• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Constitutional Amendment Making Voting A Right

Would you support a voting rights amendment?


  • Total voters
    40
no its not. I want to see if those who want criminals to vote (mainly because-according to Stanford Law Professor Pamela Karlan-criminals vote in huge proportions for democrats) are also willing to extend to them other rights they lose after convictions

Does the world really need more Notaries Public?
 
What rationale is there for not allowing people who've served their time to vote again? If they're released back as citizens, they should be able to participate as citizens.

When you commit a felony, losing right to vote, losing right to own a gun, losing right to hold public office, all are PART of the punishment.
If those rights are precious to you, don't do the crime!
 
I am not aware of any problems for ex-convicts, the communities or the state when convicted felons are allowed to vote in those communities or states.

I assume you mean ex-convicts? That's good, and not entirely surprising.

six towns in Maryland allow non-citizens to vote and New York City may be next and I am not aware of any problems they have had either (City Council weighing bill that gives noncitizen immigrants right to vote - NY Daily News)

What a mess, and a dilemma: If they pay taxes that go to services that help us all, but aren't American's on paper, do they still get the right to participate in the political process?
 
When you commit a felony, losing right to vote, losing right to own a gun, losing right to hold public office, all are PART of the punishment.
If those rights are precious to you, don't do the crime!

Losing your ability to participate in the system that you live in, even after you've served your time, can be argued to be cruel and unusual, excessive at the very least. In any case it's an emotional argument and therefore shouldn't be considered valid as reason for permanently disenfranchising someone.
 
I assume you mean ex-convicts? That's good, and not entirely surprising.



What a mess, and a dilemma: If they pay taxes that go to services that help us all, but aren't American's on paper, do they still get the right to participate in the political process?

Well in those places they do. I really have no problem with it, especially at the local level where they are most affected on a daily basis. I really wouldn't care if they voted in the national elections.
 
Losing your ability to participate in the system that you live in, even after you've served your time, can be argued to be cruel and unusual, excessive at the very least. In any case it's an emotional argument and therefore shouldn't be considered valid as reason for permanently disenfranchising someone.

I'm in favor of bringing back corporal punishment, stocks, and public hanging!

Country club prisons don't seem to be much of a deterrent to criminals.

Cruel and unusual?

Ok, let's take a lesson from earlier epochs, and TRANSPORT criminals so they AREN"T enjoying the society they abused!
Now, where is a good remote harsh unpopulated land mass. Seems only Antarctica is left. Send them there! Dressed in a thong!
 
I'm in favor of bringing back corporal punishment, stocks, and public hanging! Country clu-

Thaaaat's nice. It's been great talking to you.
 
There are many people who don't realize that voting is NOT a right granted by the U.S. Constitution. Would you support such an amendment?

Choices: Would you support a voting rights amendment?

Yes
No
Other (Possibly accomplished with a Federal Statute)

Here is what is being proposed by two Democratic representatives:

A pair of Democratic congressmen is pushing an amendment that would place an affirmative right to vote in the U.S. Constitution. According to Rep. Mark Pocan (D-WI), who is sponsoring the legislation along with Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), the amendment would protect voters from what he described as a “systematic” push to “restrict voting access” through voter ID laws, shorter early voting deadlines, and other measures that are being proposed in many states.


“Most people believe that there already is something in the Constitution that gives people the right to vote, but unfortunately … there is no affirmative right to vote in the Constitution. We have a number of amendments that protect against discrimination in voting, but we don’t have an affirmative right,” Pocan told TPM last week. “Especially in an era … you know, in the last decade especially we’ve just seen a number of these measures to restrict access to voting rights in so many states. … There’s just so many of these that are out there, that it shows the real need that we have.”


The brief amendment would stipulate that “every citizen of the United States, who is of legal voting age, shall have the fundamental right to vote in any public election held in the jurisdiction in which the citizen resides.” It would also give Congress “the power to enforce and implement this article by appropriate legislation.”

snip

Congressmen Propose Constitutional Amendment To Block Voting Rights Challenges | TPMDC

Most people should not be allowed to vote, ever. Maybe in smaller local elections where they vote in someone who fits set qualifications and then can vote for the people at the national level by proxy...
 
There are many people who don't realize that voting is NOT a right granted by the U.S. Constitution. Would you support such an amendment?

Choices: Would you support a voting rights amendment?

Yes
No
Other (Possibly accomplished with a Federal Statute)

Here is what is being proposed by two Democratic representatives:

A pair of Democratic congressmen is pushing an amendment that would place an affirmative right to vote in the U.S. Constitution. According to Rep. Mark Pocan (D-WI), who is sponsoring the legislation along with Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), the amendment would protect voters from what he described as a “systematic” push to “restrict voting access” through voter ID laws, shorter early voting deadlines, and other measures that are being proposed in many states.


“Most people believe that there already is something in the Constitution that gives people the right to vote, but unfortunately … there is no affirmative right to vote in the Constitution. We have a number of amendments that protect against discrimination in voting, but we don’t have an affirmative right,” Pocan told TPM last week. “Especially in an era … you know, in the last decade especially we’ve just seen a number of these measures to restrict access to voting rights in so many states. … There’s just so many of these that are out there, that it shows the real need that we have.”


The brief amendment would stipulate that “every citizen of the United States, who is of legal voting age, shall have the fundamental right to vote in any public election held in the jurisdiction in which the citizen resides.” It would also give Congress “the power to enforce and implement this article by appropriate legislation.”

snip

Congressmen Propose Constitutional Amendment To Block Voting Rights Challenges | TPMDC

I said no. No one should be denied voting for reasons such as race or sex. But, voting is a social contract between the government and its people, and one that comes with responsibility. Those who are unqualified (illegals), or unable to uphold their end of bargain shouldn't be involved in the decision making of governance.
 
In early United States, only land owners (male) were allowed to vote. That seems harsh by todays standards.
But there was good reason NOT to let itinerant laborers and never-do-wells, and transients vote. They had no stake in the local economy.
Owning land was easy. Lot's of free land to homestead. The homesteading was the hard part.
Anyone successful in carving a home out of the wilderness, had EARNED a right to vote.
The best we can do today, is voter IDs to prevent fraudulent votes from dead folks and multiple voting transients, and illegals.
 
In early United States, only land owners (male) were allowed to vote. That seems harsh by todays standards.
But there was good reason NOT to let itinerant laborers and never-do-wells, and transients vote. They had no stake in the local economy.
Owning land was easy. Lot's of free land to homestead. The homesteading was the hard part.
Anyone successful in carving a home out of the wilderness, had EARNED a right to vote.
The best we can do today, is voter IDs to prevent fraudulent votes from dead folks and multiple voting transients, and illegals.

I agree. We should go back to only allowing Protestant white male land owners to vote.
 
I agree. We should go back to only allowing Protestant white male land owners to vote.

I did not say that which you agree with.

Don't put words in my mouth.

I can get into plenty of trouble ALL BY MYSELF, thankyou! :D
 
Codifying voting as a right in the constitution furthers the notion that voting is some kind of privilege instead of a responsibility, and thus would be counter-productive.
 
Codifying voting as a right in the constitution furthers the notion that voting is some kind of privilege instead of a responsibility, and thus would be counter-productive.

No, it's not a privilege. It's a right.
 
Codifying voting as a right in the constitution furthers the notion that voting is some kind of privilege instead of a responsibility, and thus would be counter-productive.

Also it would take voter laws away from the states and make it a federal purview.
The only redeeming aspect if voting WAS federal, then vote fraud could be high treason and punished appropriately.
 
Also it would take voter laws away from the states and make it a federal purview.
The only redeeming aspect if voting WAS federal, then vote fraud could be high treason and punished appropriately.

How so?
 
The fact that it is not presently a right is the subject of this thread.

I know. The reason it's so shocking that voting is not in the constitution (less shocking for women, black people and non-land owners) is because democracy is so ingrained within the spirit of the United States. So I meant in spirit, if not yet in the letter, voting is a right.
 
There are many people who don't realize that voting is NOT a right granted by the U.S. Constitution.
Article 1, Section 2, United States Constitution:

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

Article 1, Section 4, United States Constitution:

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.
/thread
 
i always assumed it was because they don"t want them voting against the judges who sentenced them but i understand i may be wrong......
Since when are judges elected?
 
no its not. I want to see if those who want criminals to vote (mainly because-according to Stanford Law Professor Pamela Karlan-criminals vote in huge proportions for democrats) are also willing to extend to them other rights they lose after convictions

That's easy. If their crime was commited with a gun they lose their gun rights forever but they can still vote. Let the punishment fit the crime.
 
I know. The reason it's so shocking that voting is not in the constitution (less shocking for women, black people and non-land owners) is because democracy is so ingrained within the spirit of the United States. So I meant in spirit, if not yet in the letter, voting is a right.

And the amendment would make it even worse by validating the notion that voting is a privilege instead of a responsibility.
 
That's easy. If their crime was commited with a gun they lose their gun rights forever but they can still vote. Let the punishment fit the crime.

What if they commit their crime with a gigantic piece of paper?
 
Quote Originally Posted by pbrauer View Post

There are many people who don't realize that voting is NOT a right granted by the U.S. Constitution.




Article 1, Section 2, United States Constitution:

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.



Article 1, Section 4, United States Constitution:

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators. /thread

There's not one mention of voting or the right to vote in any of that. Is that why you posted it?
 
Back
Top Bottom