I agree with them on only this portion of the issue. I register to vote now,and there is no charge. If the card I am now carrying is deemed insufficient evidence of my residence or identity in order to vote I don’t have an argument with it. However, if they want more, let them pay for it. That is what our taxes are for. You do not pay a user fee for a voter registration card, picture ID or not, that is the definition of a poll tax.

Ding ding ding! One post regarding the true intent of the constitution!!

Guys, don’t pigeon hole yourself into the argument about what exactly the meaning of the word “is” is – the better argument is the clear intent in the bill of rights and constitution and from the founding fathers.

The point is we have rights, and voting is merely a tool to help secure those rights, among others. Start seeing the real argument – individual rights vs the state racket.

So … under the original constitution, only Representatives and Electors were chosen by popular vote … and individual State legislatures/ state constitutions decided who got to vote and how the elections were run.

For the most part, sure. But don’t forget the republican guarantee clause of Article IV, Section IV.

The original constitution simply sets the number of representatives and electoral college members for each state based on the census.

As for how the electors and House reps are chosen:

Section 2 – The House

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.

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

How they are elected is up to the individual state legislatures … and yes, originally only white landowners had the franchise in many states.

Senators were originally appointed by state legislatures … and the President and VP are chosen by the Electors.

So … under the original constitution, only Representatives and Electors were chosen by popular vote … and individual State legislatures/ state consti8tutions decided who got to vote and how the elections were run.

The anti-slavery amendments were added to try to force the states to give former slaves voting rights.

Wasn’t the right to vote limited to landowners at various times?

There is no right to vote. Or rather, there is not much of one. There is only the qualification that representation is proportional to those who vote.

So if your state decides to deny voting by means other than race, etc. like they do with residency requirements today, their representation in Congress will reflect that. That means that voting is not much of a right.

Seems to me like a semantics issue. “Not specifically enumerated” and “does not exist” are not the same thing.

I concur. R. Neal’s post, however, does not.

I’m serial.

Looks like the campaign to allow illegal aliens to vote is underway. I think I have reached my lowest tolerance for the far left.

Glad to help TennViews get a few readers.

Heh.

Both the 9th and the 15th make the arguement that the right to vote is unenumerated.

The 9th, obviously, because it specifically states that not all rights are enumerated.

The 15th, because it doesn’t protect the right to vote itself. It only protects certain *new* classifications by which that right cannot be denied.

Again, the argument does not seem to be that you only have rights that are enumerated. Saying that the right to vote is not in the Constitution is not the same as saying you don’t have that right.

Just months after the Alexander decision, a 5-4 Court majority in Bush v. Gore denied Florida citizens a right to ensure their votes were counted, saying “the individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote [for presidential electors].” Tens of thousands of Floridians who were purged wrongly from the voting rolls were denied recourse against Republican state officials who, in the name of preventing felons from voting, disenfranchised them.

I think that should read “Republican state officials who, as required by state law, enforced the disenfranchisement of felons.”

The Bush v. Gore ruling also meant Florida ’s legislators could have followed through on their threats to simply disregarded citizens’ votes and choose electors themselves.

You mean… like the constitution says at Article II, Section 1?

This argument is like saying that since the 1st Amendment just says that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” then you don’t really have a right to any religion.

There is a third choice. They know and ignore.

This is just an excuse to trump up Republicans have to cheat to win elections. Today is the beginning of the Presidential Election and the country will descend into moonbat madness. They have to fire up the base and they think the best way is to say the last two elections were stolen.

It will be a long year.

Here is Fred on Federalism. Worth a look and a link.

Section 1. 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.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. –15th Amendment to the Constitution

Why is it that many of those who want to make it very easy to vote, also want to greatly restrict or even deny the 2nd Amendment right to armed self self defense–a right which down through history was paramount to maintaining people in SLAVERY??!!

…Which was the point of the 9th amendment: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

IOW, just ’cause it ain’t in here don’t mean you don’t have it.

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/political_reform/right_to_vote.html

From the Boortz show.

Neal Boortz just covered this on his program. There is a proposed amendment to the Constitution to guarantee the right to vote. Boortz ask the question why do we need an amendment if it is already in the Constitution?

This is all a ploy by far left liberals to bring up their favorite subject, Bush stole the election, twice.

Public schools have let this country down. It is scary how stupid some people are. I am surprised at R. Neal. But then again…

The high point is when Constitutional expert Andy Axel drops in for a drive by. It’s worth a read at MCB. Gays are complaining they are being gay bashed, most of the discussion is about voting machines. Apparently the Republicans plan to steal another election. We all know that is the only way they can win.

Register to vote. If you haven’t then read the MCB post.

As long as the constitution was followed I wouldn’t care if I voted or not. My primary concern about gov’t is that it stops violating my rights – which I would freely give up my ‘right’ to vote to live unmolested by the biggest racket in world history.

Please everyone read the bill of rights. The words are quite clear to me and I know right away that the government is violating many of them and all these excuses and interpretations and bureaucratic edicts are clear violations.

The founding fathers surely weren’t perfect, but they weren’t blithering idiots either. If they hadn’t taken some amount of “right to privacy” for granted, the bill of rights would have been arrant nonsense, therefore they must have assumed some right to privacy. Same with voting.