# CNN doesn't like the US 1st amendment **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [June 22, 2014, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cnn-doesnt-like-the-us-1st-amendment/691392 "2014-06-22T21:59:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2014, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cnn-doesnt-like-the-us-1st-amendment/691392/141 "2014-06-26T03:35:12Z")
> [@UncaThomas](#): > > See the difference yet? Nope. In looking over the Constitution, I can only see 4 places where a right can be seen to be explicitly conveyed: amendments III, IV, VI and VII. Nowhere does it explicitly state a right to free speech, or freedom of religion, or even a right to have a gun: all these and many others are, by your standard, implicit (typically written in the manner of a constraint upon the government). Basically, you are completely full of shit on this matter. ---
**Author:** ![WWhiskey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f9ae1b/32.png) [@WWhiskey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WWhiskey)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2014, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cnn-doesnt-like-the-us-1st-amendment/691392/142 "2014-06-26T03:49:30Z")
> [@eschereal](#): > > Nope. In looking over the Constitution, I can only see 4 places where a right can be seen to be explicitly conveyed: amendments III, IV, VI and VII. Nowhere does it explicitly state a right to free speech, or freedom of religion, or even a right to have a gun: all these and many others are, by your standard, implicit (typically written in the manner of a constraint upon the government). > > Basically, you are completely full of shit on this matter. Right to keep and bear arms the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. It says right there, the right to keep and bear arms So take your statement, “or even the right to have a gun” and rethink that for a minute the second amendment is titled, The right to keep and bear arms, wow! Besides the fact that you forgot, all rights not covered here belong to the people and or the state, ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2014, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cnn-doesnt-like-the-us-1st-amendment/691392/143 "2014-06-26T04:05:07Z")
> [@WWhiskey](#): > > Right to keep and bear arms > > the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. > > It says right there, the right to keep and bear arms > So take your statement, “or even the right to have a gun” and rethink that for a minute the second amendment is titled, The right to keep and bear arms, wow! Nope, sorry, not seeing any way in which that is more explicit than the right expressed in the amendments related to voting. Oh, and in the interest of being a nuisance, please describe [where you see a “title”](http://www.angelfire.com/nb/thelegalconn/Const/TLC_The_Bill_of_Rights.jpg) (be aware that the text you are looking for is the fourth article). ---
**Author:** ![WWhiskey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f9ae1b/32.png) [@WWhiskey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WWhiskey)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2014, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cnn-doesnt-like-the-us-1st-amendment/691392/144 "2014-06-26T04:27:43Z")
Explicit Definition > **[Yahoo Search - Web Search](https://search.yahoo.com/)** > > The search engine that helps you find exactly what you're looking for. Find the most relevant information, video, images, and answers from all across the Web. adj. adjective Fully and clearly expressed; leaving nothing implied. Fully and clearly defined or formulated. Forthright and unreserved in expression. They were explicit in their criticism. Synonyms categorical - definite - express - specific Implicit Definition > **[Yahoo Search - Web Search](https://search.yahoo.com/)** > > The search engine that helps you find exactly what you're looking for. Find the most relevant information, video, images, and answers from all across the Web. adj. adjective Implied or understood though not directly expressed. an implicit agreement not to raise the touchy subject. Contained in the nature of something though not readily apparent. Having no doubts or reservations; unquestioning. implicit trust. The right to keep and bear arms is explicit , it is an explicit statement, The more implicit part of the same is the preamble , A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, It implies that guns in the hands of the people are a necessary part of the security of a nation, then it goes on and explicitly explains, the rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed ---
**Author:** ![OurLordPeace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/e8c25b/32.png) [@OurLordPeace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OurLordPeace)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2014, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cnn-doesnt-like-the-us-1st-amendment/691392/145 "2014-06-26T13:40:46Z")
> [@UncaThomas](#): > > It’s not a question of privilege at all. It’s a question of opportunity. All citizens of the US are privileged to have the opportunity to become whatever they choose to become. > > It’s a country where anyone willing to work for it can do well. It’s a country where a black kid can grow up to be a multimillionaire sports star, top trial lawyer, famous neurosurgeon or even President of the United States. Kids of any color or background and aspire to and achieve those same goals if they pursue them. This is false, and an extremely pernicious myth. The United States has lower social mobility than most, if not all other comparable societies. A rather strong class system has always been present, but has really solidified since the dawning of the neoliberal era around 1980 or 1981. > [@](#): > > Cite? [Here are Florida GOPers, admitting it.](http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/11/26/1234171/florida-republicans-admit-voter-suppression-was-the-goal-of-new-election-laws/) > [@](#): > > Funny then that a majority of Democrats support Voter ID to keep the ineligible from voting. It’s in various polls; here’s one. > > [Public Opinion on Voter ID Laws: Strong Support, Shaky Foundation | HuffPost Latest News](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-c-wilson/public-opinion-on-voter-i_b_1683873.html) Indeed, and they don’t know any better. This stems from privilege. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2014, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cnn-doesnt-like-the-us-1st-amendment/691392/146 "2014-06-26T13:48:54Z")
> [@UncaThomas](#): > > Well 177 were convicted with more awaiting trial. Are we supposed to accept this on faith? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2014, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cnn-doesnt-like-the-us-1st-amendment/691392/147 "2014-06-26T13:50:46Z")
> [@WWhiskey](#): > > Most likely, the opposite would be true, having to obtain an ID would be another step toward voting rather than a one day deal, so long as they aren’t cost prohibitive , it would also be an easy way to prove if someone actually was disenfranchised, voting information could more easily be found as well as locations yet what you actually did in the voting booth would still only be known to you. > IDs could be issued during the census upon request of those who otherwise couldn’t afford to make an extra trip to town. How does requiring ID make it easier to prove if someone was disenfranchised? ---
**Author:** ![El\_Kabong](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/el_kabong/32/496_2.png) [@El\_Kabong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Kabong)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2014, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cnn-doesnt-like-the-us-1st-amendment/691392/148 "2014-06-26T14:14:49Z")
> [@UncaThomas](#): > > You’ll find these and more at: [High Pagerank Domains for Sale](http://www.electionintegritywatch.com/be-informed/news-stories/) Thanks. I will set aside the fact that the site seems to be the output of a coalition of right-wing groups, and assume (rightly or not) that all the content is legit. The first thing I notice, however, is that the majority of the headlines, and several of your references, describe cases where people have been prosecuted for attempted vote fraud. It would seem, therefore, that the system seems to be working, at least to some extent. So why the urgency for voter ID again? Regarding the WaPo poll, yes, 70-some-odd percent were in favor of voter ID, but it must be noted that nearly as many of those polled considered potential voter suppression a significant an issue as they did vote fraud (41 vs 49%). As for O’Keefe, he’s a proven liar and fraud. If what you want to convince me is that you have a fairly weak argument, by all means keep trotting him out. Just so we’re clear, I don’t have any major personal problem with voter ID tied to a national ID. It should be free to all, it should be easy, logistically, to get (no lengthy trips to the nearest issuing agency) and should not require a signficant expense (for persons below the poverty line) to obtain the supporting documentation required. The problem with many of the voter ID initiatives I’ve heard about so far is that they seem to be heavily biased against the economically disadvantaged. Unless this issue is addressed in a satisfactory way, I will not support them. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Miskatonic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mr.miskatonic/32/310_2.png) [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2014, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cnn-doesnt-like-the-us-1st-amendment/691392/149 "2014-06-26T14:32:31Z")
> [@UncaThomas](#): > > She is just ONE of the ones that got caught and rightly so. You support her imprisonment don’t you?\ Yes. She committed a crime. But just because one single person gets mugged in a neighborhood does not make it a crime ridden neighborhood. BTW, nice ‘do you still beat your wife’ question, asshole. > [@](#): > > You want more examples? [High Pagerank Domains for Sale](http://www.electionintegritywatch.com/be-informed/news-stories/) And yet when the GOP screamed the most the percentages were just not there. In Wisconsin 3 million votes were cast and all of 20 were fraudulent. Hell the GOP in Alabama tried to pay people to catch voter fraud and came up with nothing. > [@](#): > > Exactly. Proof of just how easy it is to get a ballot without being the person you say you are. Getting a ballot does not equal casting a vote. had O’Keefe used that ballot there are a host of ways he could have been nailed for voter fraud. > [@](#): > > There’s no proof either way on whether or not he could have cast a ballot. He may have been able, he may not have been able. He didn’t try, so all he has is a piece of paper. O’Keefe _might_ have gotten away with trying voter fraud by using that ballot but the moment the real guy comes in wanting his ballot it will fall apart. You might get away with a couple of votes here and there ( a lot of the examples in your link above are people voting for their wives and kids) but it hardly matters much. The > [@](#): > > But why should he get a ballot by impersonating someone else in the first place? Shouldn’t our system catch people like that BEFORE they even get a ballot? If the price is greatly increasing the difficulty of people completing the voting process then I disagree. ---
**Author:** ![Great\_Antibob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Great\_Antibob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Great_Antibob)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2014, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cnn-doesnt-like-the-us-1st-amendment/691392/150 "2014-06-26T14:32:52Z")
> [@El\_Kabong](#): > > Just so we’re clear, I don’t have any major personal problem with voter ID tied to a national ID. Aye, there’s the rub. Leaving aside that a good portion of any voter fraud controversy is heavily partisan in nature, there’s a significant overlap between people who want voter ID and don’t want a national ID system. It’d be interesting to see which impulse wins out. The cheap cop-out, of course, is that state issued IDs should be enough. Of course, those often have the problems you mention for the poor - cost issues, logistics in getting to the nearest issuing agency, issues around supporting documentation, etc. Texas is a fairly good example of that already, where millions of eligible Texas voters were essentially disenfranchised for, at best, a handful of potential cases of voter fraud. Seems like a crummy tradeoff. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2014, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cnn-doesnt-like-the-us-1st-amendment/691392/151 "2014-06-26T16:18:48Z")
> [@UncaThomas](#): > > You’ll find these and more at: [High Pagerank Domains for Sale](http://www.electionintegritywatch.com/be-informed/news-stories/) > > But here you go. > > Franken/Coleman: Book, Who’s Counting John Fund & Hans von Spakovsky Spakovsky? Buahahahahahahaha!!! Why don’t you just cite the Weekly World News? ---
**Author:** ![42fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/4/b487fb/32.png) [@42fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/42fish)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2014, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cnn-doesnt-like-the-us-1st-amendment/691392/152 "2014-06-26T19:37:44Z")
> [@El\_Kabong](#): > > The problem with many of the voter ID initiatives I’ve heard about so far is that they seem to be heavily biased against the economically disadvantaged. Of course, as you no doubt realize, to the people proposing the initiatives, that’s a feature, not a bug. ---
**Author:** ![El\_Kabong](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/el_kabong/32/496_2.png) [@El\_Kabong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Kabong)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2014, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cnn-doesnt-like-the-us-1st-amendment/691392/153 "2014-06-26T20:18:02Z")
> [@42fish](#): > > Of course, as you no doubt realize, to the people proposing the initiatives, that’s a feature, not a bug. Sure, but I’m certain the guy I was talking to would not want that to happen but is purely concerned with the disruption by rampant voter fraud of the electoral process, nudge nudge wink wink. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2014, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cnn-doesnt-like-the-us-1st-amendment/691392/154 "2014-06-26T21:22:08Z")
By the way, why _not_ let felons vote? I can understand security concerns, so I can see denying the franchise during incarceration, but once released and with society presumably wanting them to rehabilitate and become productive responsible citizens, isn’t this important civic duty encouraging them to take an interest in the politics of their communities in a nonviolent fashion? ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2014, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cnn-doesnt-like-the-us-1st-amendment/691392/155 "2014-06-26T21:31:01Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > Spakovsky? Buahahahahahahaha!!! > > Why don’t you just cite the Weekly World News? Oh, come on. He’s just an honest, hard-working, God-fearing, true blue American who is deeply concerned that somewhere, in this great nation of ours, a brown person might be voting. . ---
**Author:** ![42fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/4/b487fb/32.png) [@42fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/42fish)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2014, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cnn-doesnt-like-the-us-1st-amendment/691392/156 "2014-06-26T23:11:00Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > Spakovsky? Buahahahahahahaha!!! > > Why don’t you just cite the Weekly World News? But they only cover voter fraud by Elvis clones and sasquatches. ---
**Author:** ![Darth\_Panda](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ee7513/32.png) [@Darth\_Panda](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darth_Panda)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2014, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cnn-doesnt-like-the-us-1st-amendment/691392/157 "2014-06-27T00:43:10Z")
> [@42fish](#): > > But they only cover voter fraud by Elvis clones and sasquatches. They probably make up a sizable share. ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2014, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cnn-doesnt-like-the-us-1st-amendment/691392/158 "2014-06-27T01:11:27Z")
Why are we denying citizenship to sasquatches? That is blatantly unfair. They were obviously born in this country, they should have the same rights as everyone else. ---
**Author:** ![UncaThomas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/c77e96/32.png) [@UncaThomas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncaThomas)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2014, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cnn-doesnt-like-the-us-1st-amendment/691392/159 "2014-06-27T02:42:16Z")
> [@eschereal](#): > > Nope. In looking over the Constitution, I can only see 4 places where a right can be seen to be explicitly conveyed: amendments III, IV, VI and VII. Nowhere does it explicitly state a right to free speech, or freedom of religion, or even a right to have a gun: all these and many others are, by your standard, implicit (typically written in the manner of a constraint upon the government). > > Basically, you are completely full of shit on this matter. Well, you forgot the 2nd. The right to vote is simply and clearly an implied right. > [@](#): > > …The U.S. Constitution mentions individual voting rights seven times—in Article I, Section 2 and in the Fourteenth, Fifteenth, Seventeenth, Nineteenth, Twenty-Fourth, and Twenty-Sixth Amendments—\*\*but none of those provisions actually grant a right to vote to U.S. citizens.\*\*34 > > Article I, Section 2 provides that, in electing members of the House of Representatives, “electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature.”35 \*\*That is, the U.S. Constitution does not provide the qualifications for voters itself but instead delegates that responsibility to the states. \*\* > > The Seventeenth Amendment has the same language for the election of U.S. Senators.36 The Fourteenth Amendment’s “Reduction in Representation” Clause provides that if a state denies the right to vote to eligible citizens (except based on participation in a rebellion or other crime), the state loses representation in its Congressional delegation.37 \*\*This clause does not provide citizens the right to vote as an explicit liberty but instead details a potential penalty states will suffer if they deny that right.\*\*38 > > The Fifteenth, Nineteenth, Twenty-Fourth, and Twenty-Sixth Amendments all speak in passive voice, providing that the right to vote “shall not be denied” according to race (Fifteenth),39 sex (Nineteenth),40 ability to pay a poll tax (Twenty-Fourth),41 or age (Twenty-Sixth).42 > > Importantly, none of these provisions declare that U.S. citizens actually enjoy the right to vote. Instead, each one delegates the determination of voting qualifications to the states or explains reasons why the government (state or federal) cannot deny the right of suffrage. \*\*It is no wonder, then, that the U.S. Supreme Court declared that “the [U.S.] Constitution ‘does not confer the right of suffrage upon any one,’ . . . and . . . ‘the right to vote, per se, is not a constitutionally protected right.’ \*\*”43… > > … **In locating the right to vote, we too often look solely at the implied right under the U.S. Constitution’s negative language and the Equal Protection Clause.** > > [Vanderbilt Law Review - Vanderbilt LawVanderbilt Law School | Vanderbilt University](http://www.vanderbiltlawreview.org/content/articles/2014/01/Douglas-67-Vand.-L.-Rev.-89.pdf) ---
**Author:** ![UncaThomas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/c77e96/32.png) [@UncaThomas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncaThomas)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2014, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cnn-doesnt-like-the-us-1st-amendment/691392/160 "2014-06-27T02:55:01Z")
> [@OurLordPeace](#): > > This is false, and an extremely pernicious myth. The United States has lower social mobility than most, if not all other comparable societies. A rather strong class system has always been present, but has really solidified since the dawning of the neoliberal era around 1980 or 1981. The simple truth is that the US affords the _opportunity_ for a good lifestyle _if you have the will to work for it_. Even at our lower levels, this lifestyle is the envy and desire of many in the world. The proof is coming in huge waves over our southern borders right now. This whole privilege nonsense is nothing more than another excuse for failing to strive. Amongst those you would classify as having no “privilege” there are many who have worked hard and enjoyed levels of success from extreme to moderate. That’s normal for any population, a bell curve if you will. If there is a solidified social mobility stemming from the “neoliberal era” it may be that our programs have removed motivation to strive for something better and settle for something at a lower level that does not require one to work. The truthful bottom line is that if a person is determined to succeed in the US, anyone can do so. If not, a person can sit on their ass, cry about “privilege”, blame everyone else and exist on the dole without working. Choice. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cnn-doesnt-like-the-us-1st-amendment/691392.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cnn-doesnt-like-the-us-1st-amendment/691392.md?page=9)