121 replies to this topic

[Davidson Deac II]

Quite a stretch of an assumption on your part, I'd say. I simply pointed out the hypocrisy on clear display by the Republican party- the party of smaller, less intrusive government- wanting more government intervention in voting rights.

"Because there is no right to vote in the U.S. Constitution, individual states set their own electoral policies and procedures. This leads to confusing and sometimes contradictory policies regarding ballot design, polling hours, voting equipment, voter registration requirements, and ex-felon voting rights. As a result, our electoral system is divided into 50 states, more than 3,000 counties and approximately 13,000 voting districts, all separate and unequal." Fairvote.org

What I am in favor of is a Constitutional amendment affirming the right to vote, which a vast majority of people believe exists in this country when, in fact, it does not. As a matter of fact, the United States is 1 of but 11 democracies in the entire world that do not have the right to vote affirmed by a constitutional amendment.

Once that is in place, voting registration, eligibility and the voting process becomes standardized, thereby preventing what the Republican party attempted prior to the most recent election- voter suppression and are now attempting via gerrymandering.

Both democrats and republicans believe that government should be more involved in some areas, less involved in others. The only difference is which areas they believe government should or should not be involved in. Ignoring the accusations and the usual partisan tripe in your comments, the right of the citizens to vote actually is mentioned in the constitution. 26th amendment specifically names the right to vote.

The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote

Its also mentioned in the 24th amendment under similar circumstances. So it actually is a named right in the constitution, but the constitution only gives reasons that it can or cannot be restricted. A new amendment might clarify but that would depend on the wording of the amendment.

Fwiw, I doubt you are correct that voting process would become standardized. Many states (red and blue) would see an amendment that would allow the federal government to impose standards on state elections as unwarranted and would never approve the amendment. And an amendment that only guaranteed the right to vote wouldn't necessarily impose those standards.

Btw, gerrymandering is definitely a bipartisan activity. Case in point, NC 12th district.

[Anybodyhome]

Ignoring the accusations and the usual partisan tripe in your comments, the right of the citizens to vote actually is mentioned in the constitution. 26th amendment specifically names the right to vote.

Its also mentioned in the 24th amendment under similar circumstances. So it actually is a named right in the constitution, but the constitution only gives reasons that it can or cannot be restricted. A new amendment might clarify but that would depend on the wording of the amendment.

The 26th Amendment does not guarantee the right to vote. It simply establishes the age at which people can vote. It may be a matter of semantics to some, but as any Constitutional law professor or historian will tell you, there is no amendment that clearly establishes the right of any citizen of this country to vote.
"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. Congress shall have the power to enforce this law through appropriate legislation."

And the 24th Amendment? C'mon, the 24th simply says one does not have to pay poll taxes in order to vote.
"The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax."

Sure, there are several "mentions" of the right to vote throughout the Constitution, but to assume it is an inalienable right is simply incorrect. If it were a specific guaranteed right per a Constitutional amendment, the Supreme Court in 2000 would not have issued this ruling in Bush v. Gore:
"The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States."

The last proposed Constitutional Amendment brought by joint resolution of both Houses:
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

`Article--

`Section 1. All citizens of the United States who are eighteen years of age or older shall have the right to vote in any public election held in the jurisdiction in which the citizen resides. The right to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States, any State, or any other public or private person or entity, except that the United States or any State may establish regulations narrowly tailored to produce efficient and honest elections.

`Section 2. Each State shall administer public elections in the State in accordance with election performance standards established by the Congress. The Congress shall reconsider such election performance standards at least once every four years to determine if higher standards should be established to reflect improvements in methods and practices regarding the administration of elections.

`Section 3. Each State shall provide any eligible voter the opportunity to register and vote on the day of any public election.

`Section 4. The Congress shall have power to enforce and implement this article by approp riate legislation."

Instead of being so concerned with my "partisan tripe" (otherwise known as "opinion") perhaps defending your own opinions, which obviously differ from mine, with actual facts rather than falling into lockstep formation with the conservative lemmings and their distorted view of
the country.

Sorry, it's a message/discussion board. If you don't care for my politics, opinions or thoughts, simply add me to your ignore list. After all, the Republican party seems to find that trait perfectly acceptable- ignoring the will of the people- and the last 2 elections are clear indications of that.

[pstall]

and the merry go round continues....

[rodeo]

and the merry go round continues....

Thanks for proving my point.

[Davidson Deac II]

The 26th Amendment does not guarantee the right to vote. It simply establishes the age at which people can vote. It may be a matter of semantics to some, but as any Constitutional law professor or historian will tell you, there is no amendment that clearly establishes the right of any citizen of this country to vote.
"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. Congress shall have the power to enforce this law through appropriate legislation."

And the 24th Amendment? C'mon, the 24th simply says one does not have to pay poll taxes in order to vote.
"The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax."

Sure, there are several "mentions" of the right to vote throughout the Constitution, but to assume it is an inalienable right is simply incorrect. If it were a specific guaranteed right per a Constitutional amendment, the Supreme Court in 2000 would not have issued this ruling in Bush v. Gore:
"The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States."

The last proposed Constitutional Amendment brought by joint resolution of both Houses:
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

`Article--

`Section 1. All citizens of the United States who are eighteen years of age or older shall have the right to vote in any public election held in the jurisdiction in which the citizen resides. The right to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States, any State, or any other public or private person or entity, except that the United States or any State may establish regulations narrowly tailored to produce efficient and honest elections.

`Section 2. Each State shall administer public elections in the State in accordance with election performance standards established by the Congress. The Congress shall reconsider such election performance standards at least once every four years to determine if higher standards should be established to reflect improvements in methods and practices regarding the administration of elections.

`Section 3. Each State shall provide any eligible voter the opportunity to register and vote on the day of any public election.

`Section 4. The Congress shall have power to enforce and implement this article by approp riate legislation."

I didn't say that either amendment guaranteed the right to vote, only that the right to vote is listed as a right. So the right to vote doesn't really need to be laid out. Only congressional authority to regulate it might require an amendment. Of course, congress already has some ability to regulate voting requirements. As an aside, it will be interesting to see how the Supremes rule on the voting rights act next month.

As far as voting being an inalienable right, there are restrictions on all rights, whether they are specifically listed in the constitution or not. There are restrictions on the freedom of speech (not many, but there are a few) and on freedom of religion. Even if the amendment passed, states or the feds would still be responsible for determing the definition of elegible voter, and we would still have the voterid debate.

I don't think the amendment listed above would have a chance of passing enough states (red or blue) to become law. I think states such as California and Alabama would be wary of a federal government trying to tell them how to determine if a voter is elegible or now. If they are not, they should be because the political winds in washington change on a regular basis.

But I am curious. If republicans should regain control of the house, senate, and executive, would you be ok with them setting election standards based on that amendment. Or with the current conservative leaning court being responsible for intrepreting that amendment?

[Anybodyhome]

I don't think the amendment listed above would have a chance of passing enough states (red or blue) to become law.

But I am curious. If republicans should regain control of the house, senate, and executive, would you be ok with them setting election standards based on that amendment. Or with the current conservative leaning court being responsible for intrepreting that amendment?

I have no faith or reason to believe that anything of significance will come out of Washington for the remainder of my life. The de-evolution of politics into nothing more than self-serving, out of touch ideologies espoused with schoolyard rhetoric and an "I'm taking my ball and going home" attitude have taken what little belief I have in the true republic I grew up in and spent so many years serving in the defense of.

[Davidson Deac II]

I have no faith or reason to believe that anything of significance will come out of Washington for the remainder of my life. The de-evolution of politics into nothing more than self-serving, out of touch ideologies espoused with schoolyard rhetoric and an "I'm taking my ball and going home" attitude have taken what little belief I have in the true republic I grew up in and spent so many years serving in the defense of.

IMO, washington politicians are just following the example of the voters. But thats another discussion entirely.

[Anybodyhome]

I am of the exact opposite of that opinion. I think politicians do nothing more than thumb their collective noses at the electorate while carrying out their own agendas.

[Kral]

I am of the exact opposite of that opinion. I think politicians do nothing more than thumb their collective noses at the electorate while carrying out their own agendas.

I find myself in agreement with you here. I propose that it is caused by representative democracy.

[pstall]

get rid of consecutive terms and introduce a 2-3 cooling off period between running for re-election and i bet you get dif representation.

[Kral]

get rid of consecutive terms and introduce a 2-3 cooling off period between running for re-election and i bet you get dif representation.

Hmmmm...

I am not certain about that. I think it would cause more of the same. What difference do you think it would make?

[pstall]

make it just a tad bit harder to get the carrot of life time pension etc.
if after your first term of 4 yrs you know there is 2 yrs before you can get back in the game, you will have a shorter term view not to mention avoiding just trying to get re-elected in your final year.
if after your 2 yr hiatus, if you desire to go back in the poilitical arena, go for it. this means it would take at the very least 6 years before you get lifetime benefits. that can possibly weed out those that just want to milk the system or just hang on for the country club perks.

it would also incorporate more new people into the system and introducing more new fresh ideas more often.

[Kral]

I am not certain I could agree with encouraging short term views. Is that what you are advocating? I still don't see why the system you are proposing is better for the constituent.

[pstall]

How's the current system working out? We need people to aspire to help the people they represent not spend all this money to get into the country club.

I can't remember the exact stat but Tom Brokaw mentioned how like 94% of congress was re elected and the lockdown of new ideas were a result of that. I will track it down. It was on Meet the Press.

[Panthro]

papers please