Crush Liberalism

Liberalism: Why think when you can “feel”?

I repeat, there is NO constitutional right to vote in federal elections

This is a follow-up to yesterday’s post explaining how Cynthia Tucker got it wrong when she asserted that the right to vote was enshrined in the Bill of Rights.  I clearly showed that it is not.  Her fishwrap employer issued the following “correction“:

In Sunday’s @issue section, Cynthia Tucker’s column about the voter ID law referred incorrectly to a “right to vote” in the Bill of Rights. The “right to vote” appears explicitly in the 15th, 19th and 26th amendments to the U.S. Constitution. 

This, too, is incorrect, and while I do think that yesterday’s case of “it’s in the Bill of Rights” was a case of ignorance, I am certain this “correction” is a case of outright deception.

There is no “right to vote” in any of those amendments.  I have links to the text of the 15th, 19th, and 26th amendments.  In short, what they say cumulatively can be summed up thusly and clearly:

If a state has decided to allow its citizens to vote, and it decides to place conditions on which citizens can vote and which ones cannot (e.g. convicted felons can’t, non-residents can’t, etc.), there are conditions that cannot be used to deny an otherwise qualified (as determined by the state) voter.  Those conditions include race/color, gender, previous condition of servitude, or age (beyond the age of 18). 

In other words, when states decide who qualifies as a voter, they may use any criteria except the aforementioned criteria on which to base the qualifications to vote.  If a state said that its electoral votes would be decided by a coin toss by the mayor of Pickatown, it would be legal and constitutional.  If the state said that its electoral votes would be decided by a coin toss by the mayor of Pickatown provided that the mayor was not black (or female, or X years of age over the age of 18, or a former slave), then that would be illegal and unconstitutional.  Got it?

Spin it any way you like, AJC, but the fact of the matter is that there is no constitutional right anywhere in that document that provides for a “right to vote” in federal elections.  Period.

Advertisement

January 15, 2008 - Posted by | media bias, vote fraud

6 Comments »

  1. Since there is NO “right” to vote, the way to literally crush liberalism would be to disallow anyone on welfare to vote. Those receiving taxpayer subsidies will simply vote into office those who promise to steal more from society’s earners to give to the non-earners. Once someone has weaned themself from the public dole, they would be allowed to resume their ability to vote.

    Comment by Reverse_Vampyr | January 15, 2008

  2. I would be 100% in favor of that, RV.

    Comment by crushliberalism | January 15, 2008

  3. It was once only land owners that could vote. I think they should revert to that. That would remove many of the cities like NY, Chicago, LA, Seatle from forcing legislation down regular people’s throats.

    Comment by WMD_Maker | January 15, 2008

  4. Since there is NO “right” to vote, the way to literally crush liberalism would be to disallow anyone on welfare to vote.

    Don’t forget to include Social Security recipients so I can watch you get strung up by the local chapter of the AARP and used as a pinata at Mexican Bingo Night.

    All kidding aside, Jonathan I tend to agree with you and case law and the Constitution tend to lean in the direction of impose strict requirements on how states regulate voting.

    That said, it’s all semantics because even if I could argue that a right to vote does exist (on the basis that a prohibition falls outside the state police power), the regulation in question here is perfectly reasonable and serves a legitimate state interest.

    It should be a slam dunk but it will probably go 5-4 in favor of sanity.

    Comment by East Coast Libertarian | January 15, 2008

  5. “Don’t forget to include Social Security recipients”

    Most, but not all, recipients of SS WORKED for that money by putting into the system so they still get to vote.

    Comment by WMD_Maker | January 15, 2008

  6. Don’t forget to include Social Security recipients so I can watch you get strung up by the local chapter of the AARP and used as a pinata at Mexican Bingo Night.

    Nice one, ECL! :-D

    the regulation in question here is perfectly reasonable and serves a legitimate state interest.
    …
    It should be a slam dunk but it will probably go 5-4 in favor of sanity.

    Agreed on both points.

    Comment by crushliberalism | January 15, 2008


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Gravatar
WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )

Cancel

Connecting to %s

« Previous | Next »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 25 other followers