View Single Post
  #5  
Old 09-08-2018, 12:19 AM
Lord Feldon's Avatar
Lord Feldon Lord Feldon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Central Ohio
Posts: 5,929
FWIW I think there was probably a point at which the Supreme Court would have agreed that the 14th Amendment didn't ban states from basing entitlement to vote on race. Minor v. Happersett in 1875 was about the right of women to vote, but it mentioned the adoption of the 15th Amendment:

Quote:
The Fourteenth Amendment had already provided that no state should make or enforce any law which should abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. If suffrage was one of these privileges or immunities, why amend the Constitution to prevent its being denied on account of race &c.? Nothing is more evident than that the greater must include the less, and if all were already protected, why go through with the form of amending the Constitution to protect a part?

Last edited by Lord Feldon; 09-08-2018 at 12:21 AM.