Police officer denied right to vote after refusing to surrender weapon...

[phillykev]

Both of these have already been addressed, especially the 19th amendment falsehood.

26th amendment to the Constitution:

The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

[ThomasJ]

26th amendment to the Constitution:

The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

Once again, there is no right to vote. SCOTUS has ruled as much. A Congressman, Jesse Jackson, Jr., had introduced a Constitutional amendment establishing the right to vote. If such a right existed, neither SCOTUS nor Jackson, Jr., would've believed differently. The amendment simply means that if states are going to restrict voting privileges, they cannot do so based on a person being 18, 19, or 20 years old, nor can they restrict based on gender or race. Election laws are the domain of the states, not the federal government.

[IronSight]

Once again, there is no right to vote. SCOTUS has ruled as much. A Congressman, Jesse Jackson, Jr., had introduced a Constitutional amendment establishing the right to vote. If such a right existed, neither SCOTUS nor Jackson, Jr., would've believed differently. The amendment simply means that if states are going to restrict voting privileges, they cannot do so based on a person being 18, 19, or 20 years old, nor can they restrict based on gender or race. Election laws are the domain of the states, not the federal government.

Let's straighten some of this out, shall we.

Emphasis added.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html

The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College. U.S. Const., Art. II, §1. This is the source for the statement in McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 35 (1892), that the State legislature’s power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary; it may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself, which indeed was the manner used by State legislatures in several States for many years after the Framing of our Constitution. Id., at 28—33. History has now favored the voter, and in each of the several States the citizens themselves vote for Presidential electors. When the state legislature vests the right to vote for President in its people, the right to vote as the legislature has prescribed is fundamental; and one source of its fundamental nature lies in the equal weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter. The State, of course, after granting the franchise in the special context of Article II, can take back the power to appoint electors. See id., at 35 (“[T]here is no doubt of the right of the legislature to resume the power at any time, for it can neither be taken away nor abdicated”) (quoting S. Rep. No. 395, 43d Cong., 1st Sess.).

The right to vote is protected in more than the initial allocation of the franchise. Equal protection applies as well to the manner of its exercise. Having once granted the right to vote on equal terms, the State may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person's vote over that of another. See, e.g., Harper v. Virginia Bd. of Elections, 383 U.S. 663, 665 (1966) (“[O]nce the franchise is granted to the electorate, lines may not be drawn which are inconsistent with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment”). It must be remembered that “the right of suffrage can be denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen’s vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise.” Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 555 (1964).

[andrewjs18]

Two things: 1 - police shouldn't vote while on duty, and 2 - there is no right to vote.

what? voting is a fundamental human right.

also..I don't think police and/or citizens should have to disarm EVER before going in to vote.

[max384]

I don't like this line at all:

“What if someone else had come in with a gun concealed? Then I wouldn’t have my gun to protect people and do my job,” he said.

Just because somebody has a concealed weapon, does not mean he is going to shoot somebody with it

I think the officer's choice of words was unwise, but his point was that he is only preventing entry of those whose weapons are showing.

Two things: 1 - police shouldn't vote while on duty, and 2 - there is no right to vote.

Who says police shouldn't vote while on duty?

There most certainly is a right to vote. It is written in the 19th amendment.

The court case that you speak of, Bush vs. Gore, did not rule that there is no federal constitutional right to vote. That is only a small excerpt of the case, taken out of context. Please reread what Ironsight wrote, as that is from the court case that you mentioned.

Because they are on duty. They are citizens when they are off duty as well. Let them vote when they are off duty.



On the basis that voting is left to the states. What can they restrict on? Well, states disallow felons the privilege to vote. They can restrict however they choose as long as it isn't based on race or gender (or age).

If it were up to me, I'd disallow those on welfare, the illiterate (granted these two groups may not personally vote anyway, but I wouldn't be surprised to see their names on the lists of those who have voted), people who haven't passed a certain educational standard...in fact, I think the more people who do not have the privilege to vote, the better for all of us.

Those on welfare and the illiterate can vote.

I started writing a lengthy reply to your comment about who should not be allowed to vote and then decided to delete it. I already know what I say to you will fall on deaf ears.

[headcase]

There is an absolute right to vote, when a public election is called for, requiring votes. As it relates to presidential elections, the Electoral College elects the President and Vice-President, states may choose how those electors are chosen, but citizens voting for either of these positions are not necessarily actually doing so.

While the SCOTUS says a great many things about what the Constitution does, and does not, say, they are not always correct. What the Constitutional Amendments, that mention this right, actually do, is define classes whom the government may not deny that right to, based upon that class. They have no problem denying the right to a felon, who also happens to be a black woman over the age of eighteen, because the denial is based upon her being a member of the felon class, not the others.

The Bill of Rights allows for the right to vote, as an unenumerated right. The fact that Amendments to the Constitution specifically state that the right to vote exists, and is recognised by the Constitution, makes the right an enumerated one.

Anyone who can, in their head, at the same time, honestly argue that the Constitution clearly recognises the right to keep and bear arms because it says, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms...", and argue that there is no right to vote when it says, "The right of the citizens... to vote...", needs to re-evaluate their level of intellectual honesty...

ETA~ I really don't like how everyone discussing this incident in the story, is basically insinuating that if it were a private citizen there would be an issue, but since it is a cop in uniform, how dare they say one could not carry a firearm somewhere.. you know, like they are special, and we should know it..

[ThomasJ]

There is no fundamental right to vote, nor is it a human right. Our founders purposefully did not create a democracy, because they rightly feared one. Democracy, they knew, is nothing but mob rule. "Democrat" was an epithet meaning "one who panders to mindless whims of the masses" (From the book Founding Brothers. I strongly recommend it. Great background and unique perspective in its explanation of the slavery debate). Again, if this were such a fundamental or human right, women would've had the privilege, states would not be allowed to deny felons voting privileges, mentally incompetent in some states would be allowed to vote, etc. States can even allow those under 18 voting privileges if they desired. The right to vote is a common misconception. Just as schools (wrongly) teach that we're a democracy, I have no doubts that they indoctrinate that we have a right to vote. This was all started in the late nineteenth century with the social engineers like Rockefeller who pushed for public education, and then was taken up by the progressives in the early twentieth century.

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/the..._dont_have.php

While there are some things I disagree with in Jackson's piece (the democracy part I just mentioned, for example), especially his motivation for the amendment, he is correct:

The fundamental reason is this: The U.S. Constitution does not contain a right to vote, and therefore Congress fails to establish enforceable uniform standards or a unitary voting system. While it is true that the Constitution does protect against voter discrimination based on race, sex or age and prohibits the use poll taxes or literacy tests, it does not explicitly guarantee that U.S. citizens have a right to vote.



max384: I know those on welfare and the illiterate can vote; I simply doubt that they do in any significant number. Regardless, I don't believe either should have voting privileges. Do you want people who can't read or who can't do for themselves deciding who your representative or elected officials will be? I sure don't. Once they're off welfare, their privileges could be reinstated.

[max384]

There is no fundamental right to vote, nor is it a human right. Our founders purposefully did not create a democracy, because they rightly feared one. Democracy, they knew, is nothing but mob rule. "Democrat" was an epithet meaning "one who panders to mindless whims of the masses" (From the book Founding Brothers. I strongly recommend it. Great background and unique perspective in its explanation of the slavery debate). Again, if this were such a fundamental or human right, women would've had the privilege, states would not be allowed to deny felons voting privileges, mentally incompetent in some states would be allowed to vote, etc. States can even allow those under 18 voting privileges if they desired. The right to vote is a common misconception. Just as schools (wrongly) teach that we're a democracy, I have no doubts that they indoctrinate that we have a right to vote. This was all started in the late nineteenth century with the social engineers like Rockefeller who pushed for public education, and then was taken up by the progressives in the early twentieth century.

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/the..._dont_have.php

While there are some things I disagree with in Jackson's piece (the democracy part I just mentioned, for example), especially his motivation for the amendment, he is correct:

The fundamental reason is this: The U.S. Constitution does not contain a right to vote, and therefore Congress fails to establish enforceable uniform standards or a unitary voting system. While it is true that the Constitution does protect against voter discrimination based on race, sex or age and prohibits the use poll taxes or literacy tests, it does not explicitly guarantee that U.S. citizens have a right to vote.



max384: I know those on welfare and the illiterate can vote; I simply doubt that they do in any significant number. Regardless, I don't believe either should have voting privileges. Do you want people who can't read or who can't do for themselves deciding who your representative or elected officials will be? I sure don't. Once they're off welfare, their privileges could be reinstated.

The US government is a federal republic, which is a type of democracy - a representative democracy.

While I agree that voting should be made more uniform, it is still a right as declared so in more than one amendment to the constitution.

As to your last question you posed: Yes. I do want people on welfare and the illiterate voting. They're Americans and have the right to vote. It's a slippery slope once groups of people are denied voting rights.

If those on welfare are denied the right to vote, how long until those temporarily collecting unemployment benefits lose their right to vote? How long until only those who pay more into taxes than they receive back (the lowest economic classes generally get back more money in taxes than they pay) are allowed to vote? How long until minimum income requirements must be met in order to vote? How long until you lose the right to vote in a system such as the one you propose?

[eXceLon]

The Bill of Rights allows for the right to vote, as an unenumerated right.

This is admittedly nitpicking, but the Bill of Rights only refers to the first ten amendment to the US constitution. Voting rights are nowhere mentioned among them.

[Carnes]

There is an absolute right to vote, when a public election is called for, requiring votes.

I'm going to go a bit off topic with this... but since the 'right to vote' presupposes the main thrust of the arguments in this thread, I am still technically on topic. Anyway...

I think when we talk about rights in our modern culture, it is getting more important to separate natural rights from civil rights.

Your statement that there is an absolute right to vote is, IMO, open to misinterpretation. Not only misinterpretation, but a dangerous malassumption that damages peoples understanding of liberty.

Please allow me to explain.

You have the absolute right to vote, but the assumption is that you have some right to have your vote recognized by the government. And this brings us to the division between natural rights and civil rights.

There is a natural right to vote, because you casting your vote on any subject whatsoever will not impact my rights. So that is your natural right to vote.

Now, having your vote recognized is a whole other beast. 'The creator' does not give you the right to have your vote recognized by the government, the union, your friends or whoever. The founders identified certain things as rights (my argument is not whether or not voting was one of those things) that are better described as a contractual agreement between the government and the citizens.

I am of the belief that the founders felt that certain mechanics in government were so important to the protection of liberty that they felt it necessary to identify these contractual agreements as rights in an effort to impress upon people how crucial they were to the intent of the government they meant to establish.

So, for example, the 'right' to a fair trial... It is not a natural right, because it is not something that exists independently of government.

Unfortunately, I feel that the general understanding of rights has been watered down because of this. People use the concepts of civil rights and natural rights interchangeably, and frequently fail to identify the difference between the two. As such, along with a little .gov motivation, people seem to more frequently identify civil rights as the only rights, and thus fail to understand natural rights altogether. It's no wonder that the typical response someone has to something they don't like is, "There should be a law against that!"

Anyway, not much relevance to the OP, but it is a discrepancy that seems largely underrepresented to me, so I wanted to bring it up.