There are people over at Music City Bloggers seriously arguing in comments that the Constitution does not guarantee anyone the right to vote. OK, then.
Submitted by Andy Axel on Thu, 01/03/2008 - 09:39.
The leading legal light behind this argument is a real estate agent. Take his observations like you would a sales pitch for a clapboard estate in the suburban hinterlands.
And yes, yes - I did add my sig to a couple of comments there. I can hardly help it.
I'd also posted something pretty terse about how this was chapter & verse from the "Constitutional Law for Conservatards" book of legal theory... that it was a parallel to Alberto Gonzales tortured logic that there was no specific grant of habeas: "The fact that the Constitution -- again, there is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution. There is a prohibition against taking it away." I'm willing to allow that there may have been some Akismet weirdness (the stock answer behind disappearing posts there), but hm. Akismet usually doesn't allow things to appear first, then to plonk.
__________________________________
"The radical of one century is the conservative of the next. The radical invents the views. When he has worn them out the conservative adopts them." -M. Twain
Is this notion based on adherence to Justice Scalia's opinion from the Bush-Gore fisaco of 2000? Seems to me that opinion allowed for the current belief system from the current administration that rights of US citizens are few and the rights of elected officials are many.
Is this notion based on adherence to Justice Scalia's opinion from the Bush-Gore fiasco of 2000?
Pretty much. And the fact that the Constitution doesn't explicitly say "you have the right to vote."
They conveniently ignore that the "right of citizens of the United States to vote" is mentioned several times and protected in a variety of ways.
But I guess we should amend it to say "you have the right to vote," just to be clear. We'll do that right after we amend it to ban marriage between certain classes of people.
(I also like how these Strict Constructionists skip right over the "well regulated" part of the 2nd Amendment. Apparently all these pesky details and technicalities are useful for some things and not others.)
Submitted by Anonymous on Thu, 01/03/2008 - 15:50.
Perhaps they are parsing and thus ignoring any amendments. For example, the catch all amendment is that any rights not specifically granted to government are the domain of the people. Like voting?
Submitted by Anonymous on Thu, 01/03/2008 - 16:54.
The right to vote is not enumerated in the BoR, although most of us consider it a basic human right, and most state constitutions consider it a right.
Article 1, section one states that Representatives and Electors are chosen by "the People", but does not elaborate on how.
Senators were appointed originally by state legislatures, and of course, the President is selected by the Electoral College.
Under the 9th Amendment, running elections for Representatives and Electors was strictly a state matter ... and most states only gave the franchise to white male landowners.
After the south lost the civil war, Amendment 13 abolished slavery, Amendment 14 redefined US citizens, as opposed to state citizens, and Amendment 15 forbade states from disenfranchising Black US citizens who would otherwise qualify to vote.
It is both bizarre and absurd to me for folks argue vociferously to demand all voters have a mandatory ID for an action (voting) which they have no inherent right to do.
Submitted by Anonymous on Mon, 01/14/2008 - 15:41.
There is no constitutionally guaranteed right to vote in federal elections. The decision on who can and who can't vote is left to the states. Through constitutional amendments, states cannot deny someone the opportunity to vote based on race, gender, or being over 18. It also does not allow a poll tax. Thankfully, there is no constitutionally guaranteed right to vote. There is a good reason why the founding fathers created a constitutional representative republic instead of a democracy, and one with the power belonging to the states and not a centralized federal government. This is not "right wing wackiness", this is basic civics 101.
Submitted by Andy Axel on Mon, 01/14/2008 - 17:47.
Thankfully, there is no constitutionally guaranteed right to vote.
This has been the Readers' Digest version of the Bush v. Gore decision, Justice Antonin Scalia concurring.
__________________________________
"The radical of one century is the conservative of the next. The radical invents the views. When he has worn them out the conservative adopts them." -M. Twain
The leading legal light behind this argument is a real estate agent. Take his observations like you would a sales pitch for a clapboard estate in the suburban hinterlands.
And yes, yes - I did add my sig to a couple of comments there. I can hardly help it.
I'd also posted something pretty terse about how this was chapter & verse from the "Constitutional Law for Conservatards" book of legal theory... that it was a parallel to Alberto Gonzales tortured logic that there was no specific grant of habeas: "The fact that the Constitution -- again, there is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution. There is a prohibition against taking it away." I'm willing to allow that there may have been some Akismet weirdness (the stock answer behind disappearing posts there), but hm. Akismet usually doesn't allow things to appear first, then to plonk.
__________________________________
"The radical of one century is the conservative of the next. The radical invents the views. When he has worn them out the conservative adopts them." -M. Twain
Is this notion based on adherence to Justice Scalia's opinion from the Bush-Gore fisaco of 2000? Seems to me that opinion allowed for the current belief system from the current administration that rights of US citizens are few and the rights of elected officials are many.
I see that Neal Boortz has been brought into it as proof of the assertion. Is there a corollary to Godwin's law for invoking Neal Boortz?
Is this notion based on adherence to Justice Scalia's opinion from the Bush-Gore fiasco of 2000?
Pretty much. And the fact that the Constitution doesn't explicitly say "you have the right to vote."
They conveniently ignore that the "right of citizens of the United States to vote" is mentioned several times and protected in a variety of ways.
But I guess we should amend it to say "you have the right to vote," just to be clear. We'll do that right after we amend it to ban marriage between certain classes of people.
(I also like how these Strict Constructionists skip right over the "well regulated" part of the 2nd Amendment. Apparently all these pesky details and technicalities are useful for some things and not others.)
Perhaps they are parsing and thus ignoring any amendments. For example, the catch all amendment is that any rights not specifically granted to government are the domain of the people. Like voting?
The right to vote is not enumerated in the BoR, although most of us consider it a basic human right, and most state constitutions consider it a right.
Article 1, section one states that Representatives and Electors are chosen by "the People", but does not elaborate on how.
Senators were appointed originally by state legislatures, and of course, the President is selected by the Electoral College.
Under the 9th Amendment, running elections for Representatives and Electors was strictly a state matter ... and most states only gave the franchise to white male landowners.
After the south lost the civil war, Amendment 13 abolished slavery, Amendment 14 redefined US citizens, as opposed to state citizens, and Amendment 15 forbade states from disenfranchising Black US citizens who would otherwise qualify to vote.
--kbarrett
It is both bizarre and absurd to me for folks argue vociferously to demand all voters have a mandatory ID for an action (voting) which they have no inherent right to do.
Baffling behavior.
There is no constitutionally guaranteed right to vote in federal elections. The decision on who can and who can't vote is left to the states. Through constitutional amendments, states cannot deny someone the opportunity to vote based on race, gender, or being over 18. It also does not allow a poll tax. Thankfully, there is no constitutionally guaranteed right to vote. There is a good reason why the founding fathers created a constitutional representative republic instead of a democracy, and one with the power belonging to the states and not a centralized federal government. This is not "right wing wackiness", this is basic civics 101.
This has been the Readers' Digest version of the Bush v. Gore decision, Justice Antonin Scalia concurring.
__________________________________
"The radical of one century is the conservative of the next. The radical invents the views. When he has worn them out the conservative adopts them." -M. Twain
Can I take my tinfoil hat off now? It's messing up my new haircut...