There is NO Right To Vote in a Federal Election in the Constitution

[festeringZit]

Barman, the resident ignorant troll posted this a few minutes ago:

Relax Snook. Your statement may possibly have surpassed on the Wacky meter something I said, but nothing you post will ever be as silly as this:


Quote:
Originally Posted by festeringZit
Oh, and by the way there is no "right" to vote in a Federal
Election in our Constitution.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Again, Barman is wrong, clueless and ignorant.

You can read the Constitution all you want, and you're never going to find any clause which grants a universal right to vote to American citizens. You will find a 15th Amendment where it is written that a person can't be prevented from voting because of their race, ethnicity, gender ... etc. All the 15th Amendment does is restrict the states and the federal government from turning voters away from the polls because of race, gender or religion. Nothing in the 15th Amendment says that either the states or the federal government must allow all people to vote. There are rights granted to all Americans. You can worship and express yourself as you please. Sorry, Bzzzt. .. no right to vote.

Now, as for presidential elections. Read the constitution. There is no constitutional guarantee that there will be any vote at all, let alone that everyone has the "right" to vote. The only people who have a right to vote for president under our Constitution are the electors from each state. There is no restriction placed on the states as to how these electors must be chosen. State legislatures may appoint the electors with absolutely no public vote if they so chose. Right to vote? It simply isn't there.


http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20001213.html

And here is an excerpt from that column:

"Amidst the divisiveness of the United States Supreme Court's second foray into the 2000 Presidential election, it is easy to overlook the significance of the Court's earlier, unanimous ruling of December 4, 2000. A close reading of the decision in that case, Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board, reveals a clear consensus for what will strike many Americans as an outrageous proposition: there is no constitutional right to vote in a Presidential election. The fact that the state in which you reside even permits you to vote for electors is purely a matter of legislative grace."

Let's see if Barman has the balls to admit he is wrong yet again.

 

[Romanowski]

barman is often wrong. I think he jokes a lot. the end

 

[barman]

Try the 14th Amendment ZIT, which details how all Americans have the right to vote for their federal congressional representatives and for POTUS. This was later further amended to prevent anyone from being excluded due to gender, race or being age 18-20.

HTH better your understanding of the United States Constitution.

 

[barman]

For the Reader at Large, we'll include Section 2 of the 14th Amendment which details that if any state denies or abridges it's citizens their right to vote for President or for Congressional reps, that state's representation in the Congress will be reduced in proportion to the level of abridgement.

To wit:

<emp>Section 2.</emp> Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

 

[barman]

The red hyperlinks above of course point to the subsequent Amendments which expanded voting rights to females and later to those aged 18-20.

 

[festeringZit]

Try the 14th Amendment ZIT, which details how all Americans have the right to vote for their federal congressional representatives and for POTUS. This was later further amended to prevent anyone from being excluded due to gender or to race.

HTH better your understanding of the United States Constitution.

OMG, are you that stupid? Here is the whole 14th amendment, it in
no way negates anything I have said.


1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

 

[festeringZit]

Barman, you are an idiot.

"But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President "

This is talking about voting for electors ass-clown.

 

[barman]

ZIT perhaps was confused by the language of his googled Findlaw quip which denotes how Americans do not directly vote for the President of the United States (or the VP) but rather vote for electors at the state level (the "electoral college") who then - with only one exception in US history - carry their fellow citizens' prevaling vote to Washington for the official count in Congress every fourth December.

Congressional reps (Senators and Congressmen) are directly elected at the federal level by American voters and not by the "electoral college".

 

[steaktartar]

cool barman has his own stalker........cockroach comment really stirred the zitter up

 

[tiznow]

who cares government doesn't follow that outdated document anymore

its irrelevent

 

[barman]

Barman, you are an idiot.

"But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President..."

If Section 2 cut off at the same point you cut it off above, it would be correct to say that Americans do not vote for federal elected officers.

But since Section 2 continues on to include Congressional reps, it kinda means that yes, Americans do indeed vote for federal elected officers.

 

[barman]

For the Reader at Large, we'll again highlight the portion of Section 2 (14th Amendment) which ZIT deleted from his reading.

"But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof...."

 

[Romanowski]

lol barman has a stalker...would be irony

comedy gold

 

[festeringZit]

Supreme Court Ruling:


Specifically, McPherson said that state legislatures have virtually unlimited power to designate the manner of selecting Presidential electors. The Court stated, "[t]he Constitution does not provide that the appointment of electors shall be by popular vote . . . and leaves it to the legislature exclusively to define the method of effecting the object." (emphasis added). The Court then noted the variety of methods for selection of Electors that the state legislature could designate, including selection "by the legislature itself . . . ."
The petitioners had also argued that the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments confer a right to vote in Presidential elections. But in McPherson, the Courtrejected that contention. It stated that the right to vote in Presidential elections is not protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, even though Section Two of that Amendment speaks of denials of "the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States."
The Court also said that the Fifteenth Amendment merely states an anti-discrimination rule: If a state chooses to select Presidential electors by a vote of the citizens of the state, then it may not exclude people on the basis of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. However, the state has no obligation to hold elections for President in the first place.

 

[barman]

Off to Happy Hour with the SheBar and Co....DRays on live tonight ESPN2....

Finger wagging against American women who abort fetuses with the same impunity as the Orkin Man treats your baseboards may now continue without fear of witty retorts from your Humble Reporter.

d1g1t

 

[RobFunk]

lol barman has a stalker...would be irony

comedy gold

Comedy gold! Politico forum favorite new catch phrase (thanks to barman)
ope:

 

[barman]

Supreme Court Ruling:


yada yada yada

Keep leaving out the portions of Amendment 14, Section 2 which directly speak to election of federal congressmen and I'm sure all of your misstated thesis will continue to make perfect sense inside your own dome.

 

[barman]

lol barman has a stalker...would be irony

comedy gold

heh.....And I didn't even have to blow hours out of my day typing 2000+ word essays. Just a simple subreference to the local exterminator and it was Off To the Races.

Raise a glass to succinct cyber wedgies!

 

[gtc08]

rightside is my stalker. he even follows me into the rubber room and main forum.

 

[DarrylParsons]

It looks like FZ is correct. Technically the states could allow only one person to vote in each state for each elector, meaning each representative would then have an equal say (because they each represent one voter).

I see nothing in the linked excerpts of the constitution that makes this scenario impossible.

Given that this is possible, the conclusion is that the right to vote is not guaranteed by the constitution.

Actual practice is irrelevant because the original question is about rights and not the likelihood of being able to vote (which is admittedly about 100%).

Interesting info