Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 3:00:45 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2012 21:21:02 GMT -5
There are lots of rights that the constitution does not explicitly declare... in fact, i don't think the articles explicitly declare any ... and there was great discussion on whether any should be included in a bill of rights, lest anyone get the mistaken impression that those were the only right guarenteed.
Again, we are endowed by our creator by unalienable rights. Our constitution does not give us rights, it protects our natural rights, and tells us how our government contract can abridge them... it specifically states that right to vote cannot be restricted in the ways the current legislation attempt to do so.
I really can't believe that you think people do not have the right to vote??
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 3:00:45 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2012 21:34:23 GMT -5
Actually, your link says "in Reynolds v. Sims (1964), it embraced the principle of equal representation for equal numbers of people—one person, one vote. More important, in Reynolds the Supreme Court ruled that the right to vote in federal elections was located in the Article I, section 2 of the Constitution description of the House of Representatives as “chosen. … by the People of the several States,” and in the references to the election of senators found in the Seventeenth Amendment.2
|
|
2kids10horses
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:15:09 GMT -5
Posts: 2,759
|
Post by 2kids10horses on Sept 30, 2012 21:49:56 GMT -5
oped, Those quotes in your last posts are interpertation by the Supreme Court of what it thought the Constitution meant. Actually, the Federal Government does not grant the right to vote to anyone. The States determine who can and cannot vote in each State. Quote from my link: "Yet in Bush v. Gore (2000), the Supreme Court stated that there was no constitutional right to vote in presidential elections because the Constitution, in creating the Electoral College, left it up to the states regarding how electors would be chosen. What all these decisions suggest then is that the constitutional right to vote is highly qualified, resting more in what states cannot do regarding discrimination against specific individuals than in affirmatively granting a right to vote." Read more: www.answers.com/topic/right-to-vote-1#ixzz280mySvwX
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 3:00:45 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2012 21:54:06 GMT -5
Semantics. People have a right to vote... or the state does not have the authrity to keep anyone from voting... Again, most rights are not affirmatively granted. That doesn't mean you don't have the right.
Are you willing to live only with such rights that are affirmatively granted by the constitution ?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 3:00:45 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2012 22:04:37 GMT -5
Actually, can you tell me one right that IS affirmatively granted by the constitution? Maybe I'm not understanding the term as you are using it ?
|
|
2kids10horses
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:15:09 GMT -5
Posts: 2,759
|
Post by 2kids10horses on Sept 30, 2012 22:29:45 GMT -5
oped,
I am not a Constitutional scholar, but I believe that the "Right to Bear Arms" is in the Bill of Rights. I think it's Amendment 2.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 3:00:45 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2012 22:34:38 GMT -5
Amendment 2 doesn't say you have the right to guns. It says your right to guns will not be infringed. As all the ammendments tend to do, it assumes the right, and says the government cannot abridge the right. It does not GRANT the right. It does not say people have the right to own guns. It assumes the right, and says the government has no authority to abridge the right.
Same thing I think your source was getting at in that there is no affirmative granting of the right, but the states just don't have the right to stop people from doing it... etc.
|
|
2kids10horses
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:15:09 GMT -5
Posts: 2,759
|
Post by 2kids10horses on Sept 30, 2012 22:53:36 GMT -5
Well, then, maybe you're right about gun rights. Like I said, I'm no Constitutional scholar.
But, it's the States who determine voting rights, not the Federal government. I think all the things in the Amendments that discuss voting "rights" just say the States cannot discriminate who can or can not vote based on race, sex, etc. As I understand it, it doesn't say they can't "discriminate", it just says it can't be based upon these factors...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 3:00:45 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2012 22:57:43 GMT -5
Explain to me who you think the state can keep from voting, that would be in accordance with the constitution.... Thanks.
|
|
2kids10horses
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:15:09 GMT -5
Posts: 2,759
|
Post by 2kids10horses on Oct 1, 2012 5:57:44 GMT -5
Oh, that would be felons, persons under age 18, illegals, aliens. Folks like that!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 3:00:45 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2012 9:31:32 GMT -5
2kids, that's what we call the law of the land around here. The Constitution as interpretted by the Supreme Court.
Actually, the Amendment says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
So there are a number of qualifications involved that get interpretted by the Supreme Court. What was the intent of the well-regulated militia clause? Should people register their guns? What counts as Arms? Can I have a tank? What qualifies as an infringement? Is it okay to make you wait 24 hours? 48 hours? Can I run a background check?
Everything in the Constitution is subject to interpretation.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 3:00:45 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2012 9:33:05 GMT -5
(and don't call people "illegals," it is demeaning and it makes me not like you.)
|
|
2kids10horses
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:15:09 GMT -5
Posts: 2,759
|
Post by 2kids10horses on Oct 1, 2012 10:07:19 GMT -5
No, Crafty, it's not demeaning. It's accurate. If people knowingly come to this country without following the law, it's illegal. Which makes them illegal.
I dont care whether you like me or not.
People who come to this country legally are called immigrants. People who come here illegally are illegal immigrants. Or, "illegals" for short.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 3:00:45 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2012 10:15:51 GMT -5
Yeah, the "for short" makes you sound like a jackass.
(I'll allow that I am a bleeding heart liberal, but you should check out Frank Luntz's work and he'll tell you why Republicans shouldn't say "illegals" either. Spoiler alert: because it makes them sound like jackasses)
|
|
whoisjohngalt
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:12:07 GMT -5
Posts: 9,140
|
Post by whoisjohngalt on Oct 1, 2012 10:29:08 GMT -5
huh? Every time I think I've heard it all in PC, turns out I was wrong...... Lena
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,719
|
Post by midjd on Oct 1, 2012 11:23:13 GMT -5
What about citizens who do illegal things? Are they "illegals" too? Sometimes I exceed the speed limit. I may be an illegal.
PS - Oped and Crafty are correct on the Constitutional analysis. We are endowed with inalienable rights, and the Constitution enumerates the rights that may not be abridged. The Supreme Court fills in the gaps, of which there are many.
|
|
2kids10horses
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:15:09 GMT -5
Posts: 2,759
|
Post by 2kids10horses on Oct 1, 2012 16:20:43 GMT -5
Hee Hawww!!!!
Not that I am entirely without some empanthy. Some of the illegals were brought here by their parents when they were minors. I can see where they deserve special consideration if they have stayed out of trouble, been to school, etc. Their parents who brought them, er, no.
(Was it demeaning to call them "minors"?)
MidJD,
It is illegal to exceed the speed limit. While you are exceeding the speed limit, you are performing an illegal act. If caught by the authorities you can be fined, and if you speed excessively, your license can be revoked.
People who enter this country without proper visas are entering (and staying) illegally. While they are in this county without proper authorization (visa, green card, etc.) they are illegal. If they went back to their home country, they would no longer be illegal. If caught, and especially if they are doing some other illegal activity, then they should suffer the consequences. We are, after all, a nation of laws.
|
|
Cookies Galore
Senior Associate
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 18:08:13 GMT -5
Posts: 10,739
|
Post by Cookies Galore on Oct 2, 2012 11:12:45 GMT -5
PA voter id enforcement has been halted!
Im on my phone and hate posting links, but it's out there. I first read it on pennlive.com.
The law will still go into effect, but after the election.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,510
|
Post by Tennesseer on Oct 2, 2012 11:16:24 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 3:00:45 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2012 16:24:43 GMT -5
Thanks! I'm out too... Hadn't heard..
|
|