U.S. House Defeats Amendment to HR 1 to Set the Voting Age for Federal Office at Age Sixteen

On March 7, the U.S. House defeated an amendment by Congressmember Ayanna Pressley (D-Massachusetts) to set the voting age for federal office at age 16. The vote was 126-305. This bill, if enacted, would have been constitutional, according to the U.S. Supreme Court opinion Oregon v Mitchell, from 1970. In that case, the U.S. Supreme Court said the Elections Clause of Article One allows Congress to alter the voting age for federal office, without a constitutional amendment. Thanks to Steve Goodale for this news.


Comments

U.S. House Defeats Amendment to HR 1 to Set the Voting Age for Federal Office at Age Sixteen — 10 Comments

  1. I’m not sure Oregon v. Mitchell withstands Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona (2013), which took a dim view of the precedent. (Granted, while it did not formally overrule Mitchell, it certainly undermined its precedential value.)

  2. Oregon vs Mitchell was a non-decision. Four activist jutices said that Congress could set a lower age under the equal-protection clause. Justice Black said that Congress could set an arbitrary age in contradiction to the explicit language in Article I. See the Stevens dissent in Tashjian.

  3. There was a very good reason the original requirement for suffrage included property ownership. It is called responsibility and I firmly believe it should be brought back. And don’t anyone give me any of that white male BS. Property ownership was the key!

  4. Harry Truman didn’t own any property, if you define “property” to mean land. When he left the presidency he and his wife moved in with Bess Truman’s mother.

  5. Few people back then actually owned land. Only 6% of the population was allowed to vote. This was to ensure that only the well-to-do could vote. Is that what you’re advocating? Odds are, if you lived back then, you wouldn’t have been able to vote.

  6. MITCHELL — ONE MORE LEFTWING UNCONSTITUTIONAL OP BY THE SCOTUS HACKS.

    14-1 HAS ZERO TO DO WITH DEFINITION OF ELECTOR IN EACH STATE.

    14-2 WAS EFFORT TO HAVE UNIVERSAL ADULT MALE USA CITIZEN VOTERS.

    TOO MANY SUBVERSIVE SCOTUS HACKS TO COUNT.

  7. The YES 126 gerrymander hacks are the LAWLESS direct enemies of the USA Const.

  8. For the lawful —

    I-2-1 The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

    17 Amdt part

    The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.
    —-
    14-2 Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State. 

    [NOT ENFORCED]
    ———

    Too many LAWLESS RED communists in the gerrymander Congress to count — combined with the LAWLESS SCOTUS hacks.

  9. ALL sorts of books about getting higher percent of population getting the RIGHT to vote.

    Part —

    1842 Dorr’s WAR in little RI — about definition of Elector AND severe oligarch gerrymander in RI legislature.

    WAR result — See 1844 RI Const.

    NOT much changed in 170 plus years ???!!!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.