Should women have the right to vote?

[A18]

Women do not have the constitutional right to vote, nor does anyone else, thankfully.

I fully agree with the fine senator from Georgia.

[A18]

The 19th amendment does not give women the right to vote.

[A18]

The amendment mandates that no citizen be denied the right to vote on account of sex, but it does not mandate that any citizen be given the right to vote on account of sex.

[A18]

No it's not.

If Iowa wants to require that every citizen own 1/5 of an acre of land to vote, it can do that. According to your logic, it wouldn't be able to do that, because women you say have the unconditional right to vote.

[A18]

That is not a constitutional right. It is a state-granted right, and the Constitution is defining a criteria that can not be used for granting that right.

[A18]

No it's not.

If Iowa wants to require that every citizen own 1/5 of an acre of land to vote, it can do that. According to your logic, it wouldn't be able to do that, because women you say have the unconditional right to vote.

Well since it passed narrowly in the Senate, the 19th amendment really gives women the right to vote. Now yourself being a Constitutionalist you probably have some way to disprove this, but I don't like to argue the Constituion so I will stop right now.

What I'm saying is, they can't be denied the right to vote on the basis of their sex, just like men can't, but they can be denied the right to vote based on other things, as long as those limitations also apply to men. So, crime, age, etc.

[A18]

That is not a constitutional right. It is a state-granted right, and the Constitution is defining a criteria that can not be used for granting that right.

There are federal elections, you know. And being under federal jurisdiction, the right to vote would be federal.

Congress can impose uniform voting standards for federal elections, yes, but then it's a congressional right, not a constitutional right.

The Constitution never gives anyone the right to vote for anything. It only lays out standards that can not be used in determining the right to vote.

[A18]

By that logic, there was no need for a 19th amendment, because the 15th amendment also mentioned the right to vote.

Gabu, John: do four year old citizens have the right to vote, then?

[A18]

Hell, actually the 14th also mentions the right to vote.

And yet, it goes on to specifically say what happens when that right to vote is denied for any reason other than crime: those people are excluded from apportionment.

So clearly, mentioning the "right to vote" does not confer universal suffrage upon the general citizenry.

[A18]

By that logic, there was no need for a 19th amendment, because the 15th amendment also mentioned the right to vote.

Gabu, John: do four year old citizens have the right to vote, then?

The states can grant the right to those less than 18 years of age, however the constition specifically states the right can not be abridged for those 18 and over on that basis. The right to vote exists inherently, at least as I see it implied in the constitutiona.. It can still be abridged on the account of age below 18, as I also view as implied by the constitution(otherwise why would they specify an age?).

It didn't specify age until the 14th amendment, and as I said, even then it only handed out a specific process by which the population for census/redistricting purposes was to be reduced (it did not ban the practice of denying the right to vote).

And yes, the key words there are "on the basis." You can deny someone over 18 the right to vote on account of, for example, crime.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Correct. Nobody has the constitutional right to vote. That's all I was saying.

[A18]

Which, BTW, is why my first post said:

Women do not have the constitutional right to vote, nor does anyone else, thankfully.

[A18]

No, because unlike voting, the right to bear arms is actually in the Constitution.

You decided to take one example of something you can deny people the right to vote over, and say that you can deny people the right to do all kinds of things over that, which is true but irrelevant.

Comparison would be if it said: "No one over the age of 18 shall be denied the right to bear arms on account of age." In that case, there would be no constitutional right to bear arms. You could ban all guns, or make people pass a test, etc., but you couldn't use, say, a 19 year old's age to disqualify him.

[A18]

Mentioned, not granted.

"No one over the age of 18 shall be denied the right to bear arms on account of age."

That grants no one the right to bear arms.

[A18]

No, because unlike voting, the right to bear arms is actually in the Constitution.

You decided to take one example of something you can deny people the right to vote over, and say that you can deny people the right to do all kinds of things over that, which is true but irrelevant.

Comparison would be if it said: "No one over the age of 18 shall be denied the right to bear arms on account of age." In that case, there would be no constitutional right to bear arms. You could ban all guns, or make people pass a test, etc., but you couldn't use, say, a 19 year old's age to disqualify him.

So it's okay to be fascists as long as the states retain their rights?

*Why don't we just bring back slavery. Better yet lets take the voting rights away from everyone and only let the richest and most influential corporations vote. One vote per corporation. Now that's freedom of speech. We can have a fascist aristocracy. That's my dream for the future.

*Im not serious. Power to the people. I'm Rick James biatch. Control yourself.

A state could certainly do that, constitutionally (on the voting, not slavery).

[A18]

As in, (A) a legislature justifying its action purely by the fact that it does not violate the Constitution, and (B) circumventing other measures of the Constitution by this means, saying the enumerated powers no longer matter.

If you think the Constitution implied a right to vote, you're a ing idiot, because universal suffrage did not exist in even the most remote form at the time of the revolution. Go read a basic history text book, and then we'll talk.

[A18]

By making a consensus-based opinion a legal provision of the Constitution.

[A18]

Male landowners would be ideal if we want to maintain a laissez-faire, classical liberal state.

[A18]

It is a principle being conveyed. The idea of people being able to legally buy guns is the "right to bear arms." The "right to health care" is the legal obligation of the governemnt to provide for your health.

Thus, simplying mentioning a "right" does not mean it has been recognized as a universal, fundamental legal provision of the Constitution that can not be infringed upon.

"The right of every child to health care shall not be infringed" grants every child the right to health care.

Why are you incapable of understanding basic English?

[A18]

I don't like their support for socialism.

[A18]

Hahahahaha. That's hilarious. You ACTUALLY think the founders supported universal suffrage? Look up Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton.

Better yet, look up some of the voting laws in place at the time.

There is no right to vote against other people's liberty and property. Democracy is a complete joke, and I don't care about it.

[A18]

Slavery is irrelevant. If you consider all white, landowning males over the age of 21 being able to vote "universal suffrage," I guess you can call Jefferson a universal suffragist.

The word freedom appears not once in the original text of the Constitution, and only once in the Bill of Rights, in relation to free speech.

The word "equal" appears only as a mathematical value, and part of the 14th amendment, which did not confer upon the population universal suffrage, as is easily seen in the fact that it actually provides for subtracting disenfranchised voters from the census data for redistricting purposes. If such a ridiculous notion of "equal protection" were to be upheld, two year olds would have the right to vote, as arguably would illegal immigrants.

[A18]

The point is, it's a legal principle being made part of the Constitution. The "right to health care" is a simple idea being conveyed.

The legal ability to get health care can not be denied. Or in this case, the legal ability to vote can not be denied ON ACCOUNT OF. This does not mean the ability is universal.

Would you have no problem with repealing the second amendment?

It's hard to see how anyone could actually argue that the mere mention of the 'right to vote' would confer universal suffrage upon the population, when the 14th amendment itself does so while containing provisions for handling the counting of the disenfranchised, and when the 15th, 19th, and 26th amendments were all passed later.

[A18]

Slavery is irrelevant. If you consider all white, landowning males over the age of 21 being able to vote "universal suffrage," I guess you can call Jefferson a universal suffragist.

The word freedom appears not once in the original text of the Constitution, and only once in the Bill of Rights, in relation to free speech.

The word "equal" appears only as a mathematical value, and part of the 14th amendment, which did not confer upon the population universal suffrage, as is easily seen in the fact that it actually provides for subtracting disenfranchised voters from the census data for redistricting purposes. If such a ridiculous notion of "equal protection" were to be upheld, two year olds would have the right to vote, as arguably would illegal immigrants.

We broke away from England saying that all Men are created equal in the Declaration of Independence. Besides that, people's views evolve over time and the founders knew that, that's why we have the power to amend the Constitution. Maybe we should amend it to say that all people have the right to vote. Then, for people who don't understand the principles for which this country stands for and don't automatically assume that all people have the right to voice their opinion will have it written down on paper.

Well, if you believe in democracy, we better repeal the Bill of Rights, kill of judicial review, etc.

As for me, I'm more concerned with freedom.

People can express their point of view, but voting is about enforcing it.

[A18]

A 'right' to vote is just a legal ability. You can't deny someone the legal ability to vote on account of [banned factor].

Again, why do so many amendments mention it, if just mentioning it mean it's a universal, constitutional right?

[A18]

No, I'm just saying it's not a constitutional right.