Voting is not a constitutional right

He doesn't know what he is saying.

This thread is basically as follows:

"...only people who agree with my political persausion have the right to vote."

 

I live in a very conservative section of a conservative state. In local elections, up to and including statewide offices, there is mostly only one person running. In local races in particular. So why bother? And in the statewide offices like Senator where there are two, only one has any shot. So again, why bother? Only one person has any shot of being the US representative from my district and the US Senate is 80% likely to go GOP. President? Same thing. So it's no wonder that turnout is so low. It's like going to a football when you already know what the final score is going to be. Only some people on one side are going to show up.

 

1st, be careful with insults. We have rules here.
2nd, I said attention to detail. You're not reading the Constitution carefully. The 9th doesn't apply to anything you want, it applies to rights RETAINED by the people. The people did not retain the right to vote. Your argument is invalid.

 

Yeah...Seriously. Did you not say this: "So he and a group of those like he, form a coalition, elect scumbag Pilesofcrapticians, and vote themselves largesse from the treasury."? How does that not apply to the Tea Party? Have they not formed a coalition and elected Pilesofcrapticians that vote themselves and the people that back them, largesse from the treasury in the form of tax cuts and cuts in federal programs in including environmental protections that might impact their profit margins? David Koch, widely celebrated for his cultural philanthropy, is not merely another rich conservative Republican but the founder of the Americans for Prosperity Foundation, which, has worked closely with the Tea Party since the movement’s inception. What does he get for his massive support? Do you think that he does this without expecting a quid-pro-quo?

So...how does your description not apply to the Tea Party?

 

Amen!!!

 

You do have it right!! And the only people who somehow cannot see that or will not admit to the same, are those on the Right.

It's amazing to see the dishonor of such conservative villains, so proudly displayed. After all, it isn't as though they are actually 'hiding' what they're doing.

 

You might be taken seriously, if you directed that toward Mr. Libertarianforlife, with his use of the term "Porch Monkeys". Yeah...there are rules here.

I'm reading it exactly as written. This is exactly what it says. "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." And how exactly did you come to the conclusion that the people did not retain that right? Unless there is a law restricting you in some way, there is nothing that denies a right. It's your argument that is invalid. Here's what you're implying.

P1.The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
P2. There is nothing in the Constitution that denies or disparages the right to vote.
__________________________________________________________________
C: Therefore, people do not have the right to vote.

That's the logic that you are offering. It's false.

P1.The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
P2. There is nothing in the Constitution that denies or disparages the right to vote.
_________________________________________________________________
C: Therefore, the people have the right to vote.

A single proposition can be true or false, but not valid or invalid; an argument can be valid or invalid, but not true or false.
To say an argument is valid, is to say: It would be impossible for all the premises to be true, but the conclusion false.

To say an argument is valid is to say: If the premises are true, the conclusion would have to be true.

If the condition specified in the definition does not hold, then the argument is invalid. A consequence of the definition is these cases are all possible:

1.The premises are all true and the conclusion is true.
2.The premises are all false, and the conclusion is false
3.The premises are all false, and the conclusion is true
4.Some of the premises are true, and some false, and the conclusion is true
5.Some of the premises are true, some false, and the conclusion is actually false.

The only case in which an argument cannot be valid is the case when the premises are all actually true, but the conclusion is actually false.

How to test for validity:
The way to do it, and this is what the definition of validity should lead you to expect is to reason as follows:

Whether or not they are actually true, suppose or pretend that the premises were all true; then in that situation – aside from how things really are – could the conclusion conceivably be false? If it could not be, then the argument is valid. If it could, then the argument is Invalid.

Once again:
P1.The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
P2. There is nothing in the Constitution that denies or disparages the right to vote.
_________________________________________________________________
C: Therefore, the people have the right to vote.

That is not only a valid argument. It's a sound argument.

In Modus Ponens form. If/then.

P1. If the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people, then by not denying of disparaging rights, the constitution establishes those non-enumerated rights are in fact, retained by the people.

The 9th amendment states: " the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people,

C: Therefore: by not denying of disparaging rights, the constitution establishes those non-enumerated rights are in fact, retained by the people

This has the form:
p→q
p
∴ q

If P then Q
P
therefore Q

A final look reveals this:

P1. the constitution establishes that non-enumerated rights are in fact, retained by the people
P2. Voting is a non-enumerated right
________________________________
C: Therefore Voting is a right retained by the people.


Now if you know the argument is invalid, then you know that the conclusion could be false, even if the premises are true. Therefore the reasons given by the arguer – the premises would not suffice to establish the conclusion, even if they are true. But suppose you find the argument is valid. Then there are two possibilities.

A.One or more of the premises are actually false.
B.All of the premises are actually true.

To say that an argument is deductively sound, is to say: The argument is valid and all its premises are actually true.

I don't think you've presented a logical argument over what is valid, sound, or true.

In a deductive syllogism. if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be infallibly true. If the conclusion is false than you've drawn a wrong conclusion from true premises, and your argument is invalid, unsound, and false.

Where did you come up with this idea?

 

The only right to vote should be dependent upon your ABILITY to vote. That is, your ability to vote intelligently enough to help insure that you are voting for the correct person for your own benefit.

You should be able to pass a minimum test on issues and candidates before you can vote. Otherwise, your vote could too easily work against your own benefit.

 

Yea, but who determines what that minimum ability is? That person or group has a lot of power. Tests like that can be used fairly or they can be used to favor certain groups and ideas. There is a lot of room for corruption with that kind of idea.

 

The "taker v giver states" propaganda has already been absolutely debunked in other threads but maybe you missed it:

1. Note those "taker" states tend to be more rural states with comparatively few corporate HQs and bureaucratic hub offices. For purposes of those giver/taker state maps and stats, income taxes are attributed to the state where they are taxed as salary, the HQ state. The HQ in NYC pays out millions, even billions, in salary, yet the operations that created that revenue to pay salaries were conducted nationwide including Miss and Ky. Upshot is exec/top bureaucrats high salary is attributed in a purported "giver" state, yet actually came from a "taker" state. If this one variable were properly accounted, I have a strong hunch that the whole rotten stat would turn on its head, giver states suddenly turn into taker states and vice versa.

2. Do the giver/taker state stats account for migration to warmer stats after retirement by millions of northerners? in essence, while workers have high salary subject to more tax during their career, they are living in giver states, then they retire to the warm states and get SS/medicare making them appear takers. I'll bet this context is not included.

3. Military bases - disproportionately in the more rural Southern states, same for military personnel, is this accounted in the stats? I doubt it. How about federal prisons? more expenditure in certain states or not? I don't know, nor do the propaganda stats. Placement of military bases/VA presence away from high population urban areas should be counted as "giving" by the states that house such, not "taking."

4. High federal land %/low population states. Several of the main "taker" states have the double whammy of low population, low corporate presence together with high federal land presence and expenditure. Does that mean those states are takers? or just that the government owns a higher % of land in relation to lower population?

The "giver/taker" states lie is one of the most ignorant strands of leftist agitprop making the rounds today. I would wager that if proper context were applied, that the stats would instantly turn on their head and reveal that states like CA, NY and Ill. are far and away the largest taker states. Luckily the nonleft hasn't taken the time to create such stats because that would make them as ignorant and puerile as leftists who forward such plainly inaccurate agitprop claims as fact.

 

Don't even humor him.

That would be unconstitutional under the 24th Amendment, for the very reason you articulated. Any kind of "literacy" provision / test, is 100% unconstitutional.

Your post is 100% correct. That is another barrier to discriminate against groups of people.

 

No propaganda.

Get out of your shell and drive the country. The standard of living in "liberal" states is head and heels over conservative states.



Liberal states have been subsidizing conservative states for years. This is old news.

 

Your comment is ridiculous. Look at this:

If that is the criteria, then I could make a case for denying *********s the right to vote, since I think they vote against their own interests. What you determine as being intelligent enough to insure that you're voting for the "correct" person, assumes that you know who that would be based on your own subjective view of what is "correct" and what you disagree with. It's not up to you to decide on who the correct person is for somebody else.

And this:

This is straight out of Jim Crow. Demand that somebody recite the constitution, or something else to you in order to qualify to vote. Who sets up the test, and what demonstrates that they are best equipped to determine the issues that "should matter" for anybody else.

I don't think I've ever seen a more concerted effort on the part of extremists like you to justify denying an American citizen the right to vote.

 

Gee....that's a lot of constitutional references. I wonder if they get it yet?

 

You should try dictionary.com since you clearly don't know what retain means.

 

And you would be one of those.

“[W]e stated that ‘there is no indication in the Constitution that homesite or occupation affords a permissible basis for distinguishing between qualified voters within the State.’ And, finally, we concluded: ‘The conception of political equality from the Declaration of Independence, to Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, to the Fifteenth, Seventeenth, and Nineteenth Amendments can mean only one thing—one person, one vote.’” C.J. Warren, Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 558 (1964) (quoting Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368 (1963)).

Amendment XV
Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Section 2.
The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Amendment XIX
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.

Amendment XXIV
Section 1.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax. ( So much for the nutty claim that you should only vote if you pay taxes.)

Amendment XXVI
Section 1.

The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age.


So....what is there in our constitution that you, in your non-public education, missed out on?

 

It means to keep something that you already have. The right to vote was already a given for white men. It didn't need to be spelled out in a democratic system. And those rights not enumerated were not meant to suggest that you didn't have them. We needed amendments to extend that right to blacks and later to women and all those over 18. Obviously if we are going to be a democratic process, we can't deny the vote to anybody.

P1. the constitution establishes that non-enumerated rights are in fact, retained by the people
P2. Voting is a non-enumerated right
______________________________ __
C: Therefore Voting is a right retained by the people.

The fact is that not only was it a right, voting has become an enumerated right since the 15th Amendment. So not only has it been a right, it was later clarified and extended in the Civil War amendments and even later to include women and all citizens over 18.

You need to study some logic or critical thinking. You clearly don't know the difference between a valid argument and an invalid one let alone what counts as a sound argument.

 

The right to vote is implied in the constitution. There are lots of things that are not explicitly said in the constitution.

Read Article 1; Section 2 and 8

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

 

There is no difference except maybe in the dimmest recesses of the oldest law schools in the nation. If you cannot be deprived of a right you are, in fact, guaranteed that right.

 

You guys are hilarious. Nowhere does the Constitution say that voting is an unrestricted right given to any jackass breathing. You all have nothing, so you take nothing to a whole new level thinking if you repeat nothing enough times, it will become something. But.....

You got nothing.

 

...... we have four amendments. Do you need a reading comprehension class?

What part of "The right of the citizens of the United States to vote" do you not understand?

 

No, actually you have a reading comprehension problem, and a lying problem...which is why you only quote the parts of the Constitution that fit your arguments, your post right here a case in point.

 

.....you mean like entire Amendments?