Quoting the 14th Amendment to rebut an argument made under the 15th Amendment is like blaming the Iraq War for 9/11. They may be related, but you’ve got the timeline a little skewed.
It’s true that you should try to read constitutional amendments consistently with each other, but later amendments can, of course, overrule prior versions by implication. Merely pointing to an earlier amendment as evidence is insufficient to rebut an argument made under a later amendment. (Which is not the say the 15th Amendment makes felony disenfranchisement unconstitutional, but simply that you can’t rebut that argument solely by citing a prior version of the Constitution.)
I can certainly quote the Fourteenth Amendment since it directly applies to this point - this is in the current Constitution, not a “prior” one. I have seen nothing indicating that this clause has been superseded - perhaps if you have case law or some other cite you can link to it.
You know how you can tell when one part of the Constitution has been superseded? Congress amends it!
The Fifteenth was a response to the failures of the Fourteenth when it came to voting rights. Again, that doesn’t mean this particular voting rights argument is correct, but it does mean that merely citing the Fourteenth is insufficient.
Mr Moto, you can’t point to a provision of the Fourteenth Amendment and say that it rebuts the Fifteenth Amendment. At most, you can say that the two are to be read together, in pari materia, giving full effect to each to the extent that they can be harmonized. But if they are contradictory, then the Fifteenth Amendment’s provisions would be controlling.
Now, this has nothing to do with the OP’s argument, which is defeated by simply pointing out that imprisonment has never been considered “involuntary servitude” or servitude at all within the meaning of the Fifteenth Amendment, and there is no dearth of caselaw upholding the constitutionality of statutes requiring felons to petition for restoration of their voting rights.
Agreed. The argument under the Fifteenth would have to be based on the racially disparate effect of such laws, an argument which is also almost certainly foreclosed by existing precedent on disparate impact suits.
That clause is certainly overruled by the 15th. Were it not, then a state could deny the vote to black people, and the effect would only be a reduction in Congressional representation (per that clause). The 15th clearly overrules that by saying that there is to be no denial of suffrage on the basis of race.
