Should women have 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?

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.

[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?

[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.

[J.R. Brown]

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.

[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.

[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).

[J.R. Brown]

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.

Have you ever heard of implied rights. The whole structure of the Constitution implies certain rights. That's why the federalists were opposed to the Bill of Rights, because they were afraid that morons like you would come along and say "Oh this isn't in the Constitution so it must not be a right."

[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.

[Hitchabrut]

They're equal citizens, of course. It may be convenient for a Republican to say no, and it also opens doors to the feminist crap that dazzleman often writes about, but those consequences are not the result of all women who vote, only a select few nutjobs.

[nclib]

Of course I voted Option 2.

I wonder at what period in history did women's suffrage have near universal acceptance.

[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.

[A18]

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

[Jake]

Ideally, no, but there are alot better (and fairer) ways of restricting voting.  Maybe restricting it to people with a job, or people that don't receive welfare, non-criminals.  All better than women.

[nclib]

Ideally, no

Why not?

[A18]

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

[John Dibble]

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

What?

[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?

[Jake]

Ideally, no

Why not?

Women voting raises a slew of issues like women's rights, extreme tolerance of women, biased sexual harrassment laws, and abortion into the picture, and truly, America would be a better place if feminists had no power.

[dazzleman]

Ideally, no

Why not?

Women voting raises a slew of issues like women's rights, extreme tolerance of women, biased sexual harrassment laws, and abortion into the picture, and truly, America would be a better place if feminists had no power.

I agree about feminists, but most women are not really feminists, at least not in the extreme sense.  Some men are also male chauvinists, so it's indefensible to argue that voting rights should be taken away from an entire gender due to feminists, much as I can't stand them.  And don't forget that there are plenty of mentally castrated men who support feminists.

Even the feminists never went so far as to argue that men should be denied voting rights because of male chauvinism.  Feminists are effectively female chauvinists, and they need to be defeated in the war of ideas, not be restricting voting.

[A18]

I don't like their support for socialism.

[J.R. Brown]

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 g 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.

Actually, I did better than that. I am taking Intro to American Politics and we talked a lot about the Constitution at the beginning of the semester, the values and principles that are conveyed in the Constitution (freedom, equality, etc.), not specific words, promote the simple principle that everyone has a voice in this government.

At the Constitutional Convention Madison and Hamilton argued for a Constitution with structural protections that ensured individual rights would be preserved. These structural protections promote freedom and equality. What do these principles mean to you? How can you have a democracy without a majority of the public having the right to vote, even if it doesn't explicitly say these things, democracy and freedom are all in the Constitution. Only allowing male landowners vote or the extremely rich wouldn't be a democracy, that would be an aristocracy. And preventing woman and certain ethnic groups from voting is fascist.

If you don't think that that is true then I don't know what to tell you. By the way what is your point in all of this? Do you think that the American people shouldn't have a say in what goes on in their government? I just want to say that it's people like you who the founders were afraid of. They wanted a land where two men or women with completely opposing views both had the right to stand up and speak their opinion and not be killed or arrested for that.

The same thing goes for voting. They wanted to empower the people. Besides, everyone having a vote is pretty much given in a democracy and a republic. I suppose that the founders believed that the people would have enough common sense to know that that they would not have to write "Every citizen has the right to vote". I think that that is implied in the first amendment. You know freedom of political speech.

[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.

[J.R. Brown]

You don't support democracy? Are you a fascist? What form of government do you support?

Actually, in Jefferson's original draft of the Declaration of Independence he mentioned something about abolishing slavery but the southern states didn't go for it, so he took it out. And Alexander Hamilton was a racist aristocrat, so I agree with you on that.

EQUALITY and FREEDOM are in the Constitution. What the hell do you think the first amendment is all about. Do you know what equality means.