The only group I can really think of that’s often restricted from voting is felons.  So you guys got me there.  Criminals don’t have the universal voting rights.

23 minutes ago, Dave Moss said:

So how many voting rights amendments do you think are needed to give people the right to vote?  10?  20?  50?

One that says there is a universal right to vote for all citizens. 

Words have meanings.

11 minutes ago, downundermike said:

And based on the wording of all those amendments, if you don't have the right to vote, then you don't have the right to own a gun.  They are worded almost identically.

 

 

 

 

Oh FFS. Learn to read in context please. One says the right to bear arms will not be infringed, period. The other says the right of citizens to vote will not be infringed FOR A SPECIFIC REASON. Which implies it CAN be limited. 

Dave answered his own question -- felons are citizens yet can't vote in many states. Oh...and all those people that live in US territories are citizens with no right to vote in federal elections. Just 3.5 million people who prove your assertions incorrect.

7 minutes ago, Dave Moss said:

The only group I can really think of that’s often restricted from voting is felons.  So you guys got me there.  Criminals don’t have the universal voting rights.

Now think of people in Puerto Rico, or Guam, or American Samoa...

TX looking to arrest Democrats for breaking quorum.

3 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

Oh FFS. Learn to read in context please. One says the right to bear arms will not be infringed, period. The other says the right of citizens to vote will not be infringed FOR A SPECIFIC REASON. Which implies it CAN be limited. 

Dave answered his own question -- felons are citizens yet can't vote in many states. Oh...and all those people that live in US territories are citizens with no right to vote in federal elections. Just 3.5 million people who prove your assertions incorrect.

Can felons own firearms?

 

4 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

Oh FFS. Learn to read in context please. One says the right to bear arms will not be infringed, period.

It does not say period, it says will not be infringed.  But, you have to be 18, pass a background check, can not get a gun if you are a felon, so it is infringed daily.  So it is exactly the same as the 26th amendment.

This is the repercussion of voter ID laws. Follow the Twitter thread:

 

 

TLDR version: Because of arcane Indiana voting laws: Since she moved from out-of-state, and was divorced and remarried, she must present proof of each name change since birth before registering to vote. Her husband got his voter registration same day at DMV.

It is unnecessary red tape. And it is disenfranchising voters. 

Just now, Dave Moss said:

Can felons own firearms?

Not in some places, and that is Unconstitutional IMO.

Of course, that clearly means there is a universal right to vote in the Constitution. Go to Puerto Rico and share this news!

53 minutes ago, greend said:

Ummmm, the G.o.p. didn't pull the desperate move, the democrats did

I'd say both sides look pretty desperate at this point.

4 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

Not in some places, and that is Unconstitutional IMO.

Of course, that clearly means there is a universal right to vote in the Constitution. Go to Puerto Rico and share this news!

Yes, if you are over 18, the 26th amendment clearly says so.

The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

The hysterical part is -- I'd support an amendment that created a universal right for all citizens over 18 to vote. I think it is abhorrent that those living in US Territories can be drafted but can't vote. But we can't invent rights that aren't in the document.

1 minute ago, downundermike said:

Yes, if you are over 18, the 26th amendment clearly says so.

 

 

"ON ACCOUNT OF AGE"

You can't be this dense.

7 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

"ON ACCOUNT OF AGE"

You can't be this dense.

No, I am not.  But if you look at the wording, and the fact you have to be 18 to buy a gun in most states, the 2nd and 26th amendment are identical.  If you are 18, the right shall not be infringed.  So if you don't have the right to vote, you don't have the right to have a firearm.

Dave has a point in that the standard of a "universal" constitutional right is a bit of a no true Scotsman. For matters of the law, we rely on the SCOTUS to interpret the constitution in a legal sense, and until Heller is overturned, then there's also no "universal" right to bear arms either. Otherwise a 20 year old adult American citizen in Ohio wouldn't be prohibited from buying a hand gun. 

Let's keep having fun. This doesn't even get into the need for the 23rd amendment that gave DC electors. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_voting_rights_in_Puerto_Rico

Quote

 

This case brings before this court the third in a series of law suits by Gregorio Igartúa, a U.S. citizen resident in Puerto Rico, claiming the constitutional right to vote quadrennially for President and Vice President of the United States. Panels of this court have rejected such claims on all three occasions. We now do so again, this time en banc, rejecting as well an adjacent claim: that the failure of the Constitution to grant this vote should be declared a violation of U.S. treaty obligations.
 

The constitutional claim is readily answered. Voting for President and Vice President of the United States is governed neither by rhetoric nor intuitive values but by a provision of the Constitution. This provision does not confer the franchise on "U.S. citizens" but on "Electors" who are to be "appoint[ed]" by each "State," in "such Manner" as the state legislature may direct, equal to the number of Senators and Representatives to whom the state is entitled. U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 2; see also id. amend. XII.

 

 

Quote

 

The 2010 United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit decision read in part:

The panel is unanimous in agreeing that the U.S. Constitution does not give Puerto Rico residents the right to vote for members of the House of Representatives because Puerto Rico is not a state.

Chief Judge Lynch and Judge Lipez conclude that this panel is bound by Igartúa III's holding that the Constitution does not permit granting such a right to the plaintiffs by means other than those specified for achieving statehood or by amendment. Chief Judge Lynch independently concludes that this holding in Igartúa III is correct. Judge Lipez considers the panel bound by this holding in Igartúa III, but he does not express a view of his own on its merit. Chief Judge Lynch and Judge Lipez agree that Igartúa III requires dismissal of plaintiffs' claims based on treaties and international law. Judge Lipez joins the holding that dismissal of the case is affirmed. He joins this introduction, the introduction to Section II, Sections II.A II.B, and II.C.1, and Section III of Chief Judge Lynch's opinion. He expresses additional views in his concurring opinion.

 

 

2 minutes ago, downundermike said:

No, I am not.  But if you look at the wording, and the fact you have to be 18 to buy a gun in most states, the 2nd and 26th amendment are identical.  If you are 18, the right shall not be infringed.  So if you don't have the right to vote, you don't have the right to have a firearm.

ON ACCOUNT OF AGE. Words have meaning.

Show me anywhere those words are in the Second Amendment. 

For the record, I believe the Courts erred in allowing an infringement on the right to bear arms, even for age. They should amend the Constitution. 

None of this creates a universal right for all citizens to vote, which the courts have consistently found does not exist.

5 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

None of this creates a universal right for all citizens to vote, which the courts have consistently found does not exist.

So, it is a right for all citizens over 18 to vote, correct ??

19 minutes ago, toolg said:

This is the repercussion of voter ID laws. Follow the Twitter thread:

 

 

TLDR version: Because of arcane Indiana voting laws: Since she moved from out-of-state, and was divorced and remarried, she must present proof of each name change since birth before registering to vote. Her husband got his voter registration same day at DMV.

It is unnecessary red tape. And it is disenfranchising voters. 

So she showed up without looking into what would be required first?  Yeah, that's definitely a reason to keep it easy for Democrats to cheat.

Just now, downundermike said:

So, it is a right for all citizens over 18 to vote, correct ??

No, it is not. Not sure how you can be this obtuse. 

You can't be denied the right to vote if you are over 18...ON ACCOUNT OF AGE. 

You also can't be denied the vote on the basis of race, gender or ability to pay a poll tax. 

On the basis of the ability to show ID? Perfectly Constitutional.

7 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

ON ACCOUNT OF AGE. Words have meaning.

Show me anywhere those words are in the Second Amendment. 

For the record, I believe the Courts erred in allowing an infringement on the right to bear arms, even for age. They should amend the Constitution. 

None of this creates a universal right for all citizens to vote, which the courts have consistently found does not exist.

Which is fair, but Dave could likewise post the opinion of many legal experts and the SCOTUS judges which would argue, from a legal sense, there is also no universal right to bear arms. 

52 minutes ago, Dave Moss said:

I mean we’ve done race, gender, age, and class. What else is there?

They're gonna have to start over on this one, so there's that

1 minute ago, vikas83 said:

No, it is not. Not sure how you can be this obtuse. 

You can't be denied the right to vote if you are over 18...ON ACCOUNT OF AGE. 

You also can't be denied the vote on the basis of race, gender or ability to pay a poll tax. 

On the basis of the ability to show ID? Perfectly Constitutional.

Except in some states the court system has said getting an ID presents an unfair burden or whatever.  

1 minute ago, mikemack8 said:

They're gonna have to start over on this one, so there's that

Good point.  Only 2 genders are protected.  We need another voting rights amendment to protect the other 25 genders.

I think requiring a form of ID to register to vote isn't a form of voter suppression. Reducing early voting periods, restricting absentee voting, reducing polling locations, days and times of voting, etc, sure seems like it to me though. That's not to say it's unconstitutional, just shady with the clear intent of trying to limit the total number of voters for obvious reasons.