I still think the spirit of the law should be taken into account here. If we limit who can vote based on an arbitrary and subjective variable, such as intelligence level, it creates a slippery slope. Initially it's homeowners, business owners, people with degrees, etc. What happens in 20 years, when people get upset again, that they decide that no, the only people really smart enough to vote are CEOs and PhDs? I could see this route quickly turning our "democracy" into an oligarchy. And probably much faster than anyone expects. I mean, some would argue that's what we have already, but this would ensure it turns into a literal one...
Heres my question: who would be deciding the parameters on who gets to vote? According to Michele Bachmann, the majority of the people on this site would be considered to stupid to vote.
Lockes right, idiots largely cancel each other out.
Really smart people still vote for Democrats and Republicans. It isn't like intelligence makes people better voters.
Now, the guy may be a socialist like some of you, but he does have a PhD in the field and his focus of study is the constitution. I yield to the man's expertise.
Edit: Oh. You could be simply making fun of my incorrect use of the word "steak" as opposed to "stake".
Obama recently honored Cesar Chavez. People confused him with Hugo Chavez and complained on the Internet. This is why this story doesn't really matter.