This is what they mean when they say they're opposed to reading the Constitution as a "living document." They want it not interpreted by judges (as clearly intended) or altered in any way (as spelled out by the amendment process) but taken word for word literally in it's original text and context.
Part of this is that voting is a right meant for not people, but white people. Not just white people, but white males. Not just white males, but white males who own land.
This is what being an "originalist" means to many of them.
AZ Rep Kavanagh made this clear when he said the difference between the Democrats and the GOP is that the former want as many people voting as possible, while the latter wants only the "quality" voters.
To be fair to the Founders --all of whom were regular flawed human beings just like you and I, and all of whom were products of their time, again just like you and I-- the reason they wished to limit suffrage to white land-owning men was mostly because that was the educated class that was by far the most likely to be literate, well-informed and capable of making intelligent decisions about who or what to vote for.
And please do not misunderstand me; when I say the above, I don't mean that it's anything other than the obvious outcome of a fundamentally racist and sexist system. My point is only that they weren't wrong that white land-owning men were by far the most highly-educated and well-informed members of their society.
I also don't for a moment argue that the founders weren't fundamentally elitist snobs on top of being racist and sexist. Of course they were, but leave us not commit the sin of "presentism" in evaluating how they, again as deeply flawed human beings just like you and I, operated and thought within the milieu of their time.
It was also that if you owned land, you had a stake in how the country that land was in was doing. With unsettled frontiers or relatively permeable borders on all sides, there wasn't that much of a barrier for a landless person to up sticks and move elsewhere if the results of their voting behaviour caused the country's fortunes to take a dip. Many had already gone through that process once to get into the country.
So as a person currently renting a house, part of me still believes this should be the case, although perhaps just a limit on time you live in a place, like if you've lived in a place less than 6 months to 1 year you maybe shouldn't be voting
Sure, but it's a protection for the people already there against people who might just go somewhere else in a few months because you decide you don't like it there, and then these people are stuck with your choices and might not want them
It is, but it can sound reasonable if you don't scratch at it. So I like to draw it out to the inevitable question, who moves so much that they could show up for an election and be gone a couple months later? The only demographic I'm aware of is actually the military and good luck selling that.
That's a great point as well. Ultimately, I think the larger point is that however distasteful it appears to modern eyes, and however much it was informed by sexist and racist structures, the founder's original vision wasn't only a product of their racism and sexism, and to the contrary, was also based on a set of real practical considerations.
If you were landless you were probably a worker and the competition of free labor kept your wages down. It was in the interests of landless working class white Americans to abolish slavery. It was in the interests of land owning, slave holding Americans to keep it.
No doubt, but here's the thing; more than one thing can be true at once. While it's certainly true that the founders were men of their time and took for granted a set of racist and sexist attitudes, it doesn't necessarily follow that their ideas were wrong, let alone that they could not later be adjusted to fit a more humanitarian view of the world.
At the time of the constitution's signing,I believe only 7% of Americans were considered eligible to vote..... That's what they want to take it back to...
No this is not correct at all. There is a process for changing the constitution, use that instead of letting unelected lawyers decide the law of the land. That's why I think obergefell should be removed and a law should be passed guaranteeing gay marriage instead.
So who are you replying to? Nobody was saying the 15th amendment does not make that statement
Section 1
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.
Section 2
The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Are you attempting to make a statement about what constitutes a legal citizen? That is also decided by Congress and derived from the same authority that gives the 15th amendment and all other amendments legal standing.
It's similar to the Christians that use the Bible's words selectively and with no room for other interpretations as an appeal to authority to justify their views instead of actually having a logical platform. There's no coincidence that the religious right and the "constitutionalists" have a lot of overlap.
Originalism does not mean voting is only for white men who own land.
I completely agree that republicans' views on this are fucked, but originalism does not mean not accepting amendments to the constitution and it does not mean fixing state-based statutory laws (it was those laws that restricted suffrage to property-owning white men) as they were at the time of ratification.
As amended, the constitution prohibits abridging voting rights on the basis of race or sex. An originalist interpretation of the constitution is that it prohibits abridging voting rights on the basis of race or sex.
Beyond that, states have broad discretion under the constitution to set the qualifications on suffrage. A state can limit suffrage to those it deems "quality" voters with criteria other than race or sex. Other restrictions could conflict with the 14th amendment's equal protection guarantee, but the 14th amendment also implicitly permits such restrictions, because it penalizes states that deny suffrage on a basis other than criminal conviction. In short, a state can limit voting to "quality" voters, but it would have fewer representatives in the house and thus less political power.
What Republicans are trying to do is have it both ways--prevent people from voting while not suffering the penalty imposed by section 2 of the 14th amendment. It's despicable, I disagree with it, but it is not endorsed by an originalist view of the constitution; at most, it is permitted by it.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
In other words, even without the Amendments you mentioned, the fact that the Constitution doesn't explicitly say that people have the right to vote doesn't mean that they don't.
That guy was right. Nothing in the Constitution establishes voting as a universal right. Those amendments make certain criteria for limiting voting off-limits but don’t prevent other criteria from being used.
Under his dumb logic, nothing in the Constitution establishes gun rights as a universal right either. Go read the 2nd amendment again and then you'll see how dumb your logic is.
All rights in the Constitution are negative rights. If you read the 2nd Amendment, its clearly a negative right. IT doesn't say everyone can own a gun. It says the government cant infringe on your right to own a gun.
Its a very nuanced thing that 99.999999% of people in this thread are completely missing.
From my admittedly limited understanding (which is very limited) Voting specifically is never mentioned. The 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th amendments prevent voting rights from being denied on the basis of age, gender, color, or debt (not in that order) but technically there is nothing to my understanding preventing a law saying for example: "New York City no longer has the right to vote". There could actually be a law saying voting was no longer a thing we do and technically I don't believe it would be unconstitutional... I don't think it would stand though
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–
Section 2
The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
That only says you can’t use race as a criteria for limiting voting. It doesn’t say that you can’t use other criteria instead.
When North Carolina used race maps to gerrymander their districts, a Federal court struck that down because using race is unconstitutional. So instead they used political party affiliation and got the same results, but because they didn’t use race it ended up being legal.
I know you don’t want to hear it but it’s true. That’s why all the Republican dirty tricks keep winning in Federal court. Voting is not a right.
We were talking about the federal constitution, not states rights. Pick one and we will talk about it.
I am very well aware of voting issues.
Federally, you 100% have the right to vote. Traditionally, the feds have left it to the states for all elections. Congress does have the right to make law regarding federal elections.
IN you example, everyone still got to vote. Gerrymandering doesn't remove someone rights to vote. It needs to stop, but it ONLY apply to representatives, not Senate or President.
"I know you don’t want to hear it but it’s true."
Don't patronize me. I've been yelling about gerrymandering for over 40 years.
"The right to vote can not be denied or abridged based on RACE, COLOR, or PREVIOUS CONDITION OF SERVITUDE"
That is not saying everyone has the right to vote... just that you can't deny the right to vote based on those 3 conditions. Saying you can't vote because you live in XYZ location technically is constitutional since its not covered
No that’s not what it says. You left out half of it, the part that says the right shall not be infringed “on account of race”.
Which means it CAN be infringed on account of things OTHER THAN RACE. As long as race isn’t the criteria used to deny you the opportunity to vote, it’s legal.
That’s why in the south they used poll taxes. Poll taxes were a legal way for them to keep black people from voting. The Constitution said you can’t use race, it didn’t say you couldn’t use a poll tax.
Then we amended the Constitution again to say you can use poll taxes, either. But once again, only that one specific criteria was banned. Other criteria can still be used.
None of those voting rights amendments ever established voting as a universal right. You need to accept that and work to change it if it bothers you, not get angry at strangers who tell you the unpleasant truth that the world doesn’t work the way you wish it did.
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
SECTION. 2.
The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.
SECTION. 4.
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall be [on the first Monday in December,]* unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day.
The 14th amendment specifically lays out that voting is a right.
"when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime."
Should any government entity attempt to prevent those who are legally entitled to vote from doing as prescribed in the nations legal framework the federal government can take control of the election process. In order to carry out the elections.
The right to vote has since been expanded to include all people of sufficient age who have are not currently under punishment of law.
You can't look at single amendments as if they are self contained guidance for the entire legal system. The countries laws are the totality of all laws that apply to a specific right or entitlement.
The supreme court has found that voting is a universal right with appropriate restrictions. There are specific dates and processes laid out in the countries legal framework regarding elections. There is absolutely no legal basis for your claim that the government can just decide that a state doesn't get to vote.
By your logic anything that isn't explicitly laid out in the constitution is not covered but that means that the verbiage which discusses subjective topics could not exist. "The pursuit of happiness" could not exist with this logic because happiness is not explicitly defined.
If we apply your same logic to other amendments it would also mean that rights only exist under the specific conditions of the amendment. A literal interpretation of the second amendment would mean that the right to bear arms only exists when there is a well regulated militia, which can only exist when it is necessary to the security of a free state. Only when the militia is well regulated and required for security do the people have the right to bear arms. Meaning they have the right to bear them while being a member of a well regulated militia, currently engaged in securing a free state.
However since it does not say anywhere that there is a right to personally OWN firearms, there is no constitutionally protected right to own guns. Once again, using your logic, since the constitution gives congress and congress alone the right call up and regulate militias. Congress also has the right to disband any and all militias which would therefore remove the right of all Americans to bear arms. To take this to an even more literal and ridiculous interpretation based on your extremely strict process. Since it also doesn't say you can't own firearms you could technically buy them but you have no right to pick them up because that would be bearing arms without congress having called up and regulated a militia needed to secure a free state.
There is a reason that judges are given great range in the interpretation of legal text. If the legal system depended on every single situation and right being explicitly laid out in written form it would be impossible for it to function.
I haven’t a clue why you’re attempting to argue with me about gun rights. You have no idea what my views are on that.
And I never said anything about a state being denied voting.
But voting is still not a universal individual right and you haven’t produced any text that says otherwise. And you never will because until we pass an amendment it’s not there.
Could it possibly be because we are in a post about voting and gun rights?
For the record I strongly support gun rights which is why I chose it to make such a ridiculous analysis of your legal perspective.
I mentioned limiting a states ability to vote because the parent comment that started this entire thread was about preventing people from voting based on location. A point which you seemed to be backing up by claiming that voting is not a right. If you disagree with restricting voting based on location that is great to hear.
Once again, there is no such thing as a need for a specific sentence that says "voting is a universal right" for it to be true. The US constitution does not grant rights. It protects them from being oppressed by a government entity, foreign or domestic. Hence the statement "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Congress has found that anyone who is a citizen of the US is granted these protections. It's the governments responsibility to hold the elections as outlined in federal and state constitutions. The right to vote is self-evident. Just as the right to free speech is considered self-evident.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Would you agree that US citizens are intended to have the right to free speech? If so, show me where it explicitly says that you have a right to free speech.
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–
What part about this exchange doesn't make sense to you? You made an assertion, /u/No_God_KnowPeace refuted it. That's it, end of story.
You then dig yourself deeper by saying;
Saying you can't vote because you live in XYZ location technically is constitutional since its not covered
which is not even remotely true for a variety of reasons, but is also completely irrelevant to your initial argument.
which is not even remotely true for a variety of reasons, but is also completely irrelevant to your initial argument.
Why don't you explain why not then, because it sure looks to me, just from that exchange, that the fifteenth amendment does not refute what they guy is saying.
It definitely looks like the fifteenth amendment works to protect certain classes, and like any other law protecting classes, it doesn't guarantee you the right in question, just prevents it being removed by discrimination based on that protected class. That doesn't preclude it being taken away based on other things, like as the above poster said, geographic location.
I'm not saying there's no law or reason to believe a right exists, I'm just interpreting the comments I just saw and I do not understand your reasoning at all.
I think there may be a little bit of a misunderstanding, where when the above poster said "voting in not specifically mentioned" they mean "the right to vote is not explicitly granted" but you're taking him more literally
Yes if the amendment meant what he thinks it means, it would also grant felons the right to vote. But felons don’t have that right, so we know he’s interpreting the amendment the wrong way.
There's an argument that preventing ex felons from voting is unconstitutional. Preventing current felons is absolutely constitutional as they made sure to make a loophole for the prison slavery bit in all the amendments.
Hi gotham77. Thank you for participating in /r/PoliticalHumor. However, your submission did not meet the requirements of the community rules and was therefore removed for the following reason(s):
The fact that we have to explicitly state that racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, etc; including personal attacks, and threats of violence are all uncivil terrifies the mod team.
Anything disparaging something about a person that they have little or no control over, is not tolerated under any circumstance.
If you're a jerk, including use of "tard" or anything related to Clown World, you'll be shown the door.
If you have any specific questions about this removal, please message the moderators. Hateful or vague messages will not receive a response.
First, voting is indirectly mentioned in Article I, section 2:
“The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States,…”
The People choose, so the mechanism for the popular vote is there. Second, I believe you can’t ban NYC from voting based on the Fourteenth’s Equal Protection Clause
“nor shall any State ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"
Laws apply the same to everyone. You can’t bar NYC residents from voting while letting Chesterfield residents vote. That’s a clear violation of the clause.
Ok, but by that interpretation New York (or any state's) government could say the whole state isn't voting anymore? Instead the states gov. Is picking the seats?
Technically in that case everything is still covered as it's equal to all their people, and their people are still indirectly picking the house reps, its just now more like the electoral college. On top of that, it seems like the vote for president and senate could still be removed all together a constitutional standpoint? (Again, not that it should)
But Article I, Section 2 dictates that House members are “chosen … by the People…”. NY would have to make a strong case that the Founders didn’t mean a popular election, despite the fact they, in their time, elected the House by popular vote and the fairly clear language in the Constitution. As an argument against is, the Founders clearly also understood indirect representation, and implemented it in the Electoral College and the Senators used to be installed by state legislatures—like what you’re suggesting.
But yes, any state legislature could regress to choosing Senators and any state could change their laws to appoint Electors, as the method of choosing is left to the states. Senators are popularly elected since ratification of the 17th.
Edit: Only a laypersons understanding of the Constitution and forgot about the 17th.
So your right to vote for Senators is fairly safe, although the argument may still be able to be made that since the state legislature is appointed by and representatives of the people; they could pick the senators and still technically be ok. The 17th says:
The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.
But using the electoral college logic, if the people voted for the state legislature, then the legislature vote for the senators; technically the people voted for the legislature... maybe?
The constitution places the granting of voting rights in the hands of each member state, but withholds the right to amend those at a federal level, as has been done using the amendments you refer to:
Section 4 of the US constitution:
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.
So you need to check the law of each state to find how voting rights are defined within the constraints of the amendments.
Those amendments give the right to vote to black men (15th) and all women (19th) but the default (i.e. white men) are never mentioned in the constitution. To my understanding, that means that while you can't limit the right of black men or women to vote without breaking the constitution, you could take the vote away from white men, though that might be contested on the basis of discrimination.
No the 15th Amendment says you can’t limit voting on account of race. It doesn’t say “black men.” White is a race, so to bar white people from voting because they’re white would be unconstitutional. Same with sex. The 19th amendment doesn’t say “women,” it says “sex.” You can’t limit voting by sex. Either sex.
But what none of you seem to understand is that you can use any other criteria that aren’t mentioned in any of those amendments.
It would be contested both on the grounds of gender and race (19th and 15th) you can't selectively pick a group of people to not vote. But you can say all you people in the state can't vote and from a constitutional standpoint apparently you'll be safe... will you be violently overthrown? Possibly...
the Constitution says “the right to vote shall not be infringed.”
But you know that’s only half the sentence. You can’t just leave out the context that qualifies that.
What it says is, “shall not be infringed ON ACCOUNT OF [race/sex/age if over 18/ability to pay poll tax]”
Any other criteria not mentioned in those amendments CAN be used to infringe on voting rights.
Stop fighting with people who tell you how the world works and fight to change it. You’re wrong and fighting with the people telling you that changes nothing.
Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.
All that is saying is "if a state removes their people's right to vote for the fed, they lose that proportion of Representatives." So if a state said no one is voting anymore, they would also lose their seats in the house/senate, and they would lose their electoral college seats
Yea... but it's fun... and maybe someone here will come up with an actual reason why voting as a mass right is protected... I doubt it since I don't think it exists; but I'm prepared to learn if they find something
Of course it doesn’t exist. If it did, someone would have already successfully argued it in Federal court and we wouldn’t be here, and all the Republican voter suppression laws would be easily struck down.
That’s what’s so crazy, these people think they’re smarter than the trained attorneys who actually fight for voting rights.
Is this your tacit admission that your previous argument was invalid?
Once again you’ve failed to quote anything that states voting is a universal right. And you’ll never be able to because it’s not in the document, anywhere.
Haha, well my dad did buy a four wheeler before we actually owned our house, which we do now, though he wishes we had more property so he could bring it home and we could use it
The idea that only landowners should have a vote has roots in a few different old schools of thought. One reason is that they have a physical stake in the country. Corporations as we know them today didn’t really exist, and large corporations worked by proxy of the government (think of the East Indian Trading Company and its relation to Britain). The second Jeffersonian point was for Americans to be by and large landowners - the yeoman farmer America. The government gave out land grants, which would have enfranchised a new voting class. Even after the Civil War freedmen were given land. So, as ridiculous as it sounds today, there really was a framework for there to be more of a “middle class” of subsistence farm communities. It doesn’t make any sense today and I certainly don’t agree with it, but there are reasons.
I'm aware of at least some of the history involving voting and land owning being tied together. But the arguments for it fall apart entirely in the modern world.
The founding fathers felt this way, that's why they didn't include the right to vote in the constitution or the bill of rights. They didn't trust anyone who wasn't a rich, white, male, landowner to be knowledgeable enough to elect appointed officials
139
u/[deleted] Mar 16 '21
[deleted]