Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Curlew on October 22, 2008, 09:59:44 PM
-
To keep in theme with several of the recent threads I would like to see how much you all know about your rights and liberties as a citizen in the USA. I just studied my oscar off for my midterm on this, lets see what you can come up with, and dont give me the name, tell me what and why and limitations to it, and even your opinion on it.
With a little bit of posting this could get interesting :salute
-
By name do you mean the particular amendment to the Bill of Rights?
We have many "Rights" on paper that don't seem to apply in practice in this day and age, such as "free speech zones".
I suspect that these zones will be implemented during the the next administration and we may have a whole new group of dissenters.
shamus
-
Yes, your rights and liberties as gaurenteed by the consititution and bill of rights.
-
:noid You're not guaranteed anything. It's all a matter of circumstance. The government can suspend what we think are rights whenever they deem it necessary. i.e. (extreme case) Marshall Law.
This is a servere misinterpretation to think that we have rights. What we have are privileges. Big difference. :noid
-
My favorite rights are negative rights, i.e. the ones that say the government can't do this or that. :aok
-
My Father always said:
'You only have rights that other people allow you to have'.
That's the sum of it really.
-
I have the right to whatever I want without having to work for any of it. Anything less just wouldn't be fair!
-
My favorite rights are negative rights, i.e. the ones that say the government can't do this or that. :aok
IE Civil libetries, restrictions on the goverment
-
The underlying issue is the interpretation of any single "right". I'll give 2 examples...
1) The right to vote
2) The right to bear arms
The 1st has been dramatically expanded from the original intent of the constitution and the 2nd seriously curtailed.
-
The underlying issue is the interpretation of any single "right". I'll give 2 examples...
1) The right to vote
2) The right to bear arms
The 1st has been dramatically expanded from the original intent of the constitution and the 2nd seriously curtailed.
There is no right to vote... they can take it away from you but they dont ever give it to you. If you think there is a right to vote then show me where it says you have that right.
-
There is only ONE "right" that makes much sense to me...the right to do whatever hell you want with yourself and your property and live unmolested, excepting you interfere with that right for others.
All the other "rights" worth having are more or less just extensions of that principle.
-
That would be 'liberty' which the courts keep treading on.
-
If I were going to take away peoples rights though, the one I would take away would be the right to utter the phrase "something ought/needs/has to be done about" or "There ought to be a law". Violators would be shot!
-
That would be a law prohibiting 'hate speech' and ... oh wait... isnt that a law now? :confused:
-
:noid You're not guaranteed anything. It's all a matter of circumstance. The government can suspend what we think are rights whenever they deem it necessary. i.e. (extreme case) Marshall Law.
This is a servere misinterpretation to think that we have rights. What we have are privileges. Big difference. :noid
Dude!
It's Martial!
As in:
1 : of, relating to, or suited for war or a warrior
2 : relating to an army or to military life
3 : experienced in or inclined to war
-
My Father always said:
'You only have rights that other people allow you to have'.
That's the sum of it really.
that's almost defeatist, but i'd say your old man is right.
btw, those other people that unjustly curb or restrict yours and my rights are empowered and legitimised by masses of scared apathetic drones that are forever bending over instead of standing up for their own rights. it's these stupid bastards that are content to be subjugated, and maybe sneak a scrap of food of the table when their master isn't looking, that are the problem because their low aim is stuffing things up for the rest of us
-
:noid You're not guaranteed anything. It's all a matter of circumstance. The government can suspend what we think are rights whenever they deem it necessary. i.e. (extreme case) Marshall Law.
Judiciary Act of 1789 established the US Marshal service as a law enforcement agency.
Now Martial law, that's different
-
If you dont think you have civil rights and liberties in America then you have lived a very sheltered life and never went past out borders into that craphole called "most of the rest of the world".
But I can live with "whining due to inexperience". What I cant live with is some of you sounding like lawyers with your little word games.
-
There is no right to vote... they can take it away from you but they dont ever give it to you. If you think there is a right to vote then show me where it says you have that right.
i don't know why....maybe i'm just paranoid :noid, but i think they already HAVE taken it away from us. i often feel as if my/our votes mean nothing, and that these elections are nothing more than a big overly expensive "dog and pony" show.
-
And AWAYYYY we go!
-
If you dont think you have civil rights and liberties in America then you have lived a very sheltered life and never went past out borders into that craphole called "most of the rest of the world".
But I can live with "whining due to inexperience". What I cant live with is some of you sounding like lawyers with your little word games.
IMHO You, and me, and everyone else, have ONLY the Rights and Liberties WE are willing to both exercise, and fight for......
As to the little word games, you might want to pay attention to em! Especially when certain people start using em.
It ain't the little word games on here that you need to worry about!
It's when the politicians and such start their little word games that SHOULD create worry............
-
If you dont think you have civil rights and liberties in America then you have lived a very sheltered life and never went past out borders into that craphole called "most of the rest of the world".
But I can live with "whining due to inexperience". What I cant live with is some of you sounding like lawyers with your little word games.
Yes, we have no business complaining about creeping infringements UNTIL we are just as bad as Soviet Russia.
As long as we are even slightly better, we need to STFU!
-
IMHO You, and me, and everyone else, have ONLY the Rights and Liberties WE are willing to both exercise, and fight for......
I think it has pretty much been proven by events that Americans as a whole will put up with anything out of their government as long as they have plenty Mcburgers to eat and their satellite dish keeps working.
-
There is no right to vote... they can take it away from you but they dont ever give it to you. If you think there is a right to vote then show me where it says you have that right.
I don't have the time or interest to "debate" constitutional law with someone unless I know they actually have a background in the above. The
"right to vote" is clearly protected everywhere from the preamble thru the original articles. What is not clearly defined is who has this "right". As originally conceived that definition was left to each state as outlined in section 4...
"The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof"
The original construction of our country was a compromise of two theoretical forms of republican government. A centralized and a distributed model, as such certain functions and responsibilities were fractionalized. Under the original construction each state determined which of its citizens was entitled to vote, those voters then elected the state legislators and the states then elected representatives to the federal government. The constitution reserved the final say on those decisions for the new federal government. As originally envisioned the United States was created as a Republic not a democracy (there is a very big difference).
So the underlying question isn't if the right to vote is protected, its establishing who has the right. As with most constitutional issues the intent of the founders is most often found clarified and distilled in the Declaration of Independence...
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"
So we see that the founding fathers clearly believed and stated that the power of the "Governments" are derived from the consent of its individual members. What is often unclear hundreds of years later is that the original structure followed on the continental congress. So each state had leaders elected by "the people", who then in turn elected members which formed the original continental congress, hence our current electoral system where popular vote does not elect the president, and technically you are not actually voting for the president put for an "elector" who is pledged but not legally bound to actually vote for your choice.
So the simple answer is that yes your right to vote is protected (but not defined) in article four of the Constitution.
-
Thats true, the people actauly are not agrenteed the right to vote, just that it cannot be denied because of race, sex, or age (as long as over 18), and those votes arent actauly who elect the president, the electoral college does.
And as for the whole hate words thing: obscenety has always been veiwed as being outside the bounds of constitutional protection and thus can be regulated. Fighting words also are not veiwed to be protected by the constitution, both fall under the catigory of order v free speech.
-
Again there is a lot of confusion here over what is and is not "guaranteed" with regard to suffrage. Here is a quote from an individual who is a signer of the declaration of independence, member of the body that originally drafted the constitution and a President of the United States.
"The same reasoning which will induce you to admit all men who have no property, to vote, with those who have . . . will prove that you ought to admit women and children; for, generally speaking, women and children have as good judgments, and as independent minds, as those men who are wholly destitute of property. . . . Depend upon it, Sir, it is dangerous to open so fruitful a source of controversy and altercation as would be opened by attempting to alter the qualifications of voters; there will be no end of it. New claims will arise; women will demand the vote; lads from twelve to twenty-one will think their rights not enough attended to; and every man who has not a farthing, will demand an equal voice with any other, in all acts of state. It tends to confound and destroy all distinctions, and prostrate all ranks to one common level."
These were men who realized the power and responsibility a voice in government affairs entails and were prepared to risk all to secure and protect that right. A compelling argument can be made globally that a dilution of the standards for voting is at the heart of the fall of nations. I'd venture that our current "cast of characters" at the local, state and federal level validates the thoughts and feelings of the gentleman above. We've reached a point where we have a government "of the idiots, for the idiots and by the idiots"...
-
There is no right to vote... they can take it away from you but they dont ever give it to you. If you think there is a right to vote then show me where it says you have that right.
Apart from Humble's worthy exposition you can find it referred to specifically as a right in admendments XV, XIX and XXVI.
:noid You're not guaranteed anything. It's all a matter of circumstance. The government can suspend what we think are rights whenever they deem it necessary. i.e. (extreme case) Marshall Law.
This is a servere misinterpretation to think that we have rights. What we have are privileges. Big difference. :noid
I think this is true in a de facto sense. Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist 84, argued vigorously against a Bill of Rights in the nascent Constitution on two grounds: The first was that it might be interpreted as limiting rights to those listed. The second was that even though they were an enummeration of pre-existing "inalienable" rights that they would come to be seen as rights granted by the government and what the government can grant the government can remove. In his words:
I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power.
He was, as ever, prescient for it is clear that we have "men disposed to usurp" in spades at this point in history. I believe we will continue to see an erosion of actual rights coupled with an expansion of hallucinatory "rights" that are not rights at all. The right to a free college education for example.
Hmm... I'm wondering if I see a lock starting to materialize in the mist?
-
I agree completely, any attempt to understand the meaning and intent of our "founding fathers is incomplete without a fundamental working knowledge of the surrounding documentation. I've always felt that when in doubt the guiding document is actually the declaration itself. Everyone of the men who signed it literally made a decision of victory or death. These were ideals they were willing to die for if necessary, while at the same time they set a standard of conduct and responsibility for the government that followed...
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
In effect the constitution is a "living document" who's primary goal is to allow modification the meet the goal stated above thru peaceful means, revolution from within vs armed force from without.
-
To keep in theme with several of the recent threads I would like to see how much you all know about your rights and liberties as a citizen in the USA. I just studied my oscar off for my midterm on this, lets see what you can come up with, and dont give me the name, tell me what and why and limitations to it, and even your opinion on it.
With a little bit of posting this could get interesting :salute
Our rights are granted to us by the author and creator of Life recognized by our government to be The Triune God of the Bible. As the founders knew the corruption of mans character, they set limits to be recognized upon government. However each individual is obligated to act in the best interest of another even at their own personal legitimate expense and is only limited by ability and opportunity.
-
You dont have a right to vote. Its not in there.
-
You dont have a right to vote. Its not in there.
Absolutely 100% a false statement. The "right" is specifically guaranteed in Article 4. It's defined however by each state within the limits imposed by various constitutional amendments. What we have is a lot of 20W bulbs (this not aimed at you chalenge but your "sources") who write that we don't explicitly have a "right to vote" without a regard for the structure of our government. Each state has the right and responsibility to define suffrage, this is a fundamental "states right". We can view this in a similar context to your right to get married or to declare bankruptcy. The underlying right exists but is variable by state according to local doctrine. Not all your rights are federal in nature, this is lost much of its significance in the 21st century, but in 1796 most "Americans" were much more concerned about states rights then federal one's...so a portion of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" was viewed as to important to be left to the federal government.
-
Yes, we have no business complaining about creeping infringements UNTIL we are just as bad as Soviet Russia.
As long as we are even slightly better, we need to STFU!
The thing is US citizens are protected from the Police, military, and Government, in ways unheard of in most of the world. Even in Europe the Police have far less restrictions on them.
But maybe youv never been in places where people are not. If you haven't then you have no frame of reference.
You vote means nothing because you have removed yourself from having impact on the system. You go to work, come home, whine on the computer, and thats it. The entire idea of America was for citizen Politicians, citizen soldiers, a citizens militia....ect All that changed when Politics became a profession and big Political machines became the norm. If there is a monster in Washington then we are the ones who created it, if only by our apathy.
I mean how many of you have ever fought for any "right"? Most gun owners dont even belong to the NRA.
-
Absolutely 100% a false statement. The "right" is specifically guaranteed in Article 4. It's defined however by each state within the limits imposed by various constitutional amendments. What we have is a lot of 20W bulbs (this not aimed at you chalenge but your "sources") who write that we don't explicitly have a "right to vote" without a regard for the structure of our government. Each state has the right and responsibility to define suffrage, this is a fundamental "states right". We can view this in a similar context to your right to get married or to declare bankruptcy. The underlying right exists but is variable by state according to local doctrine. Not all your rights are federal in nature, this is lost much of its significance in the 21st century, but in 1796 most "Americans" were much more concerned about states rights then federal one's...so a portion of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" was viewed as to important to be left to the federal government.
Article IV
Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
Section 2. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.
A person charged in any state with treason, felony, or other crime, who shall flee from justice, and be found in another state, shall on demand of the executive authority of the state from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the state having jurisdiction of the crime.
No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.
Section 3. New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.
The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.
Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.
Sorry but I dont see it anywhere in there. I think your making it up.
-
definition of a "Republican form of Government" from Blacks Law Dictionary page 1303...
A government in the republican form; a government of the people; a government by representatives chosen by the people. In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219.
Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.
-
Humble you know as well as I do that the original framers of the Constitution never intended for there to be a political race for the office of the President as we have today. The framers designed things so the people would elect state representatives and those representatives would vote on the President. I still think it would be better if we had stuck with the original design but no you dont have a right to vote at all as the Constitution is written and certainly not for the President. Its not in there. Blacks Law Dictionary was not in existence in the 1700s.
-
The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Place of Chusing Senators.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the 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.
All of these clauses bear on the right to vote in some way, but rest assured the right to vote is clearly given and protected. I'd love to here a plausible outline of how the right to vote (which you already have) would be denied in some way?
-
1st, technically we don't vote for the president and the electoral college can refuse to sit the "winner" and elect the "loser" under the law.
While some alterations have occurred in the 12th amendment fundamentally its the same process.
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
original
The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not lie an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; a quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two-thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice-President
12th Amendment
The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;
The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;
The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.
The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
So to the best of my knowledge its been the same since 1804...
Now the voting for senators was changed significantly in the 17th Amendment. Personally I do not agree with "universal suffrage" but so be it.
To me I'd require a high school education and some form of public service (I think we should have 2 yrs of mandated service in anything from military to habitat for humanity but something) and a job (even if we have to create it, but workfare not welfare)...but thats another topic not allowed here.
-
See? While you read that and get 'right to vote' from it... many of use read it and dont see it. As far as Im concerned there could be a right to yearly TBone steak and home fries and you would never find it. Its not clearly worded that way and I believe therefore it isnt there. Sorry.
-
The right of everyone to vote has been added by way of ammendment
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not
be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Fifteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (1870)
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not
be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
Nineteenth Amendment (1920)
The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any
primary or other election . . . shall not be denied or abridged . . . by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
Twenty-fourth Amendment (1964)
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 on account of age.
Twenty-sixth Amendment (1971)
-
Dude!
It's Martial!
As in:
1 : of, relating to, or suited for war or a warrior
2 : relating to an army or to military life
3 : experienced in or inclined to war
Dude!
Relax!
As in:
1 : if that's all you have to add then stay in the back seat and be quiet
2 : if you're you're that narrow that one misspelled word bothers you this much then you need help
3 : you're not worth anymore of my time
-
The right of everyone to vote has been added by way of ammendment
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not
be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Fifteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (1870)
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not
be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
Nineteenth Amendment (1920)
The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any
primary or other election . . . shall not be denied or abridged . . . by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
Twenty-fourth Amendment (1964)
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 on account of age.
Twenty-sixth Amendment (1971)
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.
-
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.
-
Drediock you missed your calling. Being that long winded with just a little practice you could best Al Gore. :aok
-
Long ago I heard that there was one right I could possibly attain.
Three wise men once sang a bold song to me that I have to fight for my right to party. I have been searching for the recordings of those teachings, but the channel I once heard them on quit playing music, and instead has been only showing super sweet 16 b-day parties.
-
There is only ONE "right" that makes much sense to me...the right to do whatever hell you want with yourself and your property and live unmolested, excepting you interfere with that right for others.
All the other "rights" worth having are more or less just extensions of that principle.
lol never heard of Eminent Domain i take it. I have IT SUCKS
-
Dude!
Relax!
As in:
1 : if that's all you have to add then stay in the back seat and be quiet
2 : if you're you're that narrow that one misspelled word bothers you this much then you need help
3 : you're not worth anymore of my time
:rofl :aok
Hey I was in a picky mood :D
Civil liberties have always been what they (the Government) are willing to let you have. The moment you allowed any compromise to your core foundation document was the day you began to lose your civil liberties.
Take it for what it's worth from someone who lives in a country who's civil liberties were never a right and are rapidly diminishing.
-
Drediock you missed your calling. Being that long winded with just a little practice you could best Al Gore. :aok
You underestimate me.
I could best not only Al Gore
But both houses of congress irrespective of their political make up simultaneously at any given time.
Difference between myself and Gore though.
I'd be right
:salute
-
I HAVE heard of it, and yes, I have deep misgivings about it. One thing for certain IMO, it should only be used for public projects like roads, and never, as Donald Trump attempted to do, to take some lady's house so he carry on with one of his projects.