• 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!

Is voting a right

Voting is

  • A right

    Votes: 20 69.0%
  • a privilege

    Votes: 9 31.0%

  • Total voters
    29
I'm just saying. :shrug:

There is no explicit right to vote.

Yes it says we have a right to vote. Without it we would not be a Representative republic. Our vote allows us to pick our Representatives. Now do we have a right to vote in everyone in government, no. This does not make it a privilege.
 
Here you guys go.

“if the courts can consider any question settled, it is this one. … The Constitution, when it conferred citizenship, did not necessarily confer the right of suffrage”

Minor v. Happersett: Information from Answers.com

It says later (1964) that this interpretation was abandoned but as it is, there is no absolute right to vote.
 
Last edited:
Just a quick note to Jerry - as a single mom of two younger teenagers, I have never, ever been on any kind of public assistance. I've never drawn unemployment, I've worked multiple jobs in order NOT to draw government benefits.

You seem to think that single woman = lazy bum who does nothing but have babies and draw welfare. You are dead wrong.

I work my ass off for myself and my children. I own my home, I pay taxes, I work every day, I have Blue Cross/Blue Shield insurance and I don't owe anyone anything. Well, that's a lie.. I owe money to my mortgage company.. everything else I have is paid for.

So for you to sit there and state that my privilege to vote should be revoked based simply on the fact that 1. I'm a woman and 2. I am single, burns my ass.
 
I'm not saying that your asinine comments justify those actions, but I'm saying that you shouldn't act all surprised when people act like that in response to such ridiculous claims.

I wasn't, so I guess you and I have nothing left to discuss :2wave:
 
I find everyone who is in favour of restricting voting thinks anyone with a brain will vote the same way as them.
 
Here you guys go.

“if the courts can consider any question settled, it is this one. … The Constitution, when it conferred citizenship, did not necessarily confer the right of suffrage”

Minor v. Happersett: Information from Answers.com

It says later 1964 that this interpretation was abandoned but as it is there is no absolute right to vote.

Minor v. Happersett was an 1874 case brought by a woman who said that the Constitution required that she be allowed to vote. The court looked at the Constitution and said that "citizenship" was not automatically synonymous with the right to vote. Because it was limited to men, the court said it was okay.

The Constitution was subsequently amended to explicitly allow women to vote, thus overruling Minor as to that issue. It's very doubtful that the decision has much force today.
 
Minor v. Happersett was an 1874 case brought by a woman who said that the Constitution required that she be allowed to vote. The court looked at the Constitution and said that "citizenship" was not automatically synonymous with the right to vote. Because it was limited to men, the court said it was okay.

The Constitution was subsequently amended to explicitly allow women to vote, thus overruling Minor as to that issue. It's very doubtful that the decision has much force today.

I know it doesn't but they recognized that citizenship did not automatically infer a right to vote.

Seeing that they were alive when the 14th amendment was drafted and instituted, I would certainly believe that they had a better understanding of it's intent than someone from 1920 or later.
 
I find everyone who is in favour of restricting voting thinks anyone with a brain will vote the same way as them.

For me it has nothing to do with that.
It has to do with ethics in voting.

We don't allow judges and juries to decide in cases where they have ethical issues that can conflict with their decisions, why should we allow voters?
 
Last edited:
Just a quick note to Jerry - as a single mom of two younger teenagers, I have never, ever been on any kind of public assistance. I've never drawn unemployment, I've worked multiple jobs in order NOT to draw government benefits.

Let me make this simple: I don't care about you.

Let's discuss demographics and trends with verifiable sources, as there is no value in anecdotal sob stories.

You seem to think that single woman = lazy bum who does nothing but have babies and draw welfare.

See I thought I said "vote to increase the size of government" not "lazy bum who does nothing but have babies and draw welfare". A woman can work hard while increasing the size of the government and benefit from doing so via Obama's mortgage bail-outs and tax rules applied to you whether you want them or not.

Please read what I actually type and not what you think you hear. Asking questions to verify clarity is always helpful, too.

So for you to sit there and state that my privilege to vote should be revoked based simply on the fact that 1. I'm a woman and 2. I am single, burns my ass.

To reiterate: I don't care about how you feel, so telling me you're mad does not effect me.

This is not about TheGirlNextDoor.
 
Last edited:
I find everyone who is in favour of restricting voting thinks anyone with a brain will vote the same way as them.

Like how Congress wants to restrict the voting rights of future Congresses by trying to make UHC unrepealable?
 
I know it doesn't but they recognized that citizenship did not automatically infer a right to vote.

Seeing that they were alive when the 14th amendment was drafted and instituted, I would certainly believe that they had a better understanding of it's intent than someone from 1920 or later.

That's really not an accurate summary of what the court was saying though:

If the right of suffrage is one of the necessary privileges of a citizen of the United States, then the constitution and laws of Missouri confining it to men are in violation of the Constitution of the United States, as amended, and consequently void. The direct question is, therefore, presented whether all citizens are necessarily voters.

The Constitution does not define the privileges and immunities of citizens. For that definition we must look elsewhere. In this case we need not determine what they are, but only whether suffrage is necessarily one of them.

It certainly is nowhere made so in express terms. The United States has no voters in the States of its own creation. The elective officers of the United States are all elected directly or indirectly by State voters. The members of the House of Representatives are to be chosen by the people of [88 U.S. 162, 171] the States, and the electors in each State must have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislature. 14 Senators are to be chosen by the legislatures of the States, and necessarily the members of the legislature required to make the choice are elected by the voters of the State. 15 Each State must appoint in such manner, as the legislature thereof may direct, the electors to elect the President and Vice-President. 16 The times, places, and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives are to be prescribed in each State by the legislature thereof; but Congress may at any time, by law, make or alter such regulations, except as to the place of choosing Senators. 17 It is not necessary to inquire whether this power of supervision thus given to Congress is sufficient to authorize any interference with the State laws prescribing the qualifications of voters, for no such interference has ever been attempted. The power of the State in this particular is certainly supreme until Congress acts.

The amendment did not add to the privileges and immunities of a citizen. It simply furnished an additional guaranty for the protection of such as he already had. No new voters were necessarily made by it. Indirectly it may have had that effect, because it may have increased the number of citizens entitled to suffrage under the constitution and laws of the States, but it operates for this purpose, if at all, through the States and the State laws, and not directly upon the citizen.

It is clear, therefore, we think, that the Constitution has not added the right of suffrage to the privileges and immunities of citizenship as they existed at the time it was adopted. This makes it proper to inquire whether suffrage was coextensive with the citizenship of the States at the time of its adoption. If it was, then it may with force be argued that suffrage was one of the rights which belonged to citizenship, and in the enjoyment of which every citizen must be protected. [88 U.S. 162, 172] But if it was not, the contrary may with propriety be assumed.

The court then goes into an analysis of state Constitutions at the time of ratification, noting that while no state gave the right to vote to ALL citizens, they all gave it to some.

The takeaway from this decision is not that there is no federal right to vote, so the states can eliminate the right of their citizens to vote. The takeaway is that there is no general federal right to vote that supersedes all state rules, but because states cannot discriminate on all sorts of grounds, and because the general understanding of the Constitution was that citizens got to vote, no state could constitutionally eliminate the right to vote entirely.
 
For me it has nothing to do with that.
It has to do with ethics in voting.

We don't allow judges and juries to decide in cases where they have ethical issues that can conflict with their decisions, why should we allow voters?

Nobody could vote if their ethical feelings where an issue.
 
Yep, my state even gives a right to vote in it's constitution but it could rewrite it and remove that part.

States are required to have certain elements in their Constitutions, voting being one. To my knowledge the only office the state is required to allow it's citizens to vote on are the offices of Senator(s) and Representatives.

I'm not sure if a state could restructure itself in a way which would not allow a gubernatorial vote or similar.
 
Last edited:
Sure they could, it's not that difficult.

We should hold voters to high standards otherwise we will always get unethical politicians.
Why should politicians act in an ethical manner when voters won't?

for someone who claims to be a libertarian its strange you would have the idea of some state controlled threshold of voting ability.
 
Let me make this simple: I don't care about you.

Let's discuss demographics and trends with verifiable sources, as there is no value in anecdotal sob stories.

And yet you take a graph showing that single women vote Democrat more often and then make an unsupported claim about how that obviously correlates to a love or hate for big and wasteful government.

See I thought I said "vote to increase the size of government" not "lazy bum who does nothing but have babies and draw welfare". A woman can work hard while increasing the size of the government and benefit from doing so via Obama's mortgage bail-outs and tax rules applied to you whether you want them or not.

And again, you suffer from the assumption that Rep = good, Dem = bad. Shockingly, others might see things differently.

To reiterate: I don't care about how you feel, so telling me you're mad does not effect me.

This is not about TheGirlNextDoor.

So if I started posting about how people who had some traits that you share (without mentioning you in particular) tend to lower the level of discourse in this country and harm our society as a whole, and then argued that that meant that they should be disenfranchised, you would agree that you would have no grounds to take offense at that?
 
That's really not an accurate summary of what the court was saying though:

The court then goes into an analysis of state Constitutions at the time of ratification, noting that while no state gave the right to vote to ALL citizens, they all gave it to some.

The takeaway from this decision is not that there is no federal right to vote, so the states can eliminate the right of their citizens to vote. The takeaway is that there is no general federal right to vote that supersedes all state rules, but because states cannot discriminate on all sorts of grounds, and because the general understanding of the Constitution was that citizens got to vote, no state could constitutionally eliminate the right to vote entirely.

I was waiting for you to slay me with your lawyerness. :(

It's definitely a murky issue then because instead of expressly saying "everyone 18+ has the right to vote," they had just added amendments dealing with sex, race etc.
It's not definitive.

I'm just pointing out that there was never an original intent to have everyone voting.
 
Last edited:
for someone who claims to be a libertarian its strange you would have the idea of some state controlled threshold of voting ability.

Practicality has brought me to this choice.

The act of most people being allowed to vote has brought large and intrusive government.
It seems that democracy doesn't support what I believe in any way.
 
Practicality has brought me to this choice.

The act of most people being allowed to vote has brought large and intrusive government.
It seems that democracy doesn't support what I believe in any way.

But only the government could make a restriction of voting like this happen.
 
So if I started posting about how people who had some traits that you share (without mentioning you in particular) tend to lower the level of discourse in this country and harm our society as a whole, and then argued that that meant that they should be disenfranchised, you would agree that you would have no grounds to take offense at that?

RightinNYC, such threads are all around me, and no I don't take offense.

When someone starts a 'should men have a say in abortion' thread, no, I don't get all offended.

When I participate in such a thread I stick with facts and policy. As I'm not perfect I do slip up now and then and a mod is quick with the points, which only proves that taking threads personally is erroneous.

If someone feels strongly about something I say they can take a page out of Danaria's book and start a Basement thread about it. That is the proper venue to vent personal feelings, not up here.
 
But only the government could make a restriction of voting like this happen.

There are some restrictions government should be doing.

Restricting unlawful killing, stealing etc.
Government also has a duty to be ethical and obey the law themselves.
They have shown that when they don't like the rules they either change or ignore them.

There are so many government programs I would be willing to support if our government acted in an ethical manner.
I would completely change my tune on UHC and similar things but they have shown a lack of will and want.
 
for someone who claims to be a libertarian its strange you would have the idea of some state controlled threshold of voting ability.
Libertarianism ≠ anarchy.
 
I was waiting for you to slay me with your lawyerness. :(

It's definitely a murky issue then because instead of expressly saying "everyone 18+ has the right to vote," they had just added amendments dealing with sex, race etc.
It's not definitive.

I'm just pointing out that there was never an original intent to have everyone voting.

Your larger point is certainly right - when the framers drafted the Constitution, it's unlikely that they thought it was creating some sort of new federal right to vote, as the right to vote was already protected (to some degree) in each state. However, because they had that in mind, it in effect constitutes an acknowledgment of an implicit federal right - if VA had tried to eliminate the right to vote for everyone in 1790, the framers would have been appalled. That means that there was at least some basic level of voting that the Constitution requires. Over time, that was repeatedly reaffirmed by the addition of amendments that expanded the class of people that the implicit right had to cover, until we now have what is in effect a federal right to vote.

RightinNYC, such threads are all around me, and no I don't take offense.

When someone starts a 'should men have a say in abortion' thread, no, I don't get all offended.

When I participate in such a thread I stick with facts and policy. As I'm not perfect I do slip up now and then and a mod is quick with the points, which only proves that taking threads personally is erroneous.

And again, nobody has said that BFT is appropriate. All that has been said is that it's fairly natural for posts that include ridiculous and absurd claims to spur posts that call those ridiculous and absurd claims out. Sort of like this:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/abortion/67785-should-men-have-say-2.html#post1058609818

Simply saying "Oh, but I'm referring to policy!" doesn't change the fact that you're making a ridiculous argument, much like I'm sure you felt about the OP there.
 
And again, nobody has said that BFT is appropriate. All that has been said is that it's fairly natural for posts that include ridiculous and absurd claims to spur posts that call those ridiculous and absurd claims out. Sort of like this:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/abortion/67785-should-men-have-say-2.html#post1058609818

Simply saying "Oh, but I'm referring to policy!" doesn't change the fact that you're making a ridiculous argument, much like I'm sure you felt about the OP there.
Did you notice how I didn't flame anyone in that post?

If only people here were addressing my argument instead of flaming me directly, then you wold have a point.

If you would like to discuss the topic I would be more than happy to participate. If all you're going to do is continue to defend members flaming others upstairs then please save your keystrokes as I won't bother reading your posts.
 
I was waiting for you to slay me with your lawyerness. :(

It's definitely a murky issue then because instead of expressly saying "everyone 18+ has the right to vote," they had just added amendments dealing with sex, race etc.
It's not definitive.

I'm just pointing out that there was never an original intent to have everyone voting.

There was original intent to have everyone voting for representatives and ballot issues, absolutely.

I think you could make an argument against voting on specific offices, though.
 
Back
Top Bottom