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.
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.
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:
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.
My god. You’re unbelieveable. From the easiest sourceon the internet:
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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?