Having already created a poll on the "28th Amendment - Prohibition of Firearms" http://www.politicalforum.com/opinion-polls/444634-28th-amendment-prohibition-firearms.html that was soundly voted down, as anticipated, I thought it would be good to address a "Right to Vote" Amendment in a poll to see what members think. This provides an excellent opportunity for members to express their opinions on the Right to Vote in America. As proposed for the purpose of this poll: Twenty-Ninth Amendment - The Right to Vote The Right of the People to Vote shall not be infringed. The arguments supporting a vote for ratification are pretty straightforward. The proposed Amendment based upon the provisions of Article I and the 17th Amendment that call for the popular elections of members of the House and Senate of the United States as well has having a philosophical foundation in the Declaration of Independence. Article I Section 2 states, "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States" - See more at: http://constitution.findlaw.com/article1.html#sthash.y78z5Ven.dpuf The 17th Amendment states, "Clause 1. The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof..." - See more at: http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment17.html#sthash.oBEjp4cC.dpuf The Declaration of Independence, in establishing the political ideology upon which America is founded, is explicit as well where it states the following: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed (i.e. people)." http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html Based upon the explicit wording of the US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence the arguments for ratification are compelling and I'm not sure what arguments can be made to oppose ratification so I leave that to other members to address. Four choices are provided in the poll: 1) Support Ratification; 2) Lean Towards Supporting Ratification; 3) Oppose Ratification; 4) Lean Against Ratification.. I encourage members to vote in the poll and then explain the logic behind their vote. We can also address the ramifications of the Amendment.
Ayuh,.... So where's the text of yer 29th amendment,..?? Without bein' able to read, Exactly what you propose, there ain't no way I'm votin', either way,.... So far, this sounds like Obocare,..... Pass it, then read it,..?? No thanks,.... My Guess is, yer lookin' to allow anybody that walks into a poll to be able to vote, without regard to where they actually live,....... If, as a US citizen, I have to Prove I have health insurance, I also want folks to Prove they're a Citizen of the district they claim to live in,......
I made a mistake in the Poll by referring to the 28th Amendment and I've asked the Political Forum staff to correct that.error that, as a member, I can't edit.
As I just noted I made a mistake by referring to the 28th Amendment that I've asked the PF staff to fix. I also made that mistake in the OP because it should have read the 29th Amendment but I was able to fix that. The Amendment, as proposed is: Twenty-Nineth Amendment - The Right to Vote The Right of the People to Vote shall not be infringed. Sorry about the early confusion that will hopefully be cleared up as soon as a PF staff member corrects the title of the poll. Feel free to wait until the confusion is cleared up because I wouldn't want you to vote for something where you don't know what the hell you're voting for like Obamacare. LOL
The residency requirements exist in both Article I and the 17th Amendment and nothing in this proposed amendment would change that requirement.
Mostly fixed (excluding a spelling error I've also asked the staff to fix) so now you know what the text is. I want to commend you for being the first to address the proposed Amendment and you were correct that you shouldn't address it until it was clear what the Amendment really was. Now you know what it says and can formulate an opinion either in favor of or against the proposed Amendment and state your case or concerns. Of course asking questions or making comments before voting is also important because everyone should be "informed" about any issue.
Ayuh,..... That's it,..??..?? Pretty limp,.... Lawyers never use so few words,..... Still sounds like yer tryin' to set up a progressive situation, where proof of Who ya are, is side-skirted,....
I'm actually a Constitutional Conservative that holds the letter and intent of Constitution to be the most important criteria in it's interpretation. As noted the proposed 29th Amendment is expressly supported by enumeration in both Article I and the 17th Amendment as well as the "intent" established by the Declaration of Independence. You can't get more "conservative" than that. Of course "who you are" and "where you live" remain very important issues. These issues are addressed by the state (and local) Election Boards based upon voter registration where the state (and local) Election Boards receive both state and federal funding "to ensure that people are who they say they are" and "to ensure that they live where they say they live" and no changes would be necessitated based upon this proposed Amendment. I see no necessity in changing the enforcement of the voter registration laws based upon the proposed Amendment nor can I see where you would assume there would be any change necessary. If the person filling out the voter registration card commits a felony by misrepresenting who they are or where they live then it's a felony that should be prosecuted. The enforcement of the voter registration laws is something I assume we both agree upon. Am I correct in this assumption?
Ayuh,... We're on the same page there, but the Problems arise at the polls, when No id is required to prove the registered name is the registered person,..... Seein's Voter Id is so frowned upon by the left, I'd settle for purple ink, as used in Afghanistan,....
The arguments against the Voter ID laws is that voter impersonation at the polls, the only issue that the Voter ID laws address, is virtually non-existant in the United States. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...le-incidents-out-of-one-billion-ballots-cast/ If we had a documented problem of voter impersonation at the polls affecting an election result then there's unquestionably grounds for addressing that problem. The problem we face is that there's only 31 documented cases of voter impersonation at the polls out of over 1 billion votes and no contested election result has ever even mentioned voter impersonation so it's relatively obvious that there's no foundation for the Voter ID laws. Once again it's the responsibility of the Election Boards to verify who the person is and confirm where they reside for voting purposes. We can easily require the voter to present their voter registration card if there was any problem related to voter impersonation at the polls but since that isn't happening even requiring them to present their voter registration card seems nefarious because it serves no purpose.
Right,...... 'n the war on drugs has been such a success,..... Tell me again how it makes so much sense that Obama won entire votin' districts with 105% of the vote,.... Tell me again how King Cuomo won the governors race here in NY, takin' only 1 district outside of NYC,..... Time, 'n time again, instances of voters not bein' who they say they are, or worse yet, votin' for their Mom, or siblin's ain't happenin',..... In '12, the dipsy granny poll worker stated she voted 4 times, once for herself, 'n again for her mom, her sister, 'n her kid, because they were too lazy to go to the polls,.... Voter Fraud is rampant, but only if ya wanta Look for it,...
There are all kinds of voter fraud but rarely does it affect the election results and voter impersonation has never been cited as a foundation for contesting election results. For example the case of someone receiving 105% of the vote can't happen based upon election fraud at the polls. It's impossible because there's a line for every voter to sign on before they vote and when the lines are all filled out then 100% of the registered voters have voted. They're aren't any blank lines for a person to sign-in on and vote. We also know that voter impersonation at the polls isn't easy to do and the likelihood of it being identifed is quite high. First the person attempting to vote by impersonating someone else has to know who they are and what polling place they use. Then they have to ensure that the registered voter won't show up before them or at all when they identify themself to the polling workers because if both show up there's only one line for both of them to sign-in on. That's not to say that voter impersonation doesn't exist because there's a serious problem of voter impersonation on absentee ballots typically where one spouse votes for the other spouse sometimes after the spouse is deceased but Voter ID laws don't address that. Actually, if someone really wants to effect the election results hacking the electronic ballot machines is how to do it. They could, for example, change the total votes where it would result in 105% more votes than registered voters.
Because we still have nefarious statutory laws that prohibit the right to vote for millions of people (of voting age) living in the United States. None of these statutory laws are authorized by enumeration in the US Constitution.
Like what? Any right can be removed thru due process, and the powers of the states derive from their respective constitutions.
The US Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land and all federal laws, state constitutions, and state laws are subject to the provisions and authority of the US Constitution. While I've addressed the specific provisions where both members of the House of Representatives, in Article I, and members of the Senate, in the 17th Amendment, are to be elected by the "people" there is on other provision in Article I Section 2 that must be addressed in this discussion. Every ten years the US Census counts the number of "free persons" (we don't have slavery anymore) and based upon that the 435 seats in the House of Representatives are apportioned. Those same people counted by the US Census have a Constitutional Right to Vote in the election of those Representatives based upon the prior citation for election of members of the House and they also have a Right to Vote for Senators that was later established by the 17th Amendment. Federal statutory law and state laws cannot violate this "Right to Vote" of the people but they do today. Not all of the permanent residents of the United States used for the apportionment of the House of Representatives are allowed to vote currently under federal and state law which is why this amendment is needed. The proposed 29th Amendment is required for exactly the same reason that the 15th and 19th Amendments were required - State (and Federal) statutory laws are denying tens of millions of the People of the United States, as counted by the US census, the Right to Vote in the United States today which is what both the 15th and 19th Amendment also addressed. Yes, the "Right to Vote of the People" can be removed from the US Constitution but that can only be done by a Constitutional Amendment because the "Right to Vote of the People" is enumerated in the US Constitution by Article I and the 17th Amendment.
Ayuh,.... Still no need to change the Constitution,.... Better to change the census, to count US. Citizens, insteada every heartbeat in a district,.....
And even after all this, felons, etc, can still be denied the right to vote, by both the federal government and the governments of the several states. I don't see any need whatsoever for your proposed amendment.
I don't know but perhaps this Amendment would restore the right to vote for ex-felons assuming that their conviction was unrelated to voting fraud. I don't know but many believe that ex-felons should be allowed to vote without having to go through the costly process through the courts that can restore their right to vote. Of course there are also about roughly 30 million or more people that aren't felons that are denied the right to vote in the United States based upon statutory laws. Don't you care about their voting rights? Voting is a right, not a privilege, under the Constitution so why are these people denied that right?
These people should consult with their state legislators and change those laws through the legislative process/ Such as...?
How is it in any way currently infringed upon that would require some sort of change? I fail to see the point...
If voting is already a right under the Constitution, I don't see how saying that it "shall not be infringed" is going to make any difference. That wording sure doesn't stop them from taking your right to bear arms at the same time they take your right to vote.
Historically we know how well that proposition works. In 1807 women were denied their right to vote and it took 113 years before that right to vote was restrored because, as non-voters, they had no influence in the legislative process. History has clearly established that the legislative process in a democracy only works for those that are allowed to vote and not for those that are denied the right to vote. The person denied the right to vote has no political influence over those elected to office and political influence is required for the legislative process to work.
