Should women have the right to vote?

[John Dibble]

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

Section 1. The right of the 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.

This implies to me that there is a constitutional right to vote. Also, the right to vote is mentioned in Amemdment XIV Section 2, Amendment XV Section 1, Amendment XXIV Section 1, and Amendment XXVI Section 1. If there is indeed no constitutional right to vote, the Constitution is certainly wrong for mentioning the 'right to vote' so much.

[John Dibble]

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.

[John Dibble]

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.

Since the right to vote is mentioned, I see a constitutional right to vote. If you disagree, fine, but I doubt it would hold.

[John Dibble]

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?).

[John Dibble]

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 can also deny someone the right to bear arms if they commit a bad enough crime. Does this mean that the right to bear arms isn't a constitutional right?

[John Dibble]

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

So is the right to vote, as I've pointed out.

[John Dibble]

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.

Article [II.]
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


Explain how this grants the right. It only says the government can't infringe upon it. Nowhere in the constitution is it said "the people shall have the right to bear arms". As I read this, the right already exists, it is not granted.

[John Dibble]

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

What?

[John Dibble]

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?

I'm perfectly capable of understanding English - don't be an asshole. You are the one who seems to be stretching things. The supposed 'right' to healthcare hasn't got anything to do with the argument.

Saying "People shall have the right to purchase and bear firearms" is not the same as "The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed" - the former grants a right, the other implies the right already exists and that it shall not be infringed. Therefore I say that nowhere in the Constitution is the right to bear arms granted. The Second Amendment recognizes the right, it does not grant it. Nowhere in the Constitution is the right to vote explicitly granted, but it is mentioned and recognized, and therefore the same logic should be applied to it as the right to bear arms and other rights that are not explicitly granted - it is either a Constitutional right or not.

[John Dibble]

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.

Yes, I would have a problem with repealing the 2nd. As I said, the 2nd recognizes that the right to bear arms exists - it does not grant it. However, since it says that the right shall not be infringed, that tells me that rights can be infringed. I argue that the Constitution recognizes the right to vote exists(by explicitly mentioning it), and therefore the right is a constitutional one - I did not argue that the right could not be infringed upon. All rights can be infringed upon by government, but our Constitution makes provisions that certain rights shall not be infringed upon, at least in certain ways if not totally. So, the Constitution only protects, but not grants, rights.

[John Dibble]

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?

Children and felons don't have the right to bear arms. Therefore it is not universal. I've compared the right to vote to the right to bear arms, which you are saying is universal. As I said, everyone has rights, but those rights can be infringed in certain situations - sometimes justly, like a convicted felon not having the right to bear arms. The Constitution only specifies when those rights can't be infringed, meaning unjust infringements. You just aren't getting it - these rights are not granted, they are implied. So, when I say 'constitutional rights' I mean the rights that it recognizes as existing - all of which can be infringed depending on the limits set by the constitution. If you believe that the Constitution actually grants rights, then fine, but I disagree - it only recognizes that they exist.

[John Dibble]

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

So... a state should be able to suspend whoever they want from voting?  What if the state decided that the only people allowed to vote are elected officials?

Constitutional.

How could it be phrased so that your loophole is removed?

"The right of the citizens of the United States shall not be infringed by elected status" would do it.

[John Dibble]

Only Muslim women shouldn't have the right to vote.

Only communists shouldn't have the right to vote.

Your logic can easily be turned against you.

[John Dibble]

Only Muslim women shouldn't have the right to vote.

Only communists shouldn't have the right to vote.

Your logic can easily be turned against you.

Communism will liberate humanity.

Yeah, it's done such a good job of that so far...

[John Dibble]

Only Muslim women shouldn't have the right to vote.

Only communists shouldn't have the right to vote.

Your logic can easily be turned against you.

Communism will liberate humanity.

Yeah, it's done such a good job of that so far...

Indeed.

No, it hasn't - that was sarcasm in case you couldn't tell. Communism's idea of liberation is forcing people to comply with it's ideals - by not granting freedom, but coercion. Enslavement doesn't bring about freedom, anyone with half a brain would realize that.

[John Dibble]

Only Muslim women shouldn't have the right to vote.

Only communists shouldn't have the right to vote.

Your logic can easily be turned against you.

Communism will liberate humanity.

Yeah, it's done such a good job of that so far...

Indeed.

No, it hasn't - that was sarcasm in case you couldn't tell. Communism's idea of liberation is forcing people to comply with it's ideals - by not granting freedom, but coercion. Enslavement doesn't bring about freedom, anyone with half a brain would realize that.

Dictatorship of the Proletariat is a million times more free than Dictatorship of the Burgoise.

Dictatorship of neither is preferable, which is why a capitalist democratic republic the best available form of government - no one group should have all the power. But to dispute your point, every communist country is ruled by an elite few who oppress their subjects.

[John Dibble]

Only Muslim women shouldn't have the right to vote.

Only communists shouldn't have the right to vote.

Your logic can easily be turned against you.

Communism will liberate humanity.

Yeah, it's done such a good job of that so far...

Indeed.

No, it hasn't - that was sarcasm in case you couldn't tell. Communism's idea of liberation is forcing people to comply with it's ideals - by not granting freedom, but coercion. Enslavement doesn't bring about freedom, anyone with half a brain would realize that.

Dictatorship of the Proletariat is a million times more free than Dictatorship of the Burgoise.

Dictatorship of neither is preferable, which is why a capitalist democratic republic the best available form of government - no one group should have all the power. But to dispute your point, every communist country is ruled by an elite few who oppress their subjects.

Capitalism is Dictatorship of the Burgoise.

No, it is not. We are a capitalist society and a free society - people are free to better themselves and live dignified lives. In a communist society, all non-communist thought would be oppressed - here in our capitalist society, your thought is allowed, even though it is foolish. In a communist society you are nothing but a slave.

[John Dibble]

Ever since capitalism got in bed with the state there's been no democracy/freedom in any governmental sense. Instead there is capital-parliamentarianism.

The trend toward monopoly that represents not liberty and justice for all, but liberty and justice for the wealthy 5%. It is the parliamentarianism of consumerism, commodification, spectacular society: these are the enemies of freedom! Not Communism

Well that's what happens when you allow the government to get big - you get corruption. Communism is the ultimate big government, and it is ultimately very easy to corrupt. If power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

And if you believe that communism is the friend of freedom, then I advise you go to North Korea(you know, that communist country), live there for a while, then come on these boards and tell us how it is. But wait, you wouldn't be able to do the last step - North Koreans aren't allowed to use the internet. Some freedom.

Once again, I mention that in our country you have the right to a dissenting opinion. No communist country has ever allowed it, because they know communism can't last without oppression.

Face it, capitalism has steadily increased the standard of living for the vast majority of the population, not just the wealthy. Communist countries only bring about equal poverty and equal mediocrity - not one in history has ever done anything otherwise. If truly they were bastions of freedom people wouldn't attempt to flee them.

[John Dibble]

That doesn't state my views correctly at all. I'm for Communist Republicanism based in the democratic principle of the mass-line: proletarian democracy "from the masses to the masses" rather than bourgeois democracy, the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. You should read the second chapter of Lenin's Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky for more on this question of democracy. Basically, Lenin argues that everything functions in relation to classes. The gist is that the State is an instrument for the repression of class contradictions (cf. The State and Revolution). We live in a Bourgeois Dictatorship (in which the institutions and apparatuses of the State serve the dominant class - the bourgeois minority - at the expense and exclusion of the proletarian majority) that has expanded to take the shape of a reactionary intercommunal Empire. This superstructural formation is dialectically determined by the economy, by the relations of production within the capitalist mode of production. A Communist Republic would be the inverse of this: Proletarian Dictatorship, in which the institutions and apparatuses of the State serve the proletarian majority at the expense and exclusion of the bourgeois minority. This means limiting bourgeois right and empowering the masses through a progressive change in (and enforcing the change in) the relations of production, and as Lenin says, this is "a million times more democratic."

Lenin said a lot of things. That doesn't change that he was a tyrant, just like every other leader of communist countries. Communism doesn't work, so any form of communist government can not last without oppression. As soon as your proposed system proves a failure, the people will either vote it out of power in favor of free market reforms which historically provided higher standards of living or the leaders will end democracy and oppress all opposition.

EDIT - move this debate here, it's off topic.