Perhaps--but consider this.  As a citizen, at birth, you are given the right to vote, but it is conditionalin the sense that if you are convicted of a felony or treason the government may take away this right.I would argue that the "right" is dependent on your behavior and in that sense is conditional--do you not agree?  It is the same for life, liberty and happiness--all dependent upon what the state considersappropriate deportment.  The state can take all of these away under certain conditions so one couldmake the argument that these are not in fact inalienable, but conditional--do you not agree?

The state may block access to the voting booth, it might incarcerate a person, it might deny access to arms, but the power to deny does not mean the power to take rights or coerce someone to abdicate said rights.  The government can only take what I allow them to take with my consent if it is something I alone truly possess...which is my life, my liberty, and my inalienable rights.  The government can't take away any of these things legally without my consent.  The Constitution is the legal document from which I gave my consent to the government to act against me in the case where I fail to live up to my end of the social contract.  The government can do many things out of its excessive might, but might doesn't make right.  If I enter into a court of law, I consent to the verdict made by the courts.  The courts serve to mete justice, and if my actions harm others, then I have already given consent to the courts to act by my social contract under the Constitution and the powers of the court system found therein.  In other words, the government has no power that I and everyone else did not create for it.  If the government violates its part of the social contract, I have the right, the power, and the duty to dissolve it and recreate a more perfect government to replace it.

Agreed, but tell that to the the semi-moron who has no idea really about what he is voting for but has people in organizations (like the ACLU) who tell them regardless the Constitution gives them the right to vote and therefore he goes out and instead goes out and votes by the seat of his pants.Personally, I think some sort of yearly exam should be administered to determine those who are qualified to vote. But you fall into who administers it, and then the Cath-22 that the Constitution grants the right to all citizens, regardless of your intelligence.So we can only hope that people will educate themselves on the issues, political positions of those running, and of our own individual conscious. Alas, you will get exactly what we have now. A by the seat of your pants government. By a LEGAL by the seat of your pants governmenExcellent idea.  As I recall it is the various states that establish voter requirements.  As we have precedents for sex and age why not a provision for civic literacy?  One would still have the "right" to vote once you established your competence.  Think of this--the Constitution guarantees us liberty, yetyou can be jailed for not working under vagrancy laws.  Can we say that you are free so long as you work or have independent means?  Tests could be administered by a public or private entity--it matters not--and would not be terribly difficult.  Perhaps the test required of new citizens could be used as a template.  The only downside is that both political parties would lose voters as both havelegions of uninformed or just plain ignorant members.  Good luck on this.  My opinion is that thepoliticians--call them the herders--do not want the electorate--call them the sheep or us--to be wellinformed as swaying them in one direction or another would require more cerebral activity and lesschanting of slogans, cliches and misinformation.

Suffrage is a right and therefore has no requirements to meet.  Shame on you bad bad bad.

It is possible that you might be absolutely right.  On the other hand, the opposite is possible.  I have no idea at all except to say that bureaucracies at all levels are prone to mistakes and heavy static oncommunication lines.

And this is the very reason we should limit them as much as possible and have independent investigators stalking them wherever they tread.

Justinian needs a shave in the upgrade LOL.

My subject goes straight to the point in describing the following Telegraph UK article:Archaeologists dig up Shakespeare's 'cesspit'Lest you think that this is not Shakespeare's toilet that was found (or the place where such refuse was deposited), here is the definition from Wikipedia of a cesspit:"A cesspit, or cesspool is a pit, conservancy tank, or covered cistern, which can be used for sewage or refuse."

First the Romans and now Shakespeare.  Phid, are you developing a thing for historical outhouses?

If all signers were Christians of one stripe or another--how is this explained?  Expediency, lies,big change it attitude between Declaration of Independence and a Federalist government?What is the Conservative view--I am confused. See below:In 1797 our government concluded a "Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli, or Barbary," now known simply as the Treaty of Tripoli. Article 11 of the treaty contains these words: "As the Government of the United States... is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion -- as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity of Musselmen -- and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."This document was endorsed by Secretary of State Timothy Pickering and President John Adams. It was then sent to the Senate for ratification; the vote was unanimous. It is worth pointing out that although this was the 339th time a recorded vote had been required by the Senate, it was only the third unanimous vote in the Senate's history. There is no record of debate or dissent. The text of the treaty was printed in full in the Philadelphia Gazette and in two New York papers, but there were no screams of outrage, as one might expect today. 

That was just a Public Relations ploy to appease Muslims nothing more.  The United States was not founded on Christianity, but on the Judeo-Christian model of a Creator as the Supreme Lawgiver and Author of our inalienable rights as put forth in the Declaration of Independence.