Voting and driving as rights/ statuatory rights

[headcase]

Because it is a fact. Your amendments have already been addressed. There is no constitutionally guaranteed right to vote. It doesn't exist.

No sir, it is a fact that the Constitution didn't need to address the right as such because it is the very basis for our government. It says the government shall be elected by the people of the several states, that means the people vote, because you can't have an election without votes. Other rights are addressed specifically to preserve the right to vote. The 1st Amendment, the 2nd, blah blah blah, all protect our rights to be free and have a say in our way of life...by voting. Many people are ignorant of the fact that they don't actually vote for the President and Vice-President, I will give you that, but they do, by Constitutional decree, vote for the rest of the elected officials. And they are not MY Amendments, they are OUR Amendments. They say what they say, and no amount of ridiculous blather will change what they say. The fact that a Whopper has 670 calories can be argued and twisted until some people feel that it is health food, but that doesn't change the fact that it has 670 calories. The citizens of this country who are 18 and have not been barred by law, have the ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO VOTE. No amount of literary citation or reliance on the fluffy opinions of radical legal wranglers will change that.

[mjfletcher]

Because it is a fact. Your amendments have already been addressed. There is no constitutionally guaranteed right to vote. It doesn't exist.

The only way that is true is if the amendments to the Constitution are not part of the Constitution, in which case there is also no constitutionally guaranteed right to free speech, free press, freedom of religion, right to keep and bear arms, right to du process, freedom from illegal search and siezure, right to assemble peacably, to trial by jury, to petition the government.

So now I must ask, are you attempting to imply that the rights enumerated in the amendments to the Constitution are not constitutionally protected rights?

[ThomasJ]

Which part of "The right of the citizens to vote" is it that you failed to undersand? That is the clearest statement in the universe that voting is a right.

As to you attempt to claim he words that follow somehow say otherwise:

States were passing laws denying US citizens the right to vote based on age, sex, and race. Those amendments were added to the Constitution to end those States violation of citizens right to vote. Said right was already recognized prior to those amendments being added to the constitution.

The states may deny the privilege to voting to anyone or any class, except in instances of race, sex, or age. That is all those amendments are saying. States may continue to restrict the privilege as long as it is not based on any of those criteria. The right to vote does not exist. I understand this sounds like heresy, and a lot of people are upset when confronted with it, but it's true.

[ThomasJ]

No sir, it is a fact that the Constitution didn't need to address the right as such because it is the very basis for our government.

It is not the very basis of our government. Again, we are NOT a democracy; we are a constitutional representative republic. Are there instances in which the public votes and selects it's representatives? Of course. Originally, the highest office people could elect was that of Representative. Senators made a power grab in the early 20th century and the 17th amendment was passed. I would love to see that amendment repealed. It removed a vital check and balance put in place by our founding fathers. Our founding fathers feared democracy. 'Democrat' was an epithet, meaning one who panders to the masses. Democracy is nothing but mob rule. Our president is not elected via the popular vote; he is elected by the electoral college. The states get to decide who will cast ballots for the electors. By legislative grace some states have tied the popular vote to the electors, but if a state wanted to grant electors to the winners of a foot race, it could.

The citizens of this country who are 18 and have not been barred by law, have the ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO VOTE. No amount of literary citation or reliance on the fluffy opinions of radical legal wranglers will change that.

I'm sorry, but just as you do not understand the difference between the judicial system and private business, you do not understand the basic concept that there is no constitutionally guaranteed right to vote in federal elections. The right to vote does not exist.

[headcase]

You are just being silly. Please stop insisting that I don't understand things that I understand very well. Just because you get something from reading a post I made, does not mean that you have a clue about anything that I do or do not understand. Believe what you like, but the right to vote not only exists, it is embedded in five different Amendments. Not that it would have even needed to be, but people doing bad things and making the same argument you are, to cover their bad deeds, lead to it being written as plain as day. The one point you are mostly right about is that the people don't elect the President or the Vice-President, as I have already said. The states decide who they appoint as electors, and are free to do so pretty much however they like. The electors, must, however, meet the same requirements as are put in place for the legislature, but they can not be legislators. We democratically elect our Representatives for our republic, therefore we live in a democratically elected representative republic.

[mjfletcher]

The states may deny the RIGHT to voting to anyone or any class, except in instances of race, sex, or age. That is all those amendments are saying. States may continue to restrict the RIGHT as long as it is not based on any of those criteria. The right to vote does not exist. I understand this sounds like heresy, and a lot of people are upset when confronted with it, but it's true.

Corrected that for you. The constitution says RIGHT TO VOTE not privelige. Or do you inted to argue that the authors of the Constitution used the word right to mean privilege?

[ThomasJ]

Corrected that for you. The constitution says RIGHT TO VOTE not privelige. Or do you inted to argue that the authors of the Constitution used the word right to mean privilege?

It didn't need correcting. Since there is no right to vote, the states may restrict voting privileges to whomever, except on basis of race, sex, or age. The authors of the Constitution did not put in the "right to vote" anywhere in the document. The amendments to the Constitution do not grant or guarantee a right to vote; they only say states cannot restrict voting due to race, sex, or age. You guys can keep stamping your feet and believing that it exists, but it doesn't. Please do some research.

[headcase]

It didn't need correcting. Since there is no right to vote, the states may restrict voting privileges to whomever, except on basis of race, sex, or age. The authors of the Constitution did not put in the "right to vote" anywhere in the document. The amendments to the Constitution do not grant or guarantee a right to vote; they only say states cannot restrict voting due to race, sex, or age. You guys can keep stamping your feet and believing that it exists, but it doesn't. Please do some research.

*bold is mine

I'll type this out in big letters so you don't miss it:

Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868<snip>
2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, 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.

Amendment 15 - Race No Bar to Vote. Ratified 2/3/1870.

1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.


Amendment 19 - Women's Suffrage. Ratified 8/18/1920.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Amendment 24 - Poll Tax Barred. Ratified 1/23/1964.

1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.


Amendment 26 - Voting Age Set to 18 Years. Ratified 7/1/1971.

1. 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.

2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.


I explained it earlier so I am not going to reiterate how the original Constitution lays out the need for citizens to vote, but I will say that any Amendment that is ratified becomes part of the Constitution. You can stamp your feet and deny it until you are blue in the face, but the fact of the matter is that the Constitution says that the people have the right to vote five times. Does that help?

[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."

[ChamberedRound]

Quick administrative note:

Just wanted to thank you guys for starting a new thread to debate this issue. I had no problem with this discussion other than that it was taking the other thread hopelessly off-topic. Glad to see that the topic is still being lively debated.

Thanks again!