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,
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” (be aware that the text you are looking for is the fourth article).
Explicit Definition
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
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
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.
Here are Florida GOPers, admitting it.
Indeed, and they don’t know any better. This stems from privilege.
Are we supposed to accept this on faith?
How does requiring ID make it easier to prove if someone was disenfranchised?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
If the price is greatly increasing the difficulty of people completing the voting process then I disagree.
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.
Spakovsky? Buahahahahahahaha!!!
Why don’t you just cite the Weekly World News?
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.
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?
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.
.
But they only cover voter fraud by Elvis clones and sasquatches.
They probably make up a sizable share.
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.
Well, you forgot the 2nd.
The right to vote is simply and clearly an implied right.
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.
