Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Constitution of the United States disagrees with you at least three times. It explicitly calls it "the right to vote,"
And on what planet can rights not be denied? Certainly not this one, and certainly not under our Constitution. All rights are conditional.
Every single one.
There is no right to vote anywhere in the Constitution unrestricted.
The "right to vote" is not explicitly stated in the U.S. Constitution except in the above referenced amendments, and only in reference to the fact that the franchise cannot be denied or abridged based solely on the aforementioned qualifications. In other words, the "right to vote" is perhaps better understood, in layman's terms, as only prohibiting certain forms of legal discrimination in establishing qualifications for suffrage. States may deny the "right to vote" for other reasons.
If the argument to vote and not pay to obtain ID held any validity, then the very same "right" to bear arms would also not mandate ID nor have fees associated with obtaining a permit.
Most of us undrestand the reference.. you however, need it explained.
The argument against hurdles to show proof of identification
at the polls, is by those who think there are folks out there that don't have sufficient evidence to prove who they are. Otherwise it would not be a big deal.
And I provided you with a lengthy webliography proving that it's not an argument. It's an established, objective fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pollyrobin
I've read the book.
Why then do you not know what a "Catch 22" is?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pollyrobin
If you are a citizen you would have proof of who you are.
Yes, you've expressed that opinion several times already. Repetition doesn't make it less wrong. Do you want me to post the research again?
Voting is a priviledge, we deny people the right to vote, even if they are citizens.. Felons for example cant vote as you duly noted, and rights, cant be denied even by trial and conviction.
No, voting is a RIGHT! Voting is not a privilege.
Felony disenfranchisement is constitutional due to the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.
The following Amendments guarentee the right to vote:
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.
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.
The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age.
Actually, I agree with you that SCOTUS has been clear that rights are conditional and subject to reasonable restrictions. Thus, my question would be, why is it unreasonable to ensure the people voting are who they claim to be and (this is an added requirement I would like to see), prove they are citizens upon registering to vote?
Because again, the real universe is nuanced and it's never "either/or." The primary affect of voter ID laws is not to insure Voters are eligible, but to deny the franchise to significant numbers of eligible voters in a non random and partisan way.
The harm that Voter ID laws cause far exceed the alleged intended benefit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by southbel
As it stands now, there are multiple states where you can register to vote and then subsequently vote without once proving your citizenship. The only requirement is a signature stating you are a citizen.
Yes. There are.
And if there was evidence that these rules were resulting in significant voter fraud, then they would be worthy of adjustment.
There is no right to vote anywhere in the Constitution unrestricted.
The "right to vote" is not explicitly stated in the U.S. Constitution except in the above referenced amendments, and only in reference to the fact that the franchise cannot be denied or abridged based solely on the aforementioned qualifications. In other words, the "right to vote" is perhaps better understood, in layman's terms, as only prohibiting certain forms of legal discrimination in establishing qualifications for suffrage. States may deny the "right to vote" for other reasons.
The same goes for the Second Amendment. The Constitution works by outlining what rights the government cannot infringe upon. Hence, the conditions. See my above post.
The Second Amendment uses the same negative reference:
Quote:
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
The Second Amendment (like the 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th with voting) does not say "the people have the right to X." The constitution assumes we already have those rights and outlines the basis for which they cannot be abridged.
There is no right to vote anywhere in the Constitution unrestricted.
There is no right to anything anywhere in the Constitution unrestricted.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
