timujin: Silly Jesus: Um, the states don't determine the rules for federal elections.

Find me something in federal law that establishes such a right.

Again, there is no inherent right to vote in federal elections.

Yes, there is. It doesn't matter if the right is granted by the federal government, your state constitution grants you that right.

If you don't believe me, maybe you'll believe this law professor at Columbia University. If not, then I give up.

Professor Dorf -

""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."

For further reading on the matter, look up Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board where the justices go into greater detail in affirming my claims.

Silly Jesus: timujin: Silly Jesus: Halli: Silly Jesus: Halli: Silly Jesus: Halli: Silly Jesus: Not sure, that's not my area of expertise.

So just a GED in law then.

Silly Jesus: All of the people who do poorly on intelligence tests at present argue that they are discriminatory, so it would be an uphill battle, but I think that some reasonable minimum standard and a way to test it could be found.

Voter suppression is such fun.

Those poor felons. Will you be their voice?

You always go back to the felons. We aren't talking about them.

So it's fine for some people to not be allowed to vote, but not others?

Yes.

And crime should be one of those reasons but knowing your ass from a whole in the ground shouldn't be?

No, someone who commits a felony has voluntarily given up their right to vote.

People who "don't know their ass from a whole <SIC> in the ground" haven't and they deserve equal protection under the law and the right privilege to vote for whomever they believe to be in their best interest.

It's a right enumerated in that person's state constitution and is specified as such, as I showed you above, not a privilege. What is it about state constitutions don't you get? You started off this by stating that the 14th, 15th and 19th amendments don't grant the right to vote, but merely say how the right to vote can't be abridged. I point out to you that state constitutions grant that right and you ignore them. Why the insistence that the right to vote is only a right if it's specified at the federal level?

Halli: Silly Jesus: Halli: Silly Jesus: Halli: Silly Jesus: Oh, was I not playing the game correctly? I'm sorry. I thought we were just throwing inflammatory and irrelevant nonsense into the discussion at random.

Like ranting about cashiers at Chick-a-fila? What has that got to do with voting?

I thought that there should be a minimum level of intellect required in order to be allowed to participate in an extremely important process that impacts us all. CFA was relevant in pointing out the absurdity of not having any standard for something so important (presidential elections) while having, and being ok with, minimum standards of intellect for relatively inconsequential functions such as a fast food cashier.

So how exactly are you going to measure that intellect?

The answer just happened to be posted elsewhere on Fark. I propose that we use the US Citizenship examination to determine voter eligibility.

Link (Here it is, it isn't very hard, I think that it would be a good and effective minimum standard.)

If it's good enough for immigrants, why not?

So how exactly are you going to administer this?

People currently registered to vote would be grandfathered in. For new registrants, the test would be required.

timujin: Silly Jesus: timujin: Silly Jesus: Halli: Silly Jesus: Halli: Silly Jesus: Halli: Silly Jesus: Not sure, that's not my area of expertise.

So just a GED in law then.

Silly Jesus: All of the people who do poorly on intelligence tests at present argue that they are discriminatory, so it would be an uphill battle, but I think that some reasonable minimum standard and a way to test it could be found.

Voter suppression is such fun.

Those poor felons. Will you be their voice?

You always go back to the felons. We aren't talking about them.

So it's fine for some people to not be allowed to vote, but not others?

Yes.

And crime should be one of those reasons but knowing your ass from a whole in the ground shouldn't be?

No, someone who commits a felony has voluntarily given up their right to vote.

People who "don't know their ass from a whole <SIC> in the ground" haven't and they deserve equal protection under the law and the right privilege to vote for whomever they believe to be in their best interest.

It's a right enumerated in that person's state constitution and is specified as such, as I showed you above, not a privilege. What is it about state constitutions don't you get? You started off this by stating that the 14th, 15th and 19th amendments don't grant the right to vote, but merely say how the right to vote can't be abridged. I point out to you that state constitutions grant that right and you ignore them. Why the insistence that the right to vote is only a right if it's specified at the federal level?

The Supreme Court of the United States seems to disagree with you. See above.

Fart_Machine: Silly Jesus: Fart_Machine: Silly Jesus: Fart_Machine: Silly Jesus: Oh, was I not playing the game correctly? I'm sorry. I thought we were just throwing inflammatory and irrelevant nonsense into the discussion at random.

Welcome to history.

And your point is?

That literacy tests aren't irrelevant and inflammatory nonsense since they were part of Jim Crow.

They are also part of the US citizenship test. RAAAAAAAAAAACISM!!! JIM CROW!!

US citizenship tests are the same as citizens voting in a general election? Fascinating.

The implication was that literacy tests were inherently racist because they were used as part of Jim Crow. Why else would someone point that out?

Silly Jesus: Fart_Machine: Silly Jesus: Fart_Machine: Silly Jesus: Oh, was I not playing the game correctly? I'm sorry. I thought we were just throwing inflammatory and irrelevant nonsense into the discussion at random.

Welcome to history.

And your point is?

That literacy tests aren't irrelevant and inflammatory nonsense since they were part of Jim Crow.

They are also part of the US citizenship test. RAAAAAAAAAAACISM!!! JIM CROW!!

So...250 years of American history didn't happen? Just askin....

Halli: Silly Jesus: People currently registered to vote would be grandfathered in. For new registrants, the test would be required.

You should talk about this idea next time you guys meet at the college republican club.

And it's a bad idea for a voter to have a very basic understanding of what they are doing, why?

X-boxershorts: Silly Jesus: Fart_Machine: Silly Jesus: Fart_Machine: Silly Jesus: Oh, was I not playing the game correctly? I'm sorry. I thought we were just throwing inflammatory and irrelevant nonsense into the discussion at random.

Welcome to history.

And your point is?

That literacy tests aren't irrelevant and inflammatory nonsense since they were part of Jim Crow.

They are also part of the US citizenship test. RAAAAAAAAAAACISM!!! JIM CROW!!

So...250 years of American history didn't happen? Just askin....

As I said above, the implication was that literacy tests are inherently racist because they were used as part of Jim Crow. I was saying that that wasn't the case.

Silly Jesus: Halli: Silly Jesus: People currently registered to vote would be grandfathered in. For new registrants, the test would be required.

You should talk about this idea next time you guys meet at the college republican club.

And it's a bad idea for a voter to have a very basic understanding of what they are doing, why?

Because the 3 separate amendments to the constitution that define a citizen's right to vote make no exemption for intelligence.

You should be grateful for this.

dammit so much, Firefox is giving me crap and not displaying the location of the cursor...

sorry about the bold there, it was unintentional

timujin: Silly Jesus: For further reading on the matter, look up Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board where the justices go into greater detail in affirming my claims.

Like this?
Because election laws are intended to facilitate the right of suffrage, such laws must be liberally construed in favor of the citizens' right to vote

The entire basis of the SCOTUS decision is that there is no right to vote in a presidential election. That's what the whole mess was about.

Silly Jesus: timujin: Silly Jesus: For further reading on the matter, look up Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board where the justices go into greater detail in affirming my claims.

Like this?
Because election laws are intended to facilitate the right of suffrage, such laws must be liberally construed in favor of the citizens' right to vote

The entire basis of the SCOTUS decision is that there is no right to vote in a presidential election. That's what the whole mess was about.

Was it? Would you please post your CV that confirms your expertise to make such assertions?

timujin: Silly Jesus: For further reading on the matter, look up Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board where the justices go into greater detail in affirming my claims.

Like this?
Because election laws are intended to facilitate the right of suffrage, such laws must be liberally construed in favor of the citizens' right to vote

"The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States." - The 7-2 opinion of SCOTUS

Link (new window)

I'm not sure what more you could possibly want.

I don't have time right this second, but there was also a Senator, I believe, who a couple of years ago proposed a constitutional amendment that would guarantee a right to vote in presidential elections. That'd be an awfully funny thing to do if it was already a guaranteed right.

Silly Jesus: timujin: Silly Jesus: For further reading on the matter, look up Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board where the justices go into greater detail in affirming my claims.

Like this?
Because election laws are intended to facilitate the right of suffrage, such laws must be liberally construed in favor of the citizens' right to vote

The entire basis of the SCOTUS decision is that there is no right to vote in a presidential election. That's what the whole mess was about.

Except for that part where they state that laws must be construed in favor of the citizens' right to vote?

Silly Jesus: "The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States." - The 7-2 opinion of SCOTUS

you left off the end:
unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College. This is the source for the statement in McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 35 (1892), that the State legislature's power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary; it may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself, which indeed was the manner used by State legislatures in several States for many years after the Framing of our Constitution. Id., at 28-33. History has now favored the voter, and in each of the several States the citizens themselves vote for Presidential electors.

which brings me back to my earlier point. If you are granted the right to vote in your state, then you have the right to vote, not the "privilege" or however else you'd like to put it.

You've also ignored my other question regarding the difference between a felon, who voluntarily gives up his right to vote, and someone you consider mentally feeble.

X-boxershorts: Silly Jesus: timujin: Silly Jesus: For further reading on the matter, look up Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board where the justices go into greater detail in affirming my claims.

Like this?
Because election laws are intended to facilitate the right of suffrage, such laws must be liberally construed in favor of the citizens' right to vote

The entire basis of the SCOTUS decision is that there is no right to vote in a presidential election. That's what the whole mess was about.

Was it? Would you please post your CV that confirms your expertise to make such assertions?

*crickets*

I see

X-boxershorts: Silly Jesus: timujin: Silly Jesus: For further reading on the matter, look up Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board where the justices go into greater detail in affirming my claims.

Like this?
Because election laws are intended to facilitate the right of suffrage, such laws must be liberally construed in favor of the citizens' right to vote

The entire basis of the SCOTUS decision is that there is no right to vote in a presidential election. That's what the whole mess was about.

Was it? Would you please post your CV that confirms your expertise to make such assertions?

You need a CV to confirm that I can read?

"The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States." - The 7-2 opinion of SCOTUS

Silly Jesus: X-boxershorts: Silly Jesus: timujin: Silly Jesus: For further reading on the matter, look up Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board where the justices go into greater detail in affirming my claims.

Like this?
Because election laws are intended to facilitate the right of suffrage, such laws must be liberally construed in favor of the citizens' right to vote

The entire basis of the SCOTUS decision is that there is no right to vote in a presidential election. That's what the whole mess was about.

Was it? Would you please post your CV that confirms your expertise to make such assertions?

You need a CV to confirm that I can read?

"The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States." - The 7-2 opinion of SCOTUS

Did you read the part after that? I posted it above, just in case you don't feel like looking it up.

Also, felon vs. mentally deficient? See above.

timujin: Silly Jesus: "The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States." - The 7-2 opinion of SCOTUS

you left off the end:
unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College. This is the source for the statement in McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 35 (1892), that the State legislature's power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary; it may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself, which indeed was the manner used by State legislatures in several States for many years after the Framing of our Constitution. Id., at 28-33. History has now favored the voter, and in each of the several States the citizens themselves vote for Presidential electors.

which brings me back to my earlier point. If you are granted the right to vote in your state, then you have the right to vote, not the "privilege" or however else you'd like to put it.

You've also ignored my other question regarding the difference between a felon, who voluntarily gives up his right to vote, and someone you consider mentally feeble.

The "end" that I left off does not contradict or clarity what the supreme court very clearly said. "The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States."

That was the entire point of the Bush v. Gore case. The court ruled that all of the votes were not required to be counted, as Gore contended, because it was violating no ones rights, because voting for the president is not a right.

Hell, here is an entire organization with the sole objective of gaining this right. www.fairvote.org You should let them know that you discovered that everyone already possesses this right, I'm sure they would be thrilled to hear it.

Here is a position paper by US Rep Jesse Jackson Jr. laying out the reasons Americans SHOULD have a right to vote. (new window)

Here is a US Senator, also arguing that Americans should be granted the right to vote. (new window)

It's baffling that you not only know more about this "right" than SCOTUS, but also more than a US Senator AND a US Representative, not to mention an entire organization devoted to this endeavor.

It must feel wonderful to be so smart.

timujin: Silly Jesus: "The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States." - The 7-2 opinion of SCOTUS

you left off the end:
unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College. This is the source for the statement in McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 35 (1892), that the State legislature's power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary; it may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself, which indeed was the manner used by State legislatures in several States for many years after the Framing of our Constitution. Id., at 28-33. History has now favored the voter, and in each of the several States the citizens themselves vote for Presidential electors.

which brings me back to my earlier point. If you are granted the right to vote in your state, then you have the right to vote, not the "privilege" or however else you'd like to put it.

You've also ignored my other question regarding the difference between a felon, who voluntarily gives up his right to vote, and someone you consider mentally feeble.

Your question at the end is moot, as there is no right to vote.

Fart_Machine: Silly Jesus: For further reading on the matter, look up Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board where the justices go into greater detail in affirming my claims.

Yeah about that.

The Supreme Court decision was to vacate Florida's Supreme Court decision because it was viewed as having violated Article II, § 1, cl. 2 of the Constitution by misinterpreting Florida election law. It doesn't say you don't have a Constitutional right to vote.

Yeah, about that...

That was the entire point of the Bush v. Gore case. The court ruled that all of the votes were not required to be counted, as Gore contended, because it was violating no ones rights, because voting for the president is not a right.

Hell, here is an entire organization with the sole objective of gaining this right. www.fairvote.org You should let them know that you discovered that everyone already possesses this right, I'm sure they would be thrilled to hear it.

Here is a position paper by US Rep Jesse Jackson Jr. laying out the reasons Americans SHOULD have a right to vote. (new window)

Here is a US Senator, also arguing that Americans should be granted the right to vote. (new window)

It's baffling that you not only know more about this "right" than SCOTUS, but also more than a US Senator AND a US Representative, not to mention an entire organization devoted to this endeavor.

It must feel wonderful to be so smart.

Fart_Machine: Silly Jesus: That was the entire point of the Bush v. Gore case.

You seem to be confused about your cases. Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board isn't the same as Bush vs Gore. Also the decision itself stated it could never be cited as precedent so using it to determine future cases on the right to vote is moot.

Hell, here is an entire organization with the sole objective of gaining this right. www.fairvote.org You should let them know that you discovered that everyone already possesses this right, I'm sure they would be thrilled to hear it.

Here is a position paper by US Rep Jesse Jackson Jr. laying out the reasons Americans SHOULD have a right to vote. (new window)

Here is a US Senator, also arguing that Americans should be granted the right to vote. (new window)

Are all of these people wrong as well?

Silly Jesus: The "end" that I left off does not contradict or clarity what the supreme court very clearly said. "The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States."

That was the entire point of the Bush v. Gore case. The court ruled that all of the votes were not required to be counted, as Gore contended, because it was violating no ones rights, because voting for the president is not a right.

Hell, here is an entire organization with the sole objective of gaining this right. www.fairvote.org You should let them know that you discovered that everyone already possesses this right, I'm sure they would be thrilled to hear it.

Here is a position paper by US Rep Jesse Jackson Jr. laying out the reasons Americans SHOULD have a right to vote. (new window)

Here is a US Senator, also arguing that Americans should be granted the right to vote. (new window)

It's baffling that you not only know more about this "right" than SCOTUS, but also more than a US Senator AND a US Representative, not to mention an entire organization devoted to this endeavor.

It must feel wonderful to be so smart.

You continue to be under the assumption that this is a federal issue. The document you linked to made my point, to wit:

FTFA: We (the people) have only the voting privileges our states choose to grant us.

Which is also covered in the rest of the section you continue to cut short, but here are the relevant parts:

The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States...
unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College... and in each of the several States the citizens themselves vote for Presidential electors.

The people have no federal right to vote unless their state gives them that right. Now, the equal protection clause in the 14th applies to all people, this is why southern states were forced to give up literacy tests. These didn't only affect black people and racism wasn't the only reason they were in effect. The people who made the laws, much like you, didn't want uneducated, poor people to vote. If there is no "right to vote," why hasn't this been struck down? It's been 47 years after all.

It doesn't matter if there's a federal right to vote, though for some reason you keep trying to frame the argument around that point. The federal government says the right to vote is conferred by the state. Your state currently grants you the ability to vote as a right, so as of this exact moment you have the right to vote..

Silly Jesus: Your question at the end is moot, as there is no right to vote.

You are the one who brought it into the debate:
Silly Jesus: Um, no. Voting rights aren't extended to all citizens. Felons?

The amendments establish reasons why you can't say that someone can't vote. It doesn't establish the right for everyone to vote.

I can't say "you can't vote because you are a woman" or " you can't vote because you are black" , those are protected classes. Being an utter idiot is not a protected class and therefore can be used as a reason to now allow someone to vote in the same way that felons are prohibited.

Technically, we don't take away the right to vote to felons, they decide to give up that right, they do it voluntarily. The mentally enfeebled, annoying as they are to you, have the right because they have not given it away. They deserve representation just as much as anyone else does. That's what a representative republic is about, that the people are represented.

And again, the Voting Rights Act says that tests such as you suggest are a violation of the 14th. The ruling in Bush v Gore was about that very clause, that it guarantees the uniform treatment of all votes cast in an election. However, while that was the basis for the decision, the question of whether stopping the counting process when they did was, in and of itself, an equal protection violation, remains unresolved.

So, in summary:

The Supreme Court said that you don't have a federal right to vote because you don't. However, as long as your state grants you that right, the federal government cannot abridge it. Your state grants you the right to vote, you have the right to vote.

Felons can't vote because they voluntarily gave up the right.

The mentally enfeebled can because the Voting Rights Act of 1965 says tests are a violation of the 14th Amendment.

The Voting Rights Act's use of the 14th trumps your state Constitution, so while your state can grant you the right to vote, they can't take it away just because you're dumb, regardless of whether you are a protected class.

timujin: ...derp.

I give up. You know more than SCOTUS, at least one US Senator and at least one US Representative. How can I compete with that?

Silly Jesus: Are all of these people wrong as well?

It's not a matter of whether they're right or wrong, you're misunderstanding the point. Yes, they want a federal right to vote, because that will keep states from abridging that right, they're trying to circumvent the Republican's attempts to strip out parts of the VRA. If there's a federal right to vote, then that will trump anything the states try to pull.

The point, however, is that currently, you have the right to vote because your state confers that right. The quote from the SC you keep posting says that as long as the state gives you that right, then you have it. Your state gives you that right, so you have that right.

Silly Jesus: timujin: ...derp.

I give up. You know more than SCOTUS, at least one US Senator and at least one US Representative. How can I compete with that?

Absolutely not, but again, you misunderstand the point. You think that because they are trying to establish a federal right to vote, then that means you have no right to vote. You have the right to vote, it is conferred to you by your state. Recently, Republicans have made moves towards changing that. They can't enact literacy tests (or intelligence tests) because of the VRA, so they want to strip out parts of it and/or enact ID laws. These laws are a run around the VRA and they're being championed by the same guys trying to gut it.

The other articles you've linked to are about the same thing. We DO NOT have a federal right to vote, states can take away that right at any time (though whether it would stick is another issue). The SC has acknowledged that their is no federal right, as you've pointed out, but also that the feds can't abridge the rights conferred by your state.

If your state grants you the right to vote, then you have the right to vote. Up until the state takes that right away.

I'm not saying that you have a federally established, constitutionally protected right to vote, I am saying that you have the right to vote.