
I knew a few guys that owned as well, with their mortgage payments being partly paid for with gov't allowance.
Click to expand...

Yep, that's how I paid off the property taxes. Dude thought he was doing me a favor leaving me a house in La Jolla. I managed to get the taxes paid on it after fifteen years. Then I was transferred out of California.
 
Vorticity said:
I guess so.

But that brings up an interesting point. Anybody, correct me if I'm wrong. As far as I can tell, there would be nothing unconstitutional about limiting the vote to property-owners. Or, for that matter, to left-handed people, or people who own digital wristwatches.
Click to expand...

Consider yourself corrected. The equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment has been held (most notably in Harper v. Virginia) to outlaw property requirements. "[A] state violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution whenever it makes the affluence of the voter or payment of any fee an electoral standard. Voter qualifications have no relation to wealth."

I suspect that voter qualifications similarly have no relation to handedness or type of watch.

Basically, any proposed restriction on voting needs to have a basis.
 
WildCat said:
Sorry, not soldiers. They have government housing. And it's not a career for 90% of them.
Click to expand...

Try again?

Most of the young people I served with moved out of Gov't Housing within the first 2 years of their enlistment. That's specifically what BAH is for.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom