Quote:
Originally Posted by ThomasJ
Ah, yes....the equal protection clause.
"But when the right to vote at any election is denied or in any way abridged, 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."
In other words, states may restrict this so-called "right" to vote.
If our Constitution provides for equal protection under the law, why, then, does the Voting Rights Act only apply to certain states who were held in political disfavor in the 70's?
"No affirmative right to vote
While the title of the Voting Rights Act might imply that it established an explicit right to vote for President for U.S. citizens, there is no such federal right. However, the Voting Rights Act and three constitutional amendments that prevent discrimination in granting the franchise have established in United States Supreme Court jurisprudence that there is a "fundamental right" in the franchise, even though voting remains a state-granted privilege. However, states are given considerable leeway when it comes to this "fundamental right".
In Bush v. Gore (2000), the Supreme Court ruled that, "The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States," a logical conclusion given the history of the Electoral College. States do not have to extend suffrage to ex-felons, nor do they have to allow citizens to register and vote on Election Day. In 2008, the Supreme Court upheld voter ID laws, claiming that the states had an interest in deterring voter fraud. While the Supreme Court has stated that the right to vote and the right to be a candidate are connected, they have often upheld state laws that make it difficult for independent and minor party candidates to be included on the election ballot.
Washington, D.C., not being a state, has been granted only limited voting rights by Congress, which controls the District "in all cases whatsoever", according to the District Clause of the Constitution. U.S. Representative Jesse Jackson, Jr. re-introduced House Joint Resolution 28 in March, 2005, to amend the U.S. Constitution and create a federal right to vote. The resolution had 60 co-sponsors as of October, 2006."
|
This is what you have based your argument, that the right to vote doesn't exist, on?
God I hope not. The people of the U.S., have never had the right to ELECT the President or Vice-President. The process is very clearly spelled out in the Constitution, and gives that power to the states through Electors. Those Electors can pretty much be chosen by any means the state deems appropriate, with few restrictions. It goes on to say that in the event of ties, the process gets kicked to the Congress. But, I have already been through this. In the time I have been here, I have tried to remind people of the fact that their vote for President means nothing. It is something most people really do know, but seem to not want to admit. However, in relation to the ridiculous assertion that the people of this country don't have the right to vote, legal residents of this country have the right to vote in every election except Presidential. For the Presidential general election, you must be a citizen. Agreed this election means nothing in the grand scheme of things, but it does provide a look into the will of the people. It doesn't, though, mean that the right to vote doesn't exist. God I hope this issue gets put to bed, and the driver license thing takes over the thread.....