My original point was that one does not have the fundimental right to vote per-se, and you counter point was that one does have the fundimental right to vote per-se.
I was not speaking of regonal elections, and neither were you.
You only began adding qualifyers and moving the goal posts after you were challanged.
Nice try though.
How did I move the goal posts. you made a logical error in this post:
If it were a fundimental right then you would have the right to vote for President.
But you don't, so it's not.
By claiming that the inability to vote for president implies that you do not have a fundamental right to vote. That claim is asinine, because even though you don't have a fundamental right to vote for the president, you DO have a fundamental
right to vote whenever there is a regional election.
Which is what I said here:
Voting is a fundamental right whenever an election is held in your region. Once an election occurs, the right to vote cannot be infringed for arbitrary reasons.
The state can decide not to hold a popular election for President, but once it is offered, infringement cannot occur except for under certain circumstances. Such as felony convictions, which can also limit the fundamental right to bear arms.
Since regional elections MUST constitutionally occur every two years (for congressman) then you DO have a fundamental right to
vote.
You do NOT have a fundamental right to vote for every single governmental official that attains office, though. The elections for certain offices are NOT a fundamental right.
BUT, once a regional election for an office exists, due to the fundamental right to vote, everyone can vote, except under certain circumstances that are used to abridge other fundamental rights, such as the conviction of a felony.
And what, you may ask, illuminates this fundamental right to vote?
The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
Article 1 section two. The first line:
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.
So, everyone has a fundamental right to vote, for at least one office.
thus a fundamental right to vote does indeed exist.
This gets further illuminated in the 14th amendment:
But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State
The
only right to vote is a regional, it doesn't matter if the office being held is a national office or not. That's because all elections are regional elections.
Since there is a fundamental right to vote for ANY office (congressman), there exists a fundamental right to vote in any election held regionally for
that region's representatives.
Since the office of president is NOT a representational office, there is no point in trying to use that to refute the fundamental right to vote for one's representatives in government.
What we have in regards to the office of "President" is the FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT to vote for our electors, or REPRESENTATIVES, in the electoral college in a regional election, if it is actually held.
This right to vote for one's own representatives is a
fundamental right.
Edit: Removed something inapropriate. Sorry if you've seen it already, Jerry.
