# Tea Party vs. GOP thread 2014 **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [May 6, 2014, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tea-party-vs-gop-thread-2014/687836 "2014-05-06T20:45:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2014, 12:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tea-party-vs-gop-thread-2014/687836/122 "2014-05-21T12:59:53Z")
I recognize that. What I do not recognize is that non-written rights are more sacred than the ones actually written down. There is no right to vote in the Constitution. Unlike every other right in the Constitution, whether or not you can vote depends on your qualifications. It is well established that states can decide who is and who is not a qualified voter, just so long as they don’t discriminate based on race when doing it. Democrats have revised this in their heads to mean, “the right to vote is absolute and superior to all other rights.” And before you say, “No it’s not!” explain to me why ID can be required to exercise 1st amendment rights, in the absence of a need for an ID requirement. Could it be that Democrats have nothing to gain from a loose ID standard for the 1st amendment and thus don’t care about it? While we’re talking about the Tea Party vs. GOP and how radical the Tea Party is, let’s not forget just how deeply radical the mainstream left has become on certain issues. One of those issues being the role of the Constitution, not to mention that they have treated two rights that aren’t even written down(abortion and voting) as rights that are nearly absolute. whereas every other right in the Constitution is treated as negotiable. ---
**Author:** ![MahFL](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/bbce88/32.png) [@MahFL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MahFL)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2014, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tea-party-vs-gop-thread-2014/687836/123 "2014-05-21T13:00:01Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Then prove that Republicans want to disenfranchise legitimate voters and not just prevent non-legitimate voters from voting. “the state acknowledged at the start that it knew of no cases of in-person voting fraud” So why do Republicans write these laws ?, can only be for one reason, to try make more Republicans win by stopping certain people from voting. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2014, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tea-party-vs-gop-thread-2014/687836/124 "2014-05-21T13:00:18Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > That’s one of the fundamental differences between right and left these days. The left simply does not acknowledge the rights written in the Constitution as absolute rights, yet rights that aren’t written down are sacrosanct. It’s as if the left has a “Shadow Constitution” which they regard as more legitimate than the actual Constitution. No, I simply read the ENTIRE 2nd Amendment, not the second half. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2014, 1:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tea-party-vs-gop-thread-2014/687836/125 "2014-05-21T13:02:05Z")
Where in the 1st amendment does it allow the government to make laws limiting campaign advertisements? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2014, 1:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tea-party-vs-gop-thread-2014/687836/126 "2014-05-21T13:06:09Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > There is no right to vote in the Constitution. Are you frickin’ serious? Have you read the Constitution? The 15th amendment? The 19th? 24th? 26th? Please please **PLEASE** , for the LOVE OF GOD, read over what you write before you click ‘post’. You say wrong things so frickin’ often it’s like you’re trying to. ---
**Author:** ![MahFL](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/bbce88/32.png) [@MahFL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MahFL)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2014, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tea-party-vs-gop-thread-2014/687836/127 "2014-05-21T13:07:20Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Show me someone who boarded a plane under a fake ID and then did something bad. Oh wait, that never happened. Even the 9/11 hijackers showed legitimate ID. > > Show me someone who entered a townhall without showing ID and did something bad. That never happened either. > > If you can require ID for imagined problems for exercising other rights, you can do it for something that isn’t even a right. Those things were bad, but having 0.001 % of voters perhaps voting when they should not is irrelevant, and no one dies because of it. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2014, 1:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tea-party-vs-gop-thread-2014/687836/128 "2014-05-21T13:09:05Z")
The Constitution itself tells us that rights that aren’t written down are sacrosanct. It’s just the right wing who seems to have a different version of the Constitution, one without the Ninth Amendment. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2014, 1:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tea-party-vs-gop-thread-2014/687836/129 "2014-05-21T13:09:25Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Are you frickin’ serious? Have you read the Constitution? The 15th amendment? The 19th? 24th? 26th? > > Please please **PLEASE** , for the LOVE OF GOD, read over what you write before you click ‘post’. You say wrong things so frickin’ often it’s like you’re trying to. You’re wrong. Badly wrong. Your extreme confidence in your rightness keeps on coming through but bears no relation to reality. If voting is a right, how come Canadians living in the US can’t vote? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2014, 1:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tea-party-vs-gop-thread-2014/687836/130 "2014-05-21T13:10:48Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > The Constitution itself tells us that rights that aren’t written down are sacrosanct. It’s just the right wing who seems to have a different version of the Constitution, one without the Ninth Amendment. Sure, there’s the Borks of the world, but I acknowledge the 9th amendment and support the courts finding rights in there that haven’t yet been acknowledged. What I don’t support is treating those newfound rights as greater than the ones that founders already thought of. If you can’t regulate access to abortion, then you can’t regulate campaign ads or tell people to violate their religious beliefs. For iianyii: > **[Voting rights in the United States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_rights_in_the_United_States)** > > Voting rights, specifically enfranchisement and disenfranchisement of different groups, have been a moral and political issue throughout United States history. > Eligibility to vote in the United States is governed by the United States Constitution and by federal and state laws. Several constitutional amendments (the Fifteenth, Nineteenth, and Twenty-sixth specifically) require that voting rights of U.S. citizens cannot be abridged on account of race, color, previous condition of servitude, s... The “right to vote” is not explicitly stated in the U.S. Constitution except in the above referenced amendments, and only in reference to the fact that the franchise cannot be denied or abridged based solely on the aforementioned qualifications. In other words, the “right to vote” is perhaps better understood, in layman’s terms, as only prohibiting certain forms of legal discrimination in establishing qualifications for suffrage. States may deny the “right to vote” for other reasons. That last sentence is what Democrats have decided to take issue with, and it is a truly radical position. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2014, 1:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tea-party-vs-gop-thread-2014/687836/131 "2014-05-21T13:11:48Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > You’re wrong. Badly wrong. Your extreme confidence in your rightness keeps on coming through but bears no relation to reality. > > If voting is a right, how come Canadians living in the US can’t vote? My god. You’re unbelieveable. From the [easiest source](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_vote#United_States)on the internet: > [@](#): > > 15th Amendment (1870): “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.” > 19th Amendment (1920): “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 sex.” > 23rd Amendment (1961): provides that residents of the District of Columbia can vote for the President and Vice President. > 24th Amendment (1964): “The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.” > 26th Amendment (1971): “The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.” “The right of citiziens of the United States to vote”. Over, and over, and over again. And yet you think there is no “right to vote” in the Constitution. What universe do you live in? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2014, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tea-party-vs-gop-thread-2014/687836/132 "2014-05-21T13:13:34Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > The “right to vote” is not explicitly stated in the U.S. Constitution except in the above referenced amendments, and only in reference to the fact that the franchise cannot be denied or abridged based solely on the aforementioned qualifications. In other words, the “right to vote” is perhaps better understood, in layman’s terms, as only prohibiting certain forms of legal discrimination in establishing qualifications for suffrage. States may deny the “right to vote” for other reasons. ROTFLMAO. Still laughing. Hold on… still laughing. Okay. My breath is caught. You’re seriously saying ‘the right to vote is not explicitly stated in the US Constitution **except in the amendments which discuss the right to vote** ’… and you think this is an argument _for your position_? ---
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2014, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tea-party-vs-gop-thread-2014/687836/133 "2014-05-21T13:14:20Z")
To go all back in the past and shit: Adaher, you just got royally pwned. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2014, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tea-party-vs-gop-thread-2014/687836/134 "2014-05-21T13:22:20Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > ROTFLMAO. Still laughing. Hold on… still laughing. > > Okay. My breath is caught. You’re seriously saying ‘the right to vote is not explicitly stated in the US Constitution **except in the amendments which discuss the right to vote** ’… and you think this is an argument _for your position_? All those amendments say is that the states cannot abridge the right to vote for THOSE REASONS. They can do it for any other reason they choose. While the writers of those amendments may have chosen to use the word “right”, it’s still an unusual use of the term given that the government can restrict this right for any reason, so long as it isn’t based on race, sex, or age? The logic here is simple: foreigners can’t vote. Therefore, voting isn’t a right. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2014, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tea-party-vs-gop-thread-2014/687836/135 "2014-05-21T13:25:39Z")
So, which of those amendments bans a photo ID requirement? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2014, 1:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tea-party-vs-gop-thread-2014/687836/136 "2014-05-21T13:30:31Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > All those amendments say is that the states cannot abridge the **right to vote** for THOSE REASONS. They can do it for any other reason they choose. While the writers of those amendments may have chosen to use the word “right”, it’s still an unusual use of the term given that the government can restrict this right for any reason, so long as it isn’t based on race, sex, or age? (bolding mine) continuous laughing… my ribs are hurting… oh thank you thank you thank you please stop oh my god it hurts so good… So the ‘right to vote’, which you **explicitly acknowledge in the above post** , does not exist in the Constitution? You are something special. > [@](#): > > The logic here is simple: foreigners can’t vote. Therefore, voting isn’t a right. Your logic is so simple it’s wrong. Whether or not non-citizens can do something has nothing to do with whether it’s a “right”, unless your definition of “right” is something really weird and nonsensical. Please stop digging. ---
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2014, 1:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tea-party-vs-gop-thread-2014/687836/137 "2014-05-21T13:34:48Z")
All people have a right to vote. Just like all people have the right to free speech, etc\*. _However_, only American citizens have a right to vote in American elections. Hope this clears up any confusion you might have on the subject, Adaher. \*Whether or not they get to express this right is another issue, dependent upon their country’s political situation. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2014, 1:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tea-party-vs-gop-thread-2014/687836/138 "2014-05-21T13:36:49Z")
Then it’s not a right. This word “right”, it doesn’t mean what you think it means. A right is something the government cannot take away from you without due process of law. The voting right is one that can be denied simply because a state legislature says so, as long as they don’t do it in a discriminatory fashion. Johnt, what your argument essentially amounts to is, “Apples are Apples, and apples are also oranges.” ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2014, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tea-party-vs-gop-thread-2014/687836/139 "2014-05-21T13:38:05Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Then it’s not a right. This word “right”, it doesn’t mean what you think it means. A right is something the government cannot take away from you without due process of law. The voting right is one that can be denied simply because a state legislature says so, as long as they don’t do it in a discriminatory fashion. I think I’ll go with the US Constitution’s usage of the word over often-wrong **adaher** ’s usage. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2014, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tea-party-vs-gop-thread-2014/687836/140 "2014-05-21T13:39:27Z")
> **[PolitiFact - U.S. Constitution is not explicit on the right to vote,...](https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2013/may/30/mark-pocan/us-constitution-not-explicit-right-vote-wisconsin-/)** > > There was news out of the U.S. Capitol on May 13, 2013 that U.S. Rep. Mark Pocan, D-Madison, proposed to amend the Const There was news out of the U.S. Capitol on May 13, 2013 that U.S. Rep. Mark Pocan, D-Madison, proposed to amend the Constitution to … Guarantee the right to vote. Wait, what? Pocan hasn’t been in Congress even half a year. But he knows we have the right to vote, doesn’t he? In presenting his bill, which is co-sponsored by U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., Pocan said he wanted to make it more difficult for states to impose rules on voting, such as having to present a photo identification in order to cast a ballot. We won’t take up here what impact their proposed amendment might have. But Pocan gave us pause when he said on the House floor: The right to vote “is so fundamental that most Americans, understandably, assume it is already enshrined in the Constitution” – but “most Americans would be wrong.” “While the right to vote is inherent throughout our founding document, and there are amendments prohibiting discrimination, nothing in the Constitution explicitly guarantees our right to vote. We, as Americans, possess no affirmative right to vote.” Words matter, and Pocan’s claim – that “nothing in the Constitution explicitly guarantees our right to vote” – is precisely worded. So, gonna back down? ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2014, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tea-party-vs-gop-thread-2014/687836/141 "2014-05-21T13:40:20Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Then it’s not a right. This word “right”, it doesn’t mean what you think it means. A right is something the government cannot take away from you without due process of law. The voting right is one that can be denied simply because a state legislature says so, as long as they don’t do it in a discriminatory fashion. > > Johnt, what your argument essentially amounts to is, “Apples are Apples, and apples are also oranges.” Even if you were right, would you not agree that placing hurdles in the way of voting which you know are much harder for supporters of one party to clear would be denying a right in a discrimininatory fashion? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tea-party-vs-gop-thread-2014/687836.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tea-party-vs-gop-thread-2014/687836.md?page=8)