The Right to Vote: "An American Entitlement"

[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.

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 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.

Your reading comprehension skills suck big green donkey dicks. The amendments TO the constitution (which them makes them part of the constitution) do not give an unlimited guarantee to anyone and everyone the actual right to vote. What they do is say that you can not be denied the ability to vote based on certian criteria. You can't be denied the ability to vote because you are purple. You can't be denied the ability to vote because you are a hermaphrodite. You can't be denied the ability to vote if you are above the age of 18. However, if you are a convicted felon that happens to be a 17 year old, purple, hermaphrodite, you can be denied the ability to vote. Do I need to break it down into smaller words for you to understand? There is no constitutional right to vote. Never has been.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Wry after all his arguments have been destroyed by logic.

Are you dating CrusaderFrank? Birdbrains flock together.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

See:

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

Discuss

This case telling in how the County’s position conflicts with conservative legal doctrine and rightist political dogma, in that the states and local jurisdictions should determine the laws and policies concerning voting.

Section 5 of the VRA allowed lawmaking entities the opportunity to ensure any proposed changes to voting laws were potentially Constitutional, allowing decisions to be made at the local level.

When the Court invalidates Section 5, however, the states and local jurisdictions will likely enact measures which violate their citizens’ right to vote, and the only recourse for those adversely effected will be to challenge such measures in court, where judges will decide voting policy for states and local communities, not the people.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

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.

It suggests that one has to prove one's identity in order to vote -- a perfectly reasonable position.

It doesn't suggest anything else.

I am amused that apologists for racism insist that having voters present identification is somehow an evil plot to keep blacks from voting.

Why? Why would anyone assume that?

Is it only black people who have to present identification?

Is that it?

 

[Crackerjaxon]

See:

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

Discuss

This case telling in how the County’s position conflicts with conservative legal doctrine and rightist political dogma, in that the states and local jurisdictions should determine the laws and policies concerning voting.

Section 5 of the VRA allowed lawmaking entities the opportunity to ensure any proposed changes to voting laws were potentially Constitutional, allowing decisions to be made at the local level.

When the Court invalidates Section 5, however, the states and local jurisdictions will likely enact measures which violate their citizens’ right to vote, and the only recourse for those adversely effected will be to challenge such measures in court, where judges will decide voting policy for states and local communities, not the people.

When did federal bureaucrats become "the people?"

 

[Wry Catcher]

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 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.

Your reading comprehension skills suck big green donkey dicks. The amendments TO the constitution (which them makes them part of the constitution) do not give an unlimited guarantee to anyone and everyone the actual right to vote. What they do is say that you can not be denied the ability to vote based on certian criteria. You can't be denied the ability to vote because you are purple. You can't be denied the ability to vote because you are a hermaphrodite. You can't be denied the ability to vote if you are above the age of 18. However, if you are a convicted felon that happens to be a 17 year old, purple, hermaphrodite, you can be denied the ability to vote. Do I need to break it down into smaller words for you to understand? There is no constitutional right to vote. Never has been.

Have you considered the Ninth Amendment? "The enumerton in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people".

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

It suggests that one has to prove one's identity in order to vote -- a perfectly reasonable position.

It doesn't suggest anything else.

I am amused that apologists for racism insist that having voters present identification is somehow an evil plot to keep blacks from voting.

Why? Why would anyone assume that?

Is it only black people who have to present identification?

Is that it?

Don't be obtuse ... Oh.

Let me explain. There is nothing wrong with requiring voters to present identification, but the devil is in the details of what type of ID, how easy is it to obtain and why is the burden of the cost to obtain such ID put upon the person? If it looks like a poll tax, smells like a poll tax and acts like a poll tax its a damn poll tax. And if the laws to require such ID are implemented in an election year, it looks like, smells like and is a shenanigan.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Looks as if kwc57 who worships big green donkey dicks is in search of one; he sure left here in a hurry. Good luck to ya in your search with the Tin Man for a brain - maybe if he gets one he can share with you and guide you to the Donkey of Oz who has that big green dick which you seem fascinated by.

 

[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.

It suggests that one has to prove one's identity in order to vote -- a perfectly reasonable position.

It doesn't suggest anything else.

I am amused that apologists for racism insist that having voters present identification is somehow an evil plot to keep blacks from voting.

Why? Why would anyone assume that?

Is it only black people who have to present identification?

Is that it?

Don't be obtuse ... Oh.

Let me explain. There is nothing wrong with requiring voters to present identification, but the devil is in the details of what type of ID, how easy is it to obtain and why is the burden of the cost to obtain such ID put upon the person? If it looks like a poll tax, smells like a poll tax and acts like a poll tax its a damn poll tax. And if the laws to require such ID are implemented in an election year, it looks like, smells like and is a shenanigan.

If a state requires ID to vote also passes a law to make IDs free. which has happened more than once, that should solve all your problems, yet you still insist it is designed to disenfranchise voters because every year is an election year somewhere.

 

[Intense]

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.

Don't blame yourself. Blame Public School Education.

 

[Intense]

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.

I think the point you are missing is the concept of one Ballot per Legal Registered Voter. No Pets. No Dead People. No Fraud. Is that too much to ask? ...... Don't answer, it's a trick question.