That's the thing, they are beholden.To each other, to the lower class, to the nation as a whole.
That is what it means to be a nation, working together for our people and the common good.
Are they? How would the be beholden to the lower class if they arnt voted into place? Threat of civil war? The same goes for the nation and common good. I could make the exact same argument about our current Federal government, which for all intents and purposes is an "elite voting class" in that they vote on what is and is not law. I ask again, how is this voting class any different from our current Federal government aside from the labels of first and second class citizens?
In my opinion, its not different at all. Except once you define class systems/who is and is not a voting citizen, you can start restricting other rights as well
Well first of all I am going very far afield here, talking about ideals and what ifs and all that.I don't think there is any real possibility of repealing any Amendments so this is all really just an exercise of the imagination for all of us in most cases.
With that said I guess it's about the concentration of power. I don't think that millions of people privileged with the right to vote are going to be as corrupt as a few tens of thousands of Federal Government positions/employees.
Then shouldnt hundreds of millions (IE the American populus) be less corrupt than the few millions of privileged voters in your system? If the qualifier is corruption per 100 people or whatever, seems like your concentrating it.
But let me ask another question, do you mean for this ruling class to vote on all laws and bills, or just elected officials like president?
I don't know. As was pointed out it was previously white male land owners and as I said I believe that served us well in the past but it may be archaic and outdated now.I also mentioned that I'm fond of the system suggested in Starship Troopers where Citizens are those who serve in the military and state and are thus rewarded with a say while civilians get less rights but are in a way a protected class.
Would that work for the United States? Ehhh probably not. It is a very Utopian idea and I'm not sure it has any basis in reality (it comes from a book after all) but it's still fun to think about.
I think realistically we could start with people who pay taxes vs people who get benefits.
Makers and Takers as the term goes. It is very much a conflict of interest for someone using medical or food benefits to vote.
There is also a conflict of interest for the coal mining town that refuses to admit that coal is dead or dying.
I'm not a believer but the Bible was mostly written thousands of years ago and yet still remains relevant to a very large portion of the worlds population today.So I think your point about the age of the document is invalid for starters.
As for Blacks and women.
It's not that I don't want them to vote, it's that I only want certain people to vote.
Believe me there are plenty of White men I've met that I do not want voting either.
It is not a racial or sex thing although I can understand how liberals, with their obsession of both race and sex, would view it that way.
I think we can find a better way for our country that's all.
You know my opinion on the Bible. Just because it is relevant to people doesn't make it accurate or worthwhile. People use that thing to justify lynching people. I could make the same argument about the Quran, but I doubt you would recognize its validity.
Age does not make something more correct. Laws are not wines and times change.
I can understand not wanting people to vote, there are plenty of people I would prefer not vote, but that is a right given as citizens of this country. To start taking that away sets a precedent that will undoubtedly lead to this civil war your so keen on