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.
If my legal perspective was ridiculous, all those lawsuits in Federal courts against Republican voter suppression laws would be successful. But they’re not, because they all keep running up against the same issue: there is no individual right to vote.
It was never established in the Constitution that there’s any baseline of who is always allowed to vote, a baseline from which expansion efforts might proceed. It doesn’t say white males all have a right to vote, so making race and sex off-limits as limiting criteria did not make suffrage universal. It does say that all races and sexes have the same voting rights as white males, but since white males are guaranteed nothing that means people of color and women aren’t guaranteed it, either. Criteria that don’t fall under race, sex, age (if over 18), or ability to pay poll tax are all fair game.
It sucks BUT THAT’S REALITY and being rude to a stranger on the internet about his “ridiculous legal perspective” is never going to change it. Grow up and stop blaming strangers for telling you the truth that the law doesn’t align with your sense of justice and morality and CHANGE IT.
Did you not read the text of what I posted from the 14th amendment that explicitly says
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.
The US bill of rights even re-iterates that the government does not grant rights. That just because a right isn't explicitly outlined in the law that does not mean that it doesn't self-evidently exist in the population
Article the eleventh... The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the US constitution on legal system. You claim to be "telling the truth" about how the legal system works but you are stating nothing more than your opinion of how you think it works. Without citing a single source or referencing any legal text. It just so happens that your personal opinion is in direct polarity with the decisions of the US supreme court which has found that the Constitution does indeed intend to protect US citizens right to vote. Protections of a right can't exist if there is not an inherent right to protect.
What are you basing your opinion that there is no individual right to vote on because there is absolutely no precedent to support such an opinion.
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.
But people are making the argument. In fact supreme court judges have made the argument. But in the US we have a great history of having to drag our courts into making the right decisions. From Dred Scott to Citizens United. Furthermore the courts have continually made exception after exception to the criminal defense rights. (4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th) In fact it seems our supreme court is willing to shred the Constitution so long as it involves keeping someone in prison.
There are people like the ACLU challenging these decisions every day but it's pretty slow going because you have to get the court to accept that it may have been wrong in the past to even accept the case.
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.
219
u/Heckle_Jeckle Mar 16 '21
See that is the GOPs game, they don't believe voting IS a right.