It is my understanding that the founding fathers knew that the average citizen would in time forget the vital importance of liberty and that the average citizen did not know of or could not conceive of the proper measure by which politicians should be judged suitable for office and therefore did not infuse this right into the original document. No where in what you two have posted is it stated emphatically that there is a right to vote but only that the right to vote shall not be denied based upon given circumstances which does not of itself imply that right exists at all. The concept of the Constitution being a 'living document' which should be modified to suit modern times is not a valid argument for the 'interpretations' of any age.
But nor is the original document a be all end all document. While the original 10 may not be changed, reduced or redefined to mean something else.
I have found no evidence or wording to suggest that further amendments are not allowed to be added. So long as they are not in defiance of the original 10
That is why there are called "amendments" to begin with.
the very definition of the word Ammendment
"1. the act of amending or the state of being amended.
2. an alteration of or addition to a motion, bill, constitution, etc.
It might well be noted that the "original document" was created and approved in 1791.
It wasnt for another 4 years that the 11th amendment was added. And thirteen years before the 12th amendment was added.
So even to the founding fathers it was clear that additions may have to be made. As they had done so themselves
I would agree that the original document is indeed a "dead document" as Chief justice Scalea would put it.
But I would not agree that other amendments could not be added if they indeed meet Constitutional muster of the first 10
In that manner it is a living document as it may be amended.
Example. An amendment prohibiting individuals to own and carry weapons (remember. the second says "arms" it does not specify or limit the type of arms)
Would not meet the constitutional muster of the original 10 because it specifically states that the rights of "the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
With the word "infringed" being the operative word there
1. to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress: to infringe a copyright; to infringe a rule.
verb (used without object)
2.to encroach or trespass (usually fol. by on or upon)
Likewise an amendment regulating those weapons may indeed meet muster because the 2nd does specifically mention "a well
regulated milita"
the trick there is. What exactly was intended by the statement of "regulated"?
But an amendment guaranteeing the right to vote would wholly meet such muster as while you are correct. The right to vote is not specifically mentioned in the original 10. Nor is it specifically denied.
At the time of the writing. the right to vote was left up to the individual states where it was most often limited to "white men with property" But was obviously later expanded
It can be claimed that the right to vote would be considered one of our liberties and as such and covered under the 1st amendment "petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
What after all is an election but one giant petition.
And in this election in particular fits very well LOL
and 5th
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,
nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law
The 9th (which alot of people seem to forget about)
Ninth Amendment Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
And the 10th
Tenth Amendment Powers of states and people.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
The 9th in particular points out that just because said right isnt mentioned in the previous eight. Does not mean it doesnt exist.
It can be construed that the 15th reaffirms this as one can not be denied the right to vote because of previous condition of servitude.
As anyone who was'nt/isnt a property owner would by default be in a position of servant status. If you have a job for a business you do not own. What are you but a servant of your employer?
while that can be argued. what cant be is it does not mention a specific condition of servitude granted rights to vote. but rather regardless of that condition. Be they slave or slave owner.
The 19h then defined it even more finely to refuse denial based on sex. Again. does not mention male or female specifically there by default is set to include members of both, or in some case all sexes.
etc etc
As time has progressed these amendments were added not in violation of the original document. But to more specifically define and clarify widely accepted rights as mentioned in the 9th and 10th amendments.
I see no reference made anywhere in the original document. Granting the government the power to restrict anyone's right to vote.
It is my understanding that the time of the writing there were great arguments made over this very subject.
In the end they left it up to individual states.
Once left up to the individual states. It then falls under the 9th and more specifically the 10th.
If we defer it to the 10th. As would seem the logical move then the answer should be simple.
If your state. Gives you the right to vote.
Then you have that right.
But the states may not deny you that right based on Race,level of servitude, Sex,failure to pay taxes, or because of your age if you are over 18.
