Posted on Mar 29, 2018
For consideration: should only those who have served in any of the seven uniformed services be allowed to vote?
4.31K
59
34
9
9
0
If you have ever read the book Starship Trooper- by Robert Heinlein, not the movie- only veterans are allowed to vote ( I think they are the only ones to run for office.) A “veteran” was not necessarily someone who had been a soldier, but rather someone who had volunteered for a two-year stint in “Federal Service.”
Posted in these groups: 
Political Organization
Political Organization
Posted 8 y ago
Responses: 15
7
7
0
No, there are folks who cannot serve due to no fault of their own. My youngest son is one who would have loved to serve but couldn't due to cancer.
(7)
(0)
COL (Join to see)
It’s based on federal service; not necessarily military. The government makes room for all to serve. I’m thinking Peace Corp, community based support where people with disabilities can also be included.
(2)
(0)
CSM Richard StCyr
COL (Join to see) - Good thoughts, but we already have community based support in churches and other volunteer activities.
(1)
(0)
COL (Join to see)
CSM, churches and volunteer activities are not “federal services.” The intent would be to give every citizen An opportunity to be a veteran no matter their physical limitations. Don’t look at word Veteran as we look at it based on military service.
(2)
(0)
3
3
0
COL (Join to see) The first time I saw the movie was at SONAR School. It became one of those guilty pleasure movies that I enjoy, but don't like admitting I enjoy. It was here on RP that someone said to me "Like the movie, read the book." So I did. How they can say that movie is based on the book is beyond me. It is so "loosely based" that they are two different entities entirely. Getting to your point, both the book and the movie hit on the point that only Veterans are considered to be citizens. Our founding fathers did not want this nation to be a monarchy or a police state. That is why the elements of the Bill of Rights are so important along with the Amendments that follow. Making service a requirement rather than a choice for citizenship would serve two negatives (my opinion only) First it would require a huge increase in Federal Spending. IF everyone who turned 17 or 18 decided they wanted to be a citizen, and service was required for citizenship, then it would be incumbent upon the Federal Government to accept all who volunteer. That means finding Federal Jobs for those people for at least two years. That means funding that job for at least two years. With such a small percentage of people volunteering right now, and the state of the Federal Budget, that would mean HUGE tax increases. He second negative that it would serve is that it would greatly shift the balance of ideals to the conservative side. I don't mean that as being a conservative is bad. What I mean is that in a free society we should be open to all ideas (someone put on the White House page that we should fund the Death Star). Even if we disagree with an idea with every fiber of our being, we should still be open to hearing that idea. Leaning too far to the conservative or the liberal side of the spectrum leads to those with opposing ideas remaining silent.
So while I do think that everyone should have to take and pass the same test given to those wishing to be naturalized citizens, I do not think that being a Veteran should be required. That being said, voting is a right not a privilege, so even requiring individuals to take the citizenship test would violate that right. Then again, the right to keep and bear arms is a constitutionally protected right that has been violated heavily, so it is not unprecedented that a right be limited by the government.
So while I do think that everyone should have to take and pass the same test given to those wishing to be naturalized citizens, I do not think that being a Veteran should be required. That being said, voting is a right not a privilege, so even requiring individuals to take the citizenship test would violate that right. Then again, the right to keep and bear arms is a constitutionally protected right that has been violated heavily, so it is not unprecedented that a right be limited by the government.
(3)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
Want to ruin a great movie? Read the book. I love the movie "We Were Soldiers". But once I read the book and realized the movie only covered half of it and without so much needed detail, I probably won't watch it again.
(1)
(0)
PO3 Steven Sherrill
MAJ (Join to see) - Jaws is another one. The book that Peter Benchley wrote is amazing. The movie is great, but as you said ruin a great movie, read the book.
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
As long as the definition of "federal service" is broadened to include things like Peace Corps, Red Cross, Doctors w/o Borders, and other NGO/PVO efforts, I'd support the idea. And I'd bring it down to one year. There is no reason we shouldn't ask the same question JFK asked regarding what you can do for your country. Every citizen can do SOMETHING for one year, and many more of us would have a better understanding and appreciation of the US as a result.
(3)
(0)
COL (Join to see)
Yes- that is my thought exactly except dropping to one year. How much can you get done in one year? First 9 months can be your initial training. But, no reason why the time can’t start after all training. The Red Cross and doctors w/o borders gives those older professionals an opportunity to gain that veteran status.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
A fair question. A simple answer: No. They also serve who contribute to the economy that supports the armed services. They also serve who simply keep the home fires burning. They also serve who only sit and complain (you'll have to think about that one). No, citizenship is no dependent upon service in the armed forces, and I don't begrudge anyone who didn't...
(3)
(0)
2
2
0
I will ask a counter question.
Is that what we served for, to pose a major restriction on those who did not?
Is that what we served for, to pose a major restriction on those who did not?
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
And if you go to countries like Colombia, servicemen are not allowed to vote in fears of being coerced to vote for a military dictator
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
Interesting idea and I like the way you are thinking. I have been a proponent of mandatory 2 year conscription to service whether military, Peace Corp, Red Cross, something to become invested in our country. If one does not serve the country then one does not have a vested interest.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
1
1
0
I'm fine with restricting voting to anyone who has served the government to include all taxpayers....
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google