The Right to Vote: "An American Entitlement"

[CrusaderFrank]

The right to own a gun is clearly established in the Constitution, why no parallelism between the right to vote and own a gun?

 

[Sallow]

The overall ability to vote is a right. Having special requirements above and beyond this based on race is what creates an entitlement.

You should be able to walk into a voting center and vote.

Simple as that.

Any obstacle to that action is illegal.

You should be able to walk into a gun store and buy a gun.

Simple as that.

Any obstacle to that action is illegal

Sure.

Right after the professional standing army is disbanded and you are then eligible for deployment.

And to be well regulated by congress.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The entire concept of federalism is predecated on the soverginity of lower levels of government. The problem here is that once you are on "the list" it is nearly impossible to get off of it, even if the people who originally performed the voter suppression are dead and buried. Congress could have cleaned up the law, instead it punted and just extended it for 25 years. Section 5 was never intended as a permanent change to current methods of voting, but as a corrective action to decades of institutional racism.

If this is not overturned, then at least tehe court has to force congress to fix the law to update it to modern times. If a locality can show that institutional racism is no more in said locality, it should be taken off the preclearance list. Voters would still have the same protections everyone else has outside the preclearance list.

Baloney. The Right to vote is sacrosanct. Efforts to suppress the vote is ongoing and preclearance should be expanded as State Legislatures continue their efforts road block voters in new and creative ways. As I said, be honest.

So ignore the entire concept of federalism on a whim? Have federal interference in local politics because you think someone MAY be doing something wrong?

Preclearance was a razors edge unconsituional response to unconsitutional acts that were perverse during the Jim Crow Era. That era is over, and laws based on it should be phased out if they have even a whiff of unconsitutionality.

Desperate times called for desperate measures. Those desperate times are in the past.

Baloney. The Right to vote is sacrosanct and the Constitution grants the Congress the power to enforce this Right by appropriate legislation.

 

[Sallow]

The right to own a gun is clearly established in the Constitution, why no parallelism between the right to vote and own a gun?

Because there isn't.

Gun ownership was part and parcel with the defense of the State.

Case law has corrupted it's original intent.

 

[Sallow]

Kagan and Sotomayor "Battling" Scalia.

Libruls have a distorted view of American politics

Scalia is legislating from the bench.

He's said that Congress couldn't be tasked with this law.

Really?

Seriously?

 

[Sallow]

The entire concept of federalism is predecated on the soverginity of lower levels of government. The problem here is that once you are on "the list" it is nearly impossible to get off of it, even if the people who originally performed the voter suppression are dead and buried. Congress could have cleaned up the law, instead it punted and just extended it for 25 years. Section 5 was never intended as a permanent change to current methods of voting, but as a corrective action to decades of institutional racism.

If this is not overturned, then at least tehe court has to force congress to fix the law to update it to modern times. If a locality can show that institutional racism is no more in said locality, it should be taken off the preclearance list. Voters would still have the same protections everyone else has outside the preclearance list.

Baloney. The Right to vote is sacrosanct. Efforts to suppress the vote is ongoing and preclearance should be expanded as State Legislatures continue their efforts road block voters in new and creative ways. As I said, be honest.

So ignore the entire concept of federalism on a whim? Have federal interference in local politics because you think someone MAY be doing something wrong?

Preclearance was a razors edge unconsituional response to unconsitutional acts that were perverse during the Jim Crow Era. That era is over, and laws based on it should be phased out if they have even a whiff of unconsitutionality.

Desperate times called for desperate measures. Those desperate times are in the past.

 

[martybegan]

Baloney. The Right to vote is sacrosanct. Efforts to suppress the vote is ongoing and preclearance should be expanded as State Legislatures continue their efforts road block voters in new and creative ways. As I said, be honest.

So ignore the entire concept of federalism on a whim? Have federal interference in local politics because you think someone MAY be doing something wrong?

Preclearance was a razors edge unconsituional response to unconsitutional acts that were perverse during the Jim Crow Era. That era is over, and laws based on it should be phased out if they have even a whiff of unconsitutionality.

Desperate times called for desperate measures. Those desperate times are in the past.

If thats your best response, kindly stay out of the conversation, grownups are talking.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You should be able to walk into a voting center and vote.

Simple as that.

Any obstacle to that action is illegal.

You should be able to walk into a gun store and buy a gun.

Simple as that.

Any obstacle to that action is illegal

Sure.

Right after the professional standing army is disbanded and you are then eligible for deployment.

And to be well regulated by congress.

Congress regulated the State militias? You might want to blow the dust off your unopened US History books

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Kagan and Sotomayor "Battling" Scalia.

Libruls have a distorted view of American politics

Scalia is legislating from the bench.

He's said that Congress couldn't be tasked with this law.

Really?

Seriously?

Right. Under the Obama Doctrine, if its passed by Democratically elected Congress it must mean it Constitutional

 

[Wry Catcher]

The entire concept of federalism is predecated on the soverginity of lower levels of government. The problem here is that once you are on "the list" it is nearly impossible to get off of it, even if the people who originally performed the voter suppression are dead and buried. Congress could have cleaned up the law, instead it punted and just extended it for 25 years. Section 5 was never intended as a permanent change to current methods of voting, but as a corrective action to decades of institutional racism.

If this is not overturned, then at least tehe court has to force congress to fix the law to update it to modern times. If a locality can show that institutional racism is no more in said locality, it should be taken off the preclearance list. Voters would still have the same protections everyone else has outside the preclearance list.

Baloney. The Right to vote is sacrosanct. Efforts to suppress the vote is ongoing and preclearance should be expanded as State Legislatures continue their efforts road block voters in new and creative ways. As I said, be honest.

So ignore the entire concept of federalism on a whim? Have federal interference in local politics because you think someone MAY be doing something wrong?

Preclearance was a razors edge unconsituional response to unconsitutional acts that were perverse during the Jim Crow Era. That era is over, and laws based on it should be phased out if they have even a whiff of unconsitutionality.

Desperate times called for desperate measures. Those desperate times are in the past.

Bullshit. It's not about federalism, the Constitution is the law of the land. States cannot establish policies making this Right easy for some, difficult or impossible for others based on the color of their skin, their economic status or their sex or any other impediment they choose.

You're not as stupid as CrusaderFrank but you seem to be as dishonest.

 

[martybegan]

Baloney. The Right to vote is sacrosanct. Efforts to suppress the vote is ongoing and preclearance should be expanded as State Legislatures continue their efforts road block voters in new and creative ways. As I said, be honest.

So ignore the entire concept of federalism on a whim? Have federal interference in local politics because you think someone MAY be doing something wrong?

Preclearance was a razors edge unconsituional response to unconsitutional acts that were perverse during the Jim Crow Era. That era is over, and laws based on it should be phased out if they have even a whiff of unconsitutionality.

Desperate times called for desperate measures. Those desperate times are in the past.

Bullshit. It's not about federalism, the Constitution is the law of the land. States cannot establish policies making this Right easy for some, difficult or impossible for others based on the color of their skin, their economic status or their sex or any other impediment they choose.

You're not as stupid as CrusaderFrank but you seem to be as dishonest.

Yes, they cannot, and this is not the issue. The issue is that they have to run to the federal government BEFORE making any changes in anything to do with voting, even if the racist bastards who created the problem are dead and buried. THIS is the affront to federalism, in particular the "pre-clearance." statute, which was required decades ago, but should have been updated via legislation to create a mechanism to get out of it. Congress dropped the ball, and at a minmum should be forced to fix the error.

Declaring pre-clearance to no longer be needed does not remove the protections under the law, you now just have to find evidence of bias, and sue to get it fixed, just like any other "right" you want to protect.

 

[bornright]

Does it bother anyone else to go vote and have a 18 year old standing next to you that has never served in the military, still lives on his daddy's couch, has to hold his pants up with one hand, and must have the crabs because he has to keep rubbing his crouch with the other kill your vote? He does not have a job nor does he associate with anyone that does. His goal in life is to suck up the good clean air and collect dust. I obviously do not think everyone should be allowed to vote.

 

[Huey]

"WHINE,WHINE,WHINE" thats all you whites do,dont you ever get tired.

 

[Wry Catcher]

So ignore the entire concept of federalism on a whim? Have federal interference in local politics because you think someone MAY be doing something wrong?

Preclearance was a razors edge unconsituional response to unconsitutional acts that were perverse during the Jim Crow Era. That era is over, and laws based on it should be phased out if they have even a whiff of unconsitutionality.

Desperate times called for desperate measures. Those desperate times are in the past.

Bullshit. It's not about federalism, the Constitution is the law of the land. States cannot establish policies making this Right easy for some, difficult or impossible for others based on the color of their skin, their economic status or their sex or any other impediment they choose.

You're not as stupid as CrusaderFrank but you seem to be as dishonest.

Yes, they cannot, and this is not the issue. The issue is that they have to run to the federal government BEFORE making any changes in anything to do with voting, even if the racist bastards who created the problem are dead and buried. THIS is the affront to federalism, in particular the "pre-clearance." statute, which was required decades ago, but should have been updated via legislation to create a mechanism to get out of it. Congress dropped the ball, and at a minmum should be forced to fix the error.

Declaring pre-clearance to no longer be needed does not remove the protections under the law, you now just have to find evidence of bias, and sue to get it fixed, just like any other "right" you want to protect.

Apparently you slept though the election last November as the efforts to suppress voting spread beyond those states now included in the law; and, you choose not to recognize some of the hateful racists who post on this message board (likely they're not dead, even if it appears their brain is).

 

[martybegan]

Bullshit. It's not about federalism, the Constitution is the law of the land. States cannot establish policies making this Right easy for some, difficult or impossible for others based on the color of their skin, their economic status or their sex or any other impediment they choose.

You're not as stupid as CrusaderFrank but you seem to be as dishonest.

Yes, they cannot, and this is not the issue. The issue is that they have to run to the federal government BEFORE making any changes in anything to do with voting, even if the racist bastards who created the problem are dead and buried. THIS is the affront to federalism, in particular the "pre-clearance." statute, which was required decades ago, but should have been updated via legislation to create a mechanism to get out of it. Congress dropped the ball, and at a minmum should be forced to fix the error.

Declaring pre-clearance to no longer be needed does not remove the protections under the law, you now just have to find evidence of bias, and sue to get it fixed, just like any other "right" you want to protect.

Apparently you slept though the election last November as the efforts to suppress voting spread beyond those states now included in the law; and, you choose not to recognize some of the hateful racists who post on this message board (likely they're not dead, even if it appears their brain is).

One person's voter suppression is anothers voter's qualification verification. We are not talking about the 60's when ACTUAL voter suppression, with lynchings, dogs, and fires actually occured. The VRA was desgined for THAT case, as well as direct restrictions via poll tax, grandfather clauses, or literacy tests. It had nothing to do with finding out if someone was eligible to vote, which is what is happening today.

Then they KNEW these people were elegible, and they stopped them.

Yes, some of today's voter identification supporters are racist, just as some "voter rights" people dont care if inelligble people vote, because they know the inelligble people usually vote their way.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It's not an entitlement at all.

It's a RIGHT.

Multiple clauses in the Constitution define it as such.

Most people who talk about rights and entitlements not understanding the difference. To simplify, a right is something that we have despite the government, entitlements are something we have because of the government.

An entitlement is a guarantee of access to benefits based on established rights or by legislation. A "right" is itself an entitlement associated with a moral or social principle, such that an "entitlement" is a provision made in accordance with legal framework of a society. Typically, entitlements are laws based on concepts of principle ("rights") which are themselves based in concepts of social equality or enfranchisement.

Entitlement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Voting, by definition, is an entitlement.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It's not an entitlement at all.

It's a RIGHT.

Multiple clauses in the Constitution define it as such.

The overall ability to vote is a right. Having special requirements above and beyond this based on race is what creates an entitlement.

The right to vote itself is an entitlement, which explains why no one ever had a problem with restricting it based on all the various ways we restrict it, like residency.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It's not an entitlement at all.

It's a RIGHT.

Multiple clauses in the Constitution define it as such.

The overall ability to vote is a right. Having special requirements above and beyond this based on race is what creates an entitlement.

Invalid premise. The special requirements are based on past practices and the evidence (hours wait to vote in some jurisdictions, efforts to suppress votes in 2012) suggests the Right to vote is under attack in a number of States.

The evidence suggests that some people are paranoid about there being a conspiracy to deny people the right to vote.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It's not an entitlement at all.

It's a RIGHT.

Multiple clauses in the Constitution define it as such.

The overall ability to vote is a right. Having special requirements above and beyond this based on race is what creates an entitlement.

You should be able to walk into a voting center and vote.

Simple as that.

Any obstacle to that action is illegal.

What if you live in Ohio and are in California on vacation, should you be able to vote in California.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The overall ability to vote is a right. Having special requirements above and beyond this based on race is what creates an entitlement.

You should be able to walk into a voting center and vote.

Simple as that.

Any obstacle to that action is illegal.

You should be able to walk into a gun store and buy a gun.

Simple as that.

Any obstacle to that action is illegal

Surprisingly enough, you are 100% correct, but the people that think there is a conspiracy to deny the right to vote will never admit it.