Should women have the right to vote?

[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.

[J.R. Brown]

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.

[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.

[Rob]

Option 2, of course.

[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.

[J.R. Brown]

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.

What are you talking about? So people should give sort of a endorsement of a candidate but they should not choose their leaders. How is that freedom? I am sorry, I am having trouble understanding what you are talking about. Could you explain it to me better without insulting me? I always thought freedom was part of democracy.

[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.

[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?

[Gabu]

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

What exactly are you saying, then?  That a state's officials should be free to suspend all elections if they feel like it and run the state as a dictatorship?

[A18]

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

[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.

[Gabu]

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?

[A18]

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.

[Alcon]

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?

[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.

[Peter]

I'd agree that there is no constitutional right to vote contained in Amendments 15, 19, 24 and 26.

As to Gabu's hypothetical of only elected officials to vote, this is actually uncontitutional on the basis of Article IV Section 4:

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government..."

The situation Gabu describes is autocratic not Republican.

I would also point out that there is a constitutional right to vote in federal elections for all those qualified to vote in elections to the most numerous branch of the State legislature: States are not allowed one electorate for State elections and a different one for federal elections.

Arguably the right to vote cannot be infringed except on a rational basis under the Substantive Due Process interpretation of the 14th, in this sense there is an implied constitutional right to vote, but denial is possible for felons, children, etc. because of the obvious rational basis.

EDIT: And I've actually decided that argument is probably tenuous at best because the 14th makes other provisions for the denial of the right to vote.

[phk]

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

[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.

[phk]

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.

[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...

[phk]

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.

[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.

[phk]

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.

[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.