Wow! Funked1, your unConstitutional, unAmerican ideas are unoriginal. They have been deemed so for almost 40 years ... along with most of your beliefs.

 

Bigots like you get to vote, why shouldn't illiterate people?

 

1. We already demonstrated that there is nothing in the Constitution prohibiting my proposals.
2. Huh?
3. Needless ad hominem. You don't know crap about my beliefs. How about we stick to debating the issues instead of personal attacks? I realize it's hard for a Democrat, but please try.

 

Actually all of the references I made to articles in the Constitution of the United States refer to the "right to vote" .

After all, being a libertarian, you must be a strict constitutionalist, right Funked1?

 

Is illiteracy proof of a lack of knowledge and intelligence or could it be a lack of schools and means of edjucation in the area? My grandfather, one of the smartest people I have EVER met, only have a 7th grade edjucation level. He started a small paint company that he ran so successfully that he was able to sell it for millions in the late 80's. Book smarts(or lack thereof) have no real reflection of actual intelligence. Hell, isn't that what all you guys are always saying to stick up for Bushy?

-Chris

 

Answer the following, njc200:

So why can't ex-felons vote if they're American citizens and 100% rehabilitated?

Why are there going to be 5million+ citizens sitting at home on November 2nd?

So by your definition, voting is a right among all American citizen’s, correct? So why isn’t it the same for thing for a drivers license if it can be revoked? So you’d agree that having a drivers license is a right too?

 

Psoper, nice try, but no cigar. Just because it says the phrase "right to vote" doesn't mean that this right is universally guaranteed. Nowhere in the Consitution is there such a guarantee. In fact, you will notice the wording of the amendments concerning voting is very carefully chosen to allow exceptions to be made. If the authors had truly intended to guarantee universal voting rights they would have simply made an amendment stating that "The right to vote shall not be denied on any basis" or something similar.

 

Do we really need this sort of ad hominem stuff in this thread? Moderator?

 

About the Felons... how many times do we have to show that rights can be revoked and therefore it isn't true that anything revokeablt is not a right? Where is the confusion? Not being able to vote is just a continuing part of thier punishment, just as their right to freedom was revoked while they served their prison sentance. Oh that's right... you don't believe thaqt freedom is a right despite what that pesky Bill of Rights says.

-Chris

 

Rights can be taken away for certain reasons. Thats not such a hard concept to understand.

 

Actually, its a states rights question. There are a lot of felons who can vote. Your making a blanket statement, that is untrue.
http://www.righttovote.org/informed.asp

There's nothing in the constitution about having the right to drive a car. That's not a right. We all can agree on that. I never said anything about drivers' licenses why are you even bringing it up?

 

This would be a great example if your granddad was illiterate.

 

So what exactly do you think they mean by "right to vote" ?

To my reading of these, every mention of it has to do with protecting this right against it being denied, although there are some provisions where the states are given some leeway in their rules as they apply to criminals, but nowhere is voting discussed as being a privlege.

To salty's silly question comparing voting to driving; in being granted the privlege of getting a drivers license you give up some rights, like the right to some protections from search and seizure.

But being an american citizen over the age of 18 you have the right to vote, unless you have had that right revoked according to due process.



I just don't follow your logic......

 

You're right, I shouldn't have called you it, even if it is true. I apologize for the personal attack.

 

I don't think there is anything in the Constitution about voting and criminals. Nor did I say anything about privileges. If I'm wrong, please correct me.

All I'm saying is that there are protections of voting rights in the Constitution but they do not apply to the system I proposed. You can argue against it on moral or philosophical grounds (as Bassplayer has done), but there is no basis to argue against it on Consitutional ground (as you have done), and I thank you for not arguing against it with Ad Hominem attacks (as NJC200 has done).