It would seem to me that the right to move around the country freely would be covered under the 9th amendment. Has any court ever ruled on a right to travel?
People are legal citizens shouldn’t be taxed without representation.
The most prominent examples of this are states with income tax and property taxes.
If I own a house in a town and rent it out that town taxes me yet I don’t get a vote but my tenant does.
If I work in a state with an income tax I pay a tax there even thought I don’t get a vote there.
Hi, duffer.
At worst, one needs simply to conclude that Jefferson didn’t mean what he said. Obviously rights can be taken away (as when one is convicted of certain felonies) or given away (as when you join the military and agree to obey orders on where to deploy whether you like it or not).
Even the rights of “life, liberty, and the purfuit of happineff” can be taken away. We execute and lock up criminals all the time.
At best, Jefferson meant that these rights could not be taken away just because the government felt like it, and from citizens who had not been convicted of any crime. The government can kill a felon or lock him up, but cannot deny blacks the right to vote (on principle).
Yes, it’s taxation without representation. But the lack of representation is a consequence of punishment, and is not being imposed on those who committed no crime.
You are correct that home ownership is not a right enumerated in the Constitution, and therefore is not subject to the specific protection of the federal government. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist as a right - it means that the federal government bears no specific duty to protect and defend the right. And so what the federal government should do about the right to own a home is nothing. They need to do nothing either to interfere with, nor to ensure, the right to home ownership.
The feds can act based on other, enumerated rights. If somebody breaks into your house and robs you, and the police ignore it, they can act to force the police to investigate because you are being denied the equal protection of the law (against burglary). If the government passes a law imposing a special 250% tax on duffer, that is verboten because it is a billl of attainder. But paying taxes isn’t aimed at you specifically, and isn’t a punishment for anything. So tax law isn’t a bill of attainder and isn’t denying you equal protection.
Denying people on probation the right to vote is likewise not a bill of attainder, nor a denial of equal protection. Because it isn’t aimed just at one person/legal entity, and is only imposed after due process of law.
Regards,
Shodan
“No taxation without representation” was a revolutionary political slogan, not a rule of law. In a court, you might as well cite “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity!” or “Peace, Bread, All Power to the Soviets!” as this.
And, as a political slogan, it was not associated with a universal franchise. Those who uttered this slogan had no qualms about the application of gender, age, racial, property, citizenship, tax liability and other qualifications to determine who could vote and who could not. Over time the US has removed qualifications depending on race, gender, tax liability and property (sometimes through a constitutional amendment and sometimes through other means) but retains qualifications based on age, citizenship status and of course offender status.
It’s not at all clear why the slogan “no taxation without representation” should be understood to rule out some voting qualifications but not others. The better view, I think, is that the slogan applied at the level of the community, not the individual. Taxes could only legitimately be levelled within a particular community if they were approved by the representatives of the community. The question of how those representatives were chosen was not addressed, but it certainly did not need to be by universal adult suffrage. However they were chosen, they represented the community at large, not just the electors. Consequently even a child, a felon, a woman, a black person, a resident alien or anyone else without a vote was represented, and could be taxed.
I lived in and was born in the USA, but now reside in the Dominican Republic. I go down to the American embassy and vote in federal elections only since I am not a resident of any state.
Although, curiously, if you lived in Puerto Rico or one of a number of other US territories you would not be allowed to vote in US federal elections.
That’s a fun question. The only clause in the 1st I can see is “to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”. Has anyone been prohibited from sending their Congressman a letter? The 3rd seems pretty solid as well.
Once you recognise more than one right, there’s always a possibility that two or more rights may be in tension, and one may have to be restricted in order to vindicate the other. So, in general, the answer is that there can be no absolute rights, unless there is only one right.
The right to petition the Goverment for a redress of grievances can certainly be restricted, as you will discover if you attempt to enter on the floor of the US Senate while it is in session in order to set out your grievances and to ask for redress.
As for the third amendment, it provides for its own restriction - if there is a war on, the law can provide for soldiers to be quarterd in your house without your consent.
Moving from state to state is a civil right also, which is why, in 1972, the Supreme Court struck down residency requirements that weren’t administratively necessary. A state can require registration 30 days in advance because it needs time to print new poll books, but it can’t require a year of a residency because it only wants true Tennesseans to vote (the case was against Tennessee).