Because statutory laws have traditionally violated Constitutional Rights. The politicans are nefarious and will generally ignore the Constitution if it contracts their political agenda or threatens their political power and they will often craft laws that effectively deny Constitutional rights. The examples are endless and voting rights is one of those, where for nefarious reasons, the politicans have crafted laws to support their nefarious political adenda by disenfranching ten of millions of Americans. Previously mentioned was the prohibition against ex-felons from voting and we know that this is nefarious in certain cases. A young person can get busted for felony possession of narcotics, like cocaine, and their right to vote is denied. Then we also have law enforcement that targets young black men based upon racial prejudice so young black men are dispropotionately busted for drugs, convicted of felonies, and lose their right to vote. Effectively we've reduced the number of black men that can vote in our elections based upon prejudice so, of course, a Republican in the legislature supports these laws that prohibit voting because it prevents black men from voting where over 90% of the time they're going to vote for a Democrat. While I can understand losing the right to vote based upon election fraud could make sense the use of drugs has nothing to do with elections and should not prevent a person from voting for the rest of their life. I can think of no logical argument why a person that does drugs should be denied the right to vote. That's why this Amendment is needed in the United States. We need to end the laws that disenfranchise the people of the United States.
Voting is a privilege, not a right. If you get busted for a felony that is on the criminal and why would you want to change that? If you do not like the laws then change the laws. Why you think it is easier to pass an amendment then to change a law is surprising.
This does nothing to negate the soundness of my response. Such as...? - - - Updated - - - Current example s of which would include....?
Will this "shall not be infringed" be interpreted (for effectual purposes) the same way as the 2nd amendment has been? Meaning that locales can essentially nullify the amendment, at NYC has? Meaning that we can still ban certain groups from voting (as states legally can, such as with but not limited to felons)? Also meaning that we can regulate who can vote, how, etc. to essentially strip away the whole vote to begin with, as we do with guns? It just seems kind of moot. Constitutional amendments only carry any meaning when people are willing to abide by them, namely the government. So long as the government gets away with ignoring one Constitutional amendment, and many people support that ignoring, no other amendment will carry any weight. But on it's surface - no, I don't support this. Too little info. There are plenty of reasons for state's to have their own policies on the vote, to include denying it to felons. This amendment, as written, could even be grant voting rights to ineligible voters.
I agree with your general intent, I just think that the wording of this amendment is too easily dismissed and "interpreted" into nothingness. We must, as you know, always assume that the wording will be interpreted in the worst way possible, and therefore give the least wiggle room for abusing that interpretation. It has been said that the vagueness of the Constitution is a feature, but I believe it is a bug. I already pointed out how "shall not be infringed" has failed to give the 2nd amendment the intended finality, and so that wording already has the precedent of being undermined. But, upon further reflection, I think a bigger problem is the "The People" language. Government scum could easily deny certain individuals their right to vote, while claiming that "the People", as a group, still have the right. I think that the best option would be to follow the form of the 26th Amendment, which has held firm. That language would look similar to the 26th, such as: The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State for any reason whatsoever.
Incorrect. The Constitution identifies voting as a right. When you disenfranchise dissidents, you create revolutionaries. What if they made it a felony to criticize the president, for instance? Do you think the government should be allowed to create laws so outrageous that people cannot, in good conscience, obey them, and then no one will then be able to vote to remove the scumbags who made the laws? Here in America, the people do not get to vote on laws. One amendment would change many laws throughout 50 states.
I think it should be ratified and don't understand why it hasn't been. Isn't the Voting Rights Act along these lines though?
The soundness of your response? The only way your response is sound is if you support this proposed "Right to Vote" Amendment because that is a part of the "legislative process" you embrace. Your response referred to eliminating this statutory denial of the right to vote by changing the statutory laws but that makes as little sense as expecting blacks in the South to try to use their non-existant political power in the racist Southern States to repeal the Jim Crow voting laws prior to 1963. It's completely irrational to expect the same politicians that nefariously created the statutory laws that deny tens of millions of people their right to vote to change those laws and re-instate their voting rights. Only the proposed 29th Amendment will restore the voting rights of tens of millions of people because the same politicians that nefariously created the laws to prohibit tens of millions of people from voting are NOT going to change those laws and a Constitutional Amendment is a part of our legislative process.
In point of fact because we have the 2nd Amendment people are able to challenge nefarious statutory laws that violate our "right to keep and bear arms" and without it those statutory laws could not be challenged all the way to the US Supreme Court. A Constitutional Amendment provides several things for our government. First and foremost it is the Supreme Law of the Land and both it's wording and intent affect the actions of the Congress in the creation of statutory law. Next it affects the actions of the Executive Branch in enforcement of the statutory laws. Finally it highly effects the US Supreme Court where first and foremost all of the Supreme Court Justices address the explicit enumerations within the wording of the Constitution and also address the intent of the Constitution in rendering their decisions when disputes arise for it to resolve. A Constitutional Amendment can't stop all nefarious statutory laws but it dramatically reduces them to only a small fraction of what would exist without the Amendment. So it's not a "perfect" solution to the problem we face today where tens of millions of people are nefariously denied their right to vote but it would dramatically reduce that transgression of the Rights of the People. So perhaps the 40 million or so people that are currently denied their right to vote may not all have their right to vote restored but probably 30 million or more would have that right restored. The point of the proposed Amendment is to restore the Right to Vote for people that once had this right historically but where statutory laws, over time, have denied that right. It would unquestionably restore the Right to Vote for tens of millions of people so the question before you isn't whether it will restore everyone's Right to Vote that has been nefariously denied by statutory law but that it would restore the Right to Vote for the vast majority of those people. How effective the proposed Amendment would be is left to the US Supreme Court ulitmately because it would certainly be called upon to address statutory laws that attempt to deny the Right to Vote. So do you support the Right to Vote or not is the only question you really need to answer. Without it the Supreme Court has no clearly enumerated criteria to use in rendering it's decisions.
Not in the slightest. The fist, best way to deal with a law you do not like is the legislative process. In a post-slavery, universal-suffrage America, where the right to vote cannot be denied because of race or gender, your complaint is non-nonsensical. Going to ask for the 3rd time... Which people are these?
When a politician creates a nefarious law the last person that will change that law is the same politician or one just like them. No, we don't have "universal suffrage" today although we should have universal suffrage today and we always should have always had univeral suffrage in the past. At no time in American history have we ever had universal suffrage.That's the point of the Amendment. You can'f figure out who the people are in America that once had the right to vote but have since had it revoked are? Don't you read American history? Ask yourself this question. When only white men could basically vote in the United States between 1807 and the Civil War who, that doesn't have the right to vote today, had the right to vote protected by the statutory laws in the majority of states? You may have to do a little historical research but you'll probably learn a lot more about American history doing that. What we do know is that because of changes in the statutory voting laws after the civil war that revoked the protected Right to Vote for this group of people now represents tens of millions of people in the United States that cannot vote in our national elections even though Article I and the 17th Amendment state that members of Congress are to be elected by the people that they represent. These people are still represented in Congress but can't vote for members of Congress. .
Ayuh,.... Yer tryin' awfully hard Not to answer this simple question,.... So who are these millions of voters, You say can't vote,..?? Isn't the truth of the matter that they actually Can vote if they care to participate in the process,..?? All it takes is to put forth the Effort,....
Really? Who cannot vote that should be able to vote, and why? 4th time: Specifically, which people are there? Why do you refuse to directly answer this question?
I haven't answered the question directly because if you don't do the research you wouldn't understand the answer. I will give you one answer. American citizens that don't have current and accurate government issued ID, that's not required by law, can't vote in numerous states that have passed "Voter ID Laws" that aren't addressing a problem because voter impersonation at the polls, the only thing that the Voter ID laws address, is virtually non-existant in the United States and has not created any cases where election results have ever been challenged. The voter ID laws have nothing to do with preventing non-citizens or ex-felons, prohibited from voting by statutory laws, from voting because that's a voter registration issue addressed by the Election Boards that receive both state and federal funding to ensure that all registered voters meet the criteria of voter registration. From studies we know that roughly 25% of African-American citizens, 17% of Hispanic American citizens, and 7% of White American citizens are denied their Constitutional Right to Vote based upon these nefarious laws because they don't have government issued ID that they're not required to have. Because of the demographics of those being denied their Right to Vote these laws are fundamentally no different than the Jim Crow laws prior to the Voting Rights Act that were also based upon demographics that would overwhelmingly deny the Right to Vote for minorities in the United States. The proposed Amendment would arguably end this nefarious denial of the Right to Vote for millions of American citizens that have no personal need for government issued ID and that are not required to have that ID for any other purpose. We can also note that this is the only Constitutionally protected right where a person must produce government issued identification so it's really a statutory infringement upon a Constitutional Right unprecedented in American history. So I've identified one case where millions of American citizens are being denied their Right to Vote based upon an unprecedented and unjustifable criteria where this Amendment is arguably required.
While the rest of your post is 100% accurate there is a caveat to this statement. The people don't get to vote on federal laws but through the initiative and referendum process they can vote on state laws.... even when those laws are blatantly unconstitution and are later struck down by the US Supreme Court (e,g. some of the prohibitions against same-sex marriage were based upon a popular vote and those laws clearly violated the US Constitution and the US Supreme Court struck down those laws as unconstitutional).
Nonsense- there's no answer you can give that I won't understand.. If the state has a voter ID law, then the ID -is- required by law; no state has a requirement for an ID that's not required by law. Your argument, negated. Just like the 2nd Amendment will end the denial of the right to arms for those millions of American citizens that have no personal need for government issued ID and that are not required to have that ID for any other purpose. States have the power to require appropriate ID for both registration and casting a vote; requiring a form of ID to exercise the right to vote does not infringe on the right to vote any more than requiring an ID for the purchase of a firearm.
I've not read of any supported legislative action that infringes upon the right to keep and bear arms. In those cases that have gone to the US Supreme Court any infringement on the actual "right to keel and bear arms" has been struck down but remember that the 2nd Amendment does not address the "commerce" in arms and laws addressing "commerce" in firearms are Constitutional based upon numerous Supreme Court decisions. So Congress can, under the 2nd Amendment, prohibit the future manufacture, sale, or transportation of specified firearms but it can't confiscate any of the existing estimated 300 million firearms that are currently owned lawfully by Americans (that would violate Article I Section 10). The problem for many pro-gun advocates is that they misread the 2nd Amendment and wrongfully believe that it offers protections that it doesn't provide. Commerce is not a protected right anywhere in the Constitution but instead is a privilege granted by statutory laws created by government and subject to regulation.
Nothing here changes the fact that States have the power to require appropriate ID for both registration and casting a vote; requiring a form of ID to exercise the right to vote does not infringe on the right to vote any more than requiring an ID for the purchase of a firearm.
No, the States cannot impose a requirement for a person to show ID to register to vote. Registration is based upon the Federal Voter Registration form and it can be mailed in or filled out at a USPS location where the State has no jurisdiction. There's a caveat to this because the state state must offer the ID where it imposes no cost on the person whatsoever. If the person has to spend money to purchase a copy of a birth certificate, for example, it's a de facto poll tax under the Constitution. More than one state has had their voter ID laws struck down because of this. Because the person is basically required to purchase a copy of a document establishing that they're a US citizen any requirement that they do this to obtain the voter ID card is inherently unconstitutional. Only if the person doesn't have to prove citizenship in obtaining the voter ID card can the laws be constitutional. Once again though verification of eligibility to vote is a responsibility of the election boards so why don't they just take a photograph of the person when they register and then send them their photo voter ID card to use for identification when voting at the polls? Or the person could mail a copy of their photograph to the Election Board, if they choose to mail in their registration, just like we do with a US Passport and then the Election Board can print the Voter ID card and mail it to the voter. That would solve the non-existant problem of voter impersonation at the polls that Republicans keep falsely claiming exists. In any case the states are spending an aweful lot of money on the non-existant problem of voter impersonation at the polls and we actually know that Republicans secretly rationalize this expenditure because it predominately prevents African-Americans and Hispanics citizens from voting because they vote for Democrats. Hell, some Republicans responsible for the revised voting laws, including the Voter ID laws, have admitted this fact. Excuse me but I recently purchased a firearm from a gun store and didn't have to produce any government issued identification. Of course the 2nd Amendment doesn't protect anyone's "right" to purchase a firearm anyway. It only protects their right to "keep" the arms they already own and to "bear" those arms in self defense.
Ah... so you agree that States DO have the power to require appropriate ID for both registration and casting a vote; requiring a form of ID to exercise the right to vote does not infringe on the right to vote any more than requiring an ID for the purchase of a firearm. Good. Nonsense. This violates the Constitution as much as requiring that a person bring himself to the polls at his own expense. A poll tax is a limited and specific event; you pervert its meaning to suit your purpose -- a sure sign you understand the weakness of said position. Funny.. I haven't heard of one case where the SCotUS struck a voter ID law because it amounted to a poll tax. Cite? Be sure to provide a link. No more than needing an ID to buy a gun.
Within certain Constitutional constraints a state does have certain leeway in establishing voting laws. Among those constraints would be that voting laws cannot be used for the purpose of disenfranchisement and they must be based upon a rational argument that there is a necessity for the law. In the case of voter ID laws there's no rational argument because voter impersonation at the polls has never been the foundation for contesting even one election result and it's so rare that the odds against it happening are astronomical. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...le-incidents-out-of-one-billion-ballots-cast/ What we find is that the Voter ID Laws, that don't address election fraud that results in corrupted election results, are nefariously written. For example a person could have a photo employee identification card, that can be used to open a bank account can't be used to vote under these laws. I have a Veteran's (photo) ID card, issued by the US government that is acceptable ID for all federal identification purposes, but it's not an acceptable form of photo identification for voting. Even the claims that presenting a drivers licence would prevent non-citizens from voting is a fraudlent claim because the drivers licenses generally don't identify whether the person is a US citizen or not (neither by current AZ drivers license or my previous WA drivers license identify my as a US citizen). There's no rational foundation for the Voter ID laws that disporportionaly, based upon demograhic information, disenfranchise minorities, the poor, and women. A person's transportation expenditures to go to the polls are not a government imposed fee and the 24th Amendment, that prohibits the poll tax, only addresses fees imposed by government. This prohibition extends to any government imposed fees, imposed directly or indirectly, where the person must pay any fee to the government in order to vote. This was clarified in the Supreme Court decision in Harman v. Forssenius (1965) when Virginia nefariously attempted to circumvent the 24th Amendment with a requirement that voters must provide a "residence certification" in order to vote. You attempt to impose a nefarious criteria. The Voter ID Laws where overwhelmingly passed after, in 2012, the US Supreme Court struck down Section 4b of the Voting Rights act based on the fact it was 'out of date' because it was based upon 1964 voting information and statistics. It takes several years for a contested law to work it's way through the judicial process to the Supreme Court. Several federal appeals courts have over-turned voter ID laws while appeals to those laws haven't yet made it to the US Supreme Court. We can note that the Texas is before the Supreme Court today, where it has been declared unconstitutional by the Appeals Court, and it's possible that the Supreme Court will split 4-4 leaving the Appeals Court ruling that the law is unconstitutional intact. There are certainly "conservative" arguments that would also support the overturning of the law. We can also note that Texas only had four creditable cases (of the 31 identified nationally) of voter impersonation at the polls in all of it's elections starting in 2000. So there are several Appeals Court rulings that have struck down Voter ID Laws but basically, because of the slow process of adjudication, they haven't been heard by the US Supreme Court. The Texas case is going to be the key case and it will be heard later this year. I fully anticipate that the Appeals Court decision that the Texas Voter ID law violates the Constitution will be sustained. We can also note that not only are the Voter ID laws being challenged based upon the 26th Amendment but also based upon the "equal protection" clause of the 14th Amendment. There's no Constitutionally protected right to purchase a firearm. We only have a protected right to "Keep" those firearms we may already possess and the "Bear" those firearms in self-defense. Pro-gun advocates like to incorrectly assume that the 2nd Amendment extends to the protection of the right of commerce in firearms (i.e. buying and selling) but that is not covered by the 2nd Amendment. In fact, the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, in writing the majority opinion in the 2nd Amendment case of the District of Columbia v. Heller (200, explicitly established that Congress has the Constitutional authority to regulate commerce (i.e. manufacturer, buying/selling, and transportation) of firearms. Justice Scalia, a very conservative Supreme Court justice that was very supportive of 2nd Amendment rights, was absolutely correct in this decision because "commerce" is a statutory right subject to regulation and not a Constitutionally protected right.
Good thing the SCotUS recognizes such a thing. http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/28/scotus.voter.id/ Note that restrictions on the right to vote are examined under strict scrutiny, not rational basis. Glad we could settle that. And so, contrary to your claim, there are no examples of a court striking a voter ID law because it constituted a poll tax. Glad we could settle that. Neither is a state-issued voter ID; the fee you pay for the ID, if any, is a fee for the ID, not a fee to vote, just as the government-mandated fee for the bus or subway is a fee you pay for the ride, not a fee to vote. Thus, there's no sound "poll tax" argument; Glad we could settle that. It doesn't matter how many times you repeat this nonsense,e it remains nonsense. If a person cannot buy a firearm, he cannot exercise his right to keep and bear arms. Thus, the right to buy a firearm, an essential and necessary part of the exercise the right to arms, is protected by the constitution. And so, the fact remains: Requiring an ID to vote violates the right to vote no more than requiring an ID to buy a gun. Glad we could settle that.
The amendment should read something like this: All citizens of the United States have the right to vote for any and all national elections with the exception of those who have been convicted of treason. End of story. If the states want to restrict voting for state and local elections, they are free to do so. This separates state and federal power succinctly.
You're playing a semantics game because the Republican politicians are being very crafty, just like the Dixiecrats of the South, in creating nefarious Jim Crow voting laws that don't appear to violate the Constitution, such as Virginia attempting to evade the prohibitions against a poll tax by requiring people purchase a "residency certificate" vote (later struck down by the Supreme Court as a poll tax). What we do know is that the courts have struck down several Voter ID laws because they violate the Voting Rights Act and the US Constitution. Any statutory law that violates the Voting Rights Act and the US Constitution is, by definition, a Jim Crow voting law. If the ID is required as a condition to vote, and a fee is imposed, then it's identical to the "residence certificates" that Virginia required that were struck down as a "poll tax" prohibited by the Constitution. That's why the Republicans offer a means for securing a Voting ID Card where no fees are imposed on the person. Of course attempting to secure the Voting ID Card without purchasing a document, like a birth certificate, is almost impossible for a poor person to accomplish. The Constitution doesn't protect the "right to keep and bear firearms" but instead protects the "right to keep and bear arms" and the "arms" protected are based upon statutory laws. We can't, for example, own nuclear weapons that are a type of "arms" by definition because it's prohibited by statutory law. Additionally, as a manufacturing engineer, I know for a fact that any competent machinist can manufacture a firearm and doesn't need to purchase one. This belief that a person must be able to purchase a firearm and can't manufacture their own firearms is completely absurd. A firearm is not hard to make.
