The rumors are true. There is a move afoot to adopt a new Amendment to the Constitution of the once United States. The 28th, named Restoring Voting Sanity.
The text is making the rounds: here it is. Updated: 5:00 PM (thanks, Anon, for the clarification).
Restoring Voting Sanity
The seventeenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
The nineteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
The twenty sixth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
Only those men, who can trace their citizenship to at least two generations, and who are in natural undissolved original marriages and only those blessed with natural issue shall be eligible to vote in any election in the States, territories, or possessions of the United States.
This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.
Reminder that the 17th Amendment allowed for the direct election of Senators. The 19th Amendment allowed females to vote. And the 26th Amendment extended the voting franchise to 18 year olds.
There is ample precedent for the repeal of Constitutional Amendments. The 21st Amendment repealed the hersterical Safety First! matriarchal effeminate 18th Amendment, which, you recall, banned wine, beer, and liquor. Banned wine, beer, and liquor! It can be no surprise, and it is no coincidence, that the first Amendment after the monumentally farcical 18th came the passing of the 19th Amendment.
So it is no trouble to repeal harmful or foolish Amendments.
That the Senate no longer functions, or even resembles functioning, as a sort of aristocratic debate hall is in dispute by no one. There was never a good reason to have direct elections, as in the House. The inevitable coarsening of debate, and indeed leading to its very absence, has occurred. Return to having the Senate raised by their peers.
The experiment having 18, 19, and 20 year olds voting has provided more than sufficient evidence that this was a bad idea. I mean, have you ever seen or interacted with college students (outside enclaves like Hillsdale or St Thomas Aquinas)? The presence of rare exceptions does not justify wholesale enfranchisement. Require maturity again.
And so to the 19th. May I quote to you Michelle Obama herself on this important subject? As this hopeful, some say, presidential candidate said of watching the inauguration of Donald Trump, “I cried for 30 minutes straight, uncontrollable sobbing”.
Uncontrollable is that which cannot be controlled.
Obama went on to say, “there was no diversity, there was no color on that stage”. Both false claims. Perhaps the uncontrollable crying led to partial blinding.
Need I point out that a leader who reacts to a mundane event with uncontrollable crying is not fit to serve?
Women’s natural compassion and emphasis on feeling are perfect and ideal fits inside families. But outside, it leads to things like this. The balance toward feelings has already progressed too far. Reclaim calm rationality.
Now, we are stuck living in an “our democracy”, a form of government in which it is believed that right and wrong can be put to vote, that Reality itself can be made illegal, or redefined, by a vote. This is not wise nor sane, yet we are, at least for now, stuck with it. One goal of this Amendment is to lessen egregious harms resulting from such a system.
This is why this Amendment contains the idea of interest. Those with children naturally have a greater, even vastly greater, interest in the future state of the nation than those without. Limiting voting to male heads of households strengthens the interest of the future state. It ensures a natural, small-c conservativism, and reduces the chances of wild swings of policy. Reduces, I say. Not eliminates. But that small-c conservatism would result is obvious. Reclaim the future.
To those who say this Amendment is unfair. So? To those who say is discriminates. So? To those who say this Amendment is “racist”, “sexist”, “homophobic”, or any of a score of judgmental terms. I say, and say again, So?
Pass on the text to your Congresscreatures, if they haven’t already seen it. Let’s get this Amendment adopted!
Subscribe or donate to support this site and its wholly independent host using credit card click here. For Zelle, use my email: firstname.lastname@example.org, and please include yours so I know who to thank.