The Right to Vote: "An American Entitlement"

[Quantum Windbag]

Here we go..another rhetorical debate.

What is an entitlement?

What is a right?

Already answered.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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 data that part of the law is based on is over 3 decades old. You also have to add in the fact that disadvantaged voters have far more access to legal remedies than in the 60's and 70's. The only thing that would be struck down is the "pre-clearance" requirement, which is on the ragged edge of unconsitutionality as it interferes with the state's own voting procedures, not just federal votes. If someone finds some funny business, the VRA can still be used in a lawsuit, and considering the access one has to civil rights groups, that is not an issue today.

Yes, it was needed in the 60's as the southerners did it to themselves by igonring the consitution for 90 years. But section 5 was a temporary measure, and congress didnt do anything to improve it when it just extended it.

The remedy you suggest is no remedy at all. The election is over when the law suit is filed. Why not try just for once to be honest?

Tell me something, why is suing the police after they break down your door and beat the crap out of you, which is a much more egregious violation of your rights, but it is not a remedy when it comes to voting?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

Frank, go back to sleep. You are way too biased and ignorant to enter into this discussion. Your effort to derail this thread is noted.

How is a discussion of rights in comparison to entitlements not pertinent when we are discussing the an entitlement? Is your brain to narrow to admit that restrictions on one right mean a restriction on other rights is justifiable? Is your bias against guns blinding you to the truth?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The remedy you suggest is no remedy at all. The election is over when the law suit is filed. Why not try just for once to be honest?

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.

why aren't all rights sacrosanct? Why do you support restricting some rights, and oppose restricting others? Is it because you are confused, or are you simply a hack?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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 being honest hurts their brains.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

The Constitution specifically denies Congress the power to restrict other rights, yet you are not outraged when it does so.

What does that tell you about your position?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Wrong.

 

[GHook93]

See:

Post-argument commentary: Voting rights are an American entitlement : SCOTUSblog

Discuss

Voting is a right, but people don't have a right to vote mulitple times, in mulitple jurisdiction, in jurisdictions they aren't residents in, for deceased people and if your an illegal alien!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

Oral arguments and decisions are entirely separate things.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

States only do that in the imaginations of wacko nuts.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

Funny that, I don't read any posts for people who don't care who votes, yet there are more than a few who want to restrict voting to select groups.

 

[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.

States only do that in the imaginations of wacko nuts.

Are you dating CrusaderFrank? Birdbrains flock together.

 

[kwc57]

It's not an entitlement at all.

It's a RIGHT.

Multiple clauses in the Constitution define it as such.

There is no constitutional right to a vote. There are amendments that state what a state can NOT use as a reason to deny a person a vote, such as race and gender. But that does not imply that a state can't determine voting requirements. Remember, other than the President who is actually elected by the electoral college, all elections are within state boundaries.

 

[kwc57]

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.

Multiple times if you're a Democrat.......living or dead.

 

[kwc57]

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

Yep. Guns are a constitutional right. Voting is not.

 

[kwc57]

Here we go..another rhetorical debate.

What is an entitlement?

What is a right?

Dictionary and Thesaurus - Merriam-Webster Online

 

[tjvh]

See:

Post-argument commentary: Voting rights are an American entitlement : SCOTUSblog

Discuss

Voting is a right, but people don't have a right to vote mulitple times, in mulitple jurisdiction, in jurisdictions they aren't residents in, for deceased people and if your an illegal alien!

Correct, which is exactly why Democrats see voter ID requirements as very unappealing. Sure they'll scream how ID's somehow disenfranchise poor people, even though we all know this to be nonsensical -how many poor people receive Food Stamps, etc. without having to produce some form of ID? NONE. Democrats want to cherry pick Freedoms based solely upon their twisted utopian ideology. Voter ID requirements are bad because voting is a Right, Gun sale ID requirements are good regardless that ownership of guns is also a Right. Democrats only believe in the Freedoms that fit their ideology, those Freedoms that do not need not apply. It's Ideology before Country where Liberals are concerned, that's why even when they win elections, they're still angry about something. There will always be just enough rational people in America to ensure that the Liberal utopian dream will never be realized... And that pleases me greatly.

 

[kwc57]

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.

Funny that, I don't read any posts for people who don't care who votes, yet there are more than a few who want to restrict voting to select groups.

Name them.

 

[bornright]

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

snoop dog I have invested a lot in this country.

 

[Wry Catcher]

It's not an entitlement at all.

It's a RIGHT.

Multiple clauses in the Constitution define it as such.

There is no constitutional right to a vote. There are amendments that state what a state can NOT use as a reason to deny a person a vote, such as race and gender. But that does not imply that a state can't determine voting requirements. Remember, other than the President who is actually elected by the electoral college, all elections are within state boundaries.

I see. I always believed an Amendment to the Constitution made it part of the Constitution. It's always nice to learn something new from someone as learned as you kwc57.

So, since Article I, sec. 8 clause 15 and 16 speak to Militias, they define how the Second Amendment is to be read. Good to know.

But I digress. The electors are elected by the people, if some of the people eligible to vote for President are denied that right, or made to wait hours to vote without shelter or face other impediments, the Federal Government in your opinion, has no say in the matter; if a state allows 12 year olds to vote for POTUS ,that too is fine in your opinion, and a right not to be infringed by the Federal Goverment, is that correct?