Is there a right to vote?

[Stinger]

If you think so then where is it in the Constitution? Dems are still fuming because if you tally the vote totals from the Bush/Gore voting Gore got more votes (some mistakenly think that was a popular vote which it was not) and that our so-called right to vote and have that vote counted was violated because the person who got the "majority" didn't win.

And should everyone be allowed or encouraged to vote at all? Is it in the best interest of the country to get as many people to vote as possible just for the shear numbers, knowing that half don't have a clue as to the issues or candidates?

 

[Jerry]

If you think so then where is it in the Constitution?

Amendment 15;

Section. 1. 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.

Section. 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Democrats are still fuming because if you tally the vote totals from the Bush/Gore voting Gore got more votes (some mistakenly think that was a popular vote which it was not) and that our so-called right to vote and have that vote counted was violated because the person who got the "majority" didn't win.

Music, sweet music.

Hay, if they knew how to play the Zoning-Law game better than they could have won.

And should everyone be allowed or encouraged to vote at all?

Provided they are a citizen of legal age, yes.

Is it in the best interest of the country to get as many people to vote as possible just for the shear numbers, knowing that half don't have a clue as to the issues or candidates?

Then the goal should be to educate the people, not restrict their rights.

 

[Stinger]

Amendment 15;

That only states that if a vote is allowed you cannot be denied a vote based on race. I have a right to do as everyone else is allowed to regardless of my race, that's all. It was passed in order to allow blacks and former slaves to vote but women still could not vote and no one voted for Senators, they were selected by the state legislatures (as we should return to).

Then the goal should be to educate the people, not restrict their rights.

An unattainable goal unless we start punishing people for not getting educated or we force people to watch the news and read newspapers. What if they refuse to get their free education or keep up with the issues, is it in the best interest of the country for them to vote? Why?

 

[Goobieman]

Please note that regardless of if there is the general right to vote or not, there is NO right to vote for President. The states are under absolutely NO obligation to put the decision of choosing their electors to a vote of the people.

 

[Stinger]

Please note that regardless of if there is the general right to vote or not, there is NO right to vote for President. The states are under absolutely NO obligation to put the decision of choosing their electors to a vote of the people.

Correct...............

 

[Jerry]

That only states that if a vote is allowed you cannot be denied a vote based on race.

"If a vote is allowed"?
You just made that up.

The 15th. clearly refers to a preexisting right to vote.

What if they refuse to get their free education or keep up with the issues, is it in the best interest of the country for them to vote?

Yes.

Why?

The People have a fundamental right to have a voice in their government.
As soon as you remove that right you remove the fundamental tenant of self-governance of, by and for The People.

Should people keep up on everything? Absolutely!
Force people to keep up on everything? Never!

 

[Stinger]

"If a vote is allowed"?
You just made that up.

The 15th. clearly refers to a preexisting right to vote.

Yep, back then there was no vote for Senator and not a single person voted for President and women were STILL not allowed to vote. But if it clearly refers to a preexisting right to vote then where does the constitution espouse that before the 15th?


Originally Posted by Stinger
What if they refuse to get their free education or keep up with the issues, is it in the best interest of the country for them to vote?

Yes.
The People have a fundamental right to have a voice in their government.

You have a right to petition the government and speak out about it.

As soon as you remove that right you remove the fundamental tenant of self-governance of, by and for The People.

You still don't have a right to vote for President, so it can't even be removed, so what about the fundimental tenant? Your state legislature could, tomorrow, say they would select the electors and you would not vote for them and it would be perfectly constitutional and NOT a violation of any right you have.

But again why is it in the best interest of self-governance to have uniformed stupid people vote on issues they have no knowledge of and don't care enough about to education themselves.

Should people keep up on everything? Absolutely!

What if they don't want to?

Force people to keep up on everything? Never!

So how is their voting on complicated issues in the best interest of the country?

 

[Goobieman]

"If a vote is allowed"?
You just made that up.
The 15th. clearly refers to a preexisting right to vote.

If voting is allowed.
Like "if voting is allowed"...
...for determining Presidental electors
...on state referendums
...on Constitutional amendments

There are any number of things that the people of a state may or may not be "allowed" to vote on; if they are "allowed" is determnined by state law.

If the peoplle ARE "allowed", then the 15th prohobits the state from keeping people from voting based on race.

The People have a fundamental right to have a voice in their government.
As soon as you remove that right you remove the fundamental tenant of self-governance of, by and for The People.

The People have a fundamental voice.
That does not mean they have a right to vote on everything.
In many cases, voting on something is a -privilege- granted by the state.

 

[Jerry]

Yep, back then there was no vote for Senator and not a single person voted for President and women were STILL not allowed to vote. But if it clearly refers to a preexisting right to vote then where does the constitution espouse that before the 15th?

Please stop mixing time periods. I know the difference and will not be confused.

One of the basic operations of the constitution is to form a more perfect union, so referencing a past imperfection does you no service when that imperfection has been remedied.

You asked the question "Is there a right to vote?" in the present tense, ie; today, to which the answer is "yes".

You have a right to petition the government and speak out about it.

And vote.

You still don't have a right to vote for President, so it can't even be removed, so what about the fundimental tenant? Your state legislature could, tomorrow, say they would select the electors and you would not vote for them and it would be perfectly constitutional and NOT a violation of any right you have.

If such a maneuver were attempted then I would join the inevitable movement to cure that loophole and make this Union more perfect.

But again why is it in the best interest of self-governance to have uniformed stupid people vote on issues they have no knowledge of and don't care enough about to education themselves.

Your question has a false premise.
If they didn't care then they wouldn't be voting.

Some people are far more informed on issues than others, but the radical hypothetical you now propose has not been shown to exist.

What if they don't want to?

Then they don't.

So how is their voting on complicated issues in the best interest of the country?

The People have a fundamental right to have a voice in their government.
As soon as you remove that right you remove the fundamental tenant of self-governance of, by and for The People.

 

[Jerry]

If voting is allowed.
Like "if voting is allowed"...
...for determining Presidental electors
...on state referendums
...on Constitutional amendments

There are any number of things that the people of a state may or may not be "allowed" to vote on; if they are "allowed" is determnined by state law.

If the peoplle ARE "allowed", then the 15th prohobits the state from keeping people from voting based on race.


The People have a fundamental voice.
That does not mean they have a right to vote on everything.
In many cases, voting on something is a -privilege- granted by the state.

Your entire post flies in the face of the 15th. so you are now arguing with that amendment. Good luck with that.

 

[Goobieman]

Your entire post flies in the face of the 15th. so you are now arguing with that amendment. Good luck with that.

LOL
My post -explains- how the the 15th applies to the 'right to vote'

Case in point:
Your state, according to the Constitution, has the plenary power to determon eho sits slate of Presidential electors is chosen. Currently, it -allows- you to vote on the slate of Presdiential electors, but it does not have to.

This -alone- proves that you do not have the right to vote on everything, and that sometimes you are given the privilege to vote.

Now, if your state -does- allow you to vote on the slate of presidential electors, it cannot bar anyone that privilege based on their race.

Replace "the slate of Presidental electors" with just about anything you want, and you'll get the point. Maybe.

 

[Jerry]

LOL
My post -explains- how the the 15th applies to the 'right to vote'

Case in point:
Your state, according to the Constitution, has the plenary power to determon eho sits slate of Presidential electors is chosen. Currently, it -allows- you to vote on the slate of Presdiential electors, but it does not have to.

This -alone- proves that you do not have the right to vote on everything, and that sometimes you are given the privilege to vote.

Now, if your state -does- allow you to vote on the slate of presidential electors, it cannot bar anyone that privilege based on their race.

Replace "the slate of Presidental electors" with just about anything you want, and you'll get the point. Maybe.

You’re trying to change the subject.

The thread's question is "Is there a right to vote?" not "Is there a right to vote on everything?".

I have already acknowledged that the legal loophole you speak of exists, so you have no argument against me in your last post.

If my state tries to bar me from voting I join a class action lawsuit, invoke the 15th and we go to court while our politicians figure out how to milk the issue for votes.

 

[Goobieman]

The thread's question is "Is there a right to vote?" not "Is there a right to vote on everything?".

"Is there a right to vote" is all-encompassing. It is indeed asking "is there a right to vote on everything".
The answer to that is a resounding "no".

I have already acknowledged that the legal loophole you speak of exists, so you have no argument against me in your last post.

My 'legal loophole' is nothing but an explanation of how the 15th applies.
IF there is a vote on X, then people cannot be excluded because of race.
This does not mean there MUST be a vote on X. The state (usually) decides on what is voted on and what is not.

If my state tries to bar me from voting I join a class action lawsuit, invoke the 15th and we go to court while our politicians figure out how to milk the issue for votes.

And depending on what the vote is over, you'll lose.
If the state decides to seat its electors on a coin toss rather than a popular vote, you wont have a leg to stand on.

 

[Jerry]

From Beyond the Voting Rights Act:

[snip]

As a result, voting is not a right, but a privilege granted or withheld at the discretion of local and state governments.

Yes, our Constitution explicitly prohibits discrimination in granting the franchise based on a person's race, sex, or (adult) age via the 15th, 19th, and 26th Amendments, but those protections are like a house with no foundation. States and other governments can and do disenfranchise individuals and groups of citizens, and so long as they do it without provable bias, it's entirely legal.

Washington, D.C. residents are not the only victims. Without an affirmative right to vote, Americans repeatedly are disenfranchised or otherwise deprived of their political voice and denied a legal basis for retrieving it.

[snip]

For the casual reader: The Voting Rights Act Of 1965

....which makes me understand all the hype over Bush not getting the majority vote even less....it's like, "so what folks, it was all a show anyway. Your favorite Idol didn't win? Too bad. Simon didn't have to let you vote anyway."

 

[Jerry]

"Is there a right to vote" is all-encompassing. It is indeed asking "is there a right to vote on everything".
The answer to that is a resounding "no".


My 'legal loophole' is nothing but an explanation of how the 15th applies.
IF there is a vote on X, then people cannot be excluded because of race.
This does not mean there MUST be a vote on X. The state (usually) decides on what is voted on and what is not.


And depending on what the vote is over, you'll lose.
If the state decides to seat its electors on a coin toss rather than a popular vote, you wont have a leg to stand on.

Hence my support for the voting rights amendment.

 

[Goobieman]

Hence my support for the voting rights amendment.

IF there is a vote on X, then people cannot be excluded because of race, gender, etc.
This does not mean there MUST be a vote on X.
What's wrong with that?

 

[Jerry]

IF there is a vote on X, then people cannot be excluded because of race, gender, etc.
This does not mean there MUST be a vote on X.
What's wrong with that?

Apparently the authority of "We The People" is not represented, and that needs to be fixed.

Regardless of the law or the issue, I'm a big fan of logical consistency, so either eliminate the fundamental notion of self-governance or establish that the people who are governing themselves have a voice to do so.

 

[Goobieman]

Apparently the authority of "We The People" is not represented, and that needs to be fixed.

Wrong.
The US is set up as a representative republic.
You are represented by your elected legislators, both at the federal, state and local levels.
Your "voice" is your vote for those representatives.

 

[Jerry]

Wrong.
The US is set up as a representative republic.
You are represented by your elected legislators, both at the federal, state and local levels.
Your "voice" is your vote for those representatives.

That's what I'm talkin about though, the right to vote on our representatives, not every little law that comes along.

IMO the President is a representative, so The People should vote on that.

 

[Goobieman]

That's what I'm talkin about though, the right to vote on our officials, not every little law that comes along.

Ok...
And so, when has anyone been denied a vote for their represenatives or senators, at the state or federal level? How is this an issue?

IMO the President is a representative, so The People should vote on that.

He isn't. He is the head of government and the head of state.
Congress is your representative in the Federal gvmnt.

 

[Jerry]

Ok...
And so, when has anyone been denied a vote for their represenatives or senators, at the state or federal level? How is this an issue?

You have made the case that voting is not a right, and I concede that argument to you, but I hold that voting need to be established as a right.

He isn't. he is th ehead of government and the head of state.
Congress is your representative in the Federal gvmnt.

That's like arguing that I shouldn't be able to vote on the Governor of my state.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on that point.

 

[Goobieman]

We'll just have to agree to disagree on that point.

That's fine - but I'd love to hear your argument as to how -within the US government- the President is the representative of the people.

 

[Stinger]

Apparently the authority of "We The People" is not represented, and that needs to be fixed.

Regardless of the law or the issue, I'm a big fan of logical consistency, so either eliminate the fundamental notion of self-governance or establish that the people who are governing themselves have a voice to do so.

We are a federal republic, do you know what that means?

 

[Stinger]

You have made the case that voting is not a right, and I concede that argument to you, but I hold that voting need to be established as a right.

So you would prefer a democracy over a republic?

That's like arguing that I shouldn't be able to vote on the Governor of my state.

If your state legislature voted to change it so they selected him you wouldn't.

 

[Jerry]

We've fulfilled the scope of the thread and I'm not prepared to go further.

I'm out :2wave: