Simple question

@csbrown28

As usual, Brown, your effort here is nothing but a wild swing and a miss.

Minds much much greater than yours have been litigating this “voting rights” business for more than a hundred years (and your side has lost most of the time).

The only conclusion one can draw at this point is . . . the issue is anything but settled.

It is NOT as clear cut as you make it out to be, Brown.

The crux of the issue centers around whether or not these “voting rights” are intended to redress a specific disenfranchised minority OR are intended for . . . EVERYONE.

  {digression 1} Recently, there has been a movement in Congress to 
  pass a law that specifically provides that "voting rights" are intended 
  for . . . EVERYONE.  So far, that effort has failed.

  (Interestingly, that movement has been lead by none other than . . . 
  Hillary Clinton).

   BTW, SCOTUS has ruled AGAINST those that maintain "voting 
   rights" are intended for everyone. {end digression 1}

For example, on July 9th, 1868, “voting rights” were granted to . . . FORMER SLAVES.

After the Civil War, former slaves had been intimidated at the polls. Very arguably, the deed was intended to remedy this very specific issue. (And SCOTUS took this view).

Those “voting rights” were hotly contested by the states of the defeated Confederacy. But they were compelled to accept them in order to regain representation in Congress. Sooooo . . . they were forced to swallow them.

My answer: voting is a privilege, NOT a right.

 {digression 2} Why are you here?  With the exception of maybe AS 
 and RwNj, NOBODY here holds you in high regard.

  I lost count of all the posts where my brethren called you a "moron".

  No matter though . . . this forum will likely whither and die.

  You might consider giving the membership here a heads up on 
   where you plan to go.  That way, we will all know WHERE NOT TO 
   GO. {end digression 2}

Democracy is mostly an illusion. Even assuming the elections are legitimate(a big, unverifiable assumption), what is generally the difference?

One corrupt politician who identifies as a Republican running against a corrupt politician who identifies as a Democrat. They’ll both vote the same way on anything that matters, and pretend to disagree on social issues.

The right to vote is essentially meaningless, because our vote is impotent. Not just because of gerrymandering, and political leanings, but because of systemic corruption.

If there was ever an attempt to make the process unduly difficult then I would appose that, our Founder’s thought it was entirely feasible to require voters be male and own land; the gender restriction I would oppose but not the requirement to own at least SOMETHING in order to participate in posterity of the nation would seem entirely reasonable to me.

That said I have NEVER even heard that level of protection suggested by anyone, all I have heard is the requirement of a Federal ID with a picture that verifies the voters citizenship status and legal address; big deal.

Anyone unwilling to apply for something that benign has no business being heard in the vote tally; anyone who thinks that because some people are too dumb and/or irresponsible to get this voter ID so we shouldn’t do it is a moron, if they are that dumb/irresponsible then they have nothing of value to offer any nation in the election booth.

The Primary complaint that motivated our Declaration of Independence was “Taxation without representation”; the Founders insisted that the people of the colonies had a Right to choose their own Representatives who would be accountable ONLY to them before ANY tax could be seen as Just.

The Right to pursue happiness is directly related to the ability to CHOOSE your own governance and have that governance accountable to the PEOPLE.

Every Right enumerated in the Constitution can be lost if a person decides to act in various criminal manners but their lost qualification does not diminish the status of anyone else’s Right.

A Right may have qualifiers but those qualifiers will be ENTIRELY within the control of the citizen, a privilidge has qualifiers that are in the control of the entity that grants the privilege.

A citizen has the Right to vote unless they take an action to disqualify themselves, they are not granted the privilege of voting by the government or anyone else.

Our Founders wrote that it was our DUTY to cast of such a government that would rule without the consent of the governed, the government does not grant the vote as a privilege and if they think they do it is our DUTY to overthrow and replace them.

Actually, untrue, RET. We (the government) GRANTED the right to vote to 18-year-olds by Constitutional Amendment. The government passed laws prohibiting convicted felons from voting. The government sets forth the qualifications for anyone to vote. It is therefore A PRIVILEGE, controlled BY the government. It’s not a “right” in the same sense that a right to self-defense or free speech is. It took Constitutional amendments for former slaves, Native Americans and even women to acquire the privilege of voting. Those privileges can therefore be taken away by the same means–Constitutional Amendment–though I’ll grant you it would set off a conflagration if it were attempted.

If defining the parameters equals privilege then all of our Rights are privileges since all can be taken from us, or it would make prisons and the Judicial system unconstitutional.

1 Like

You have no “right” to murder someone. Neither do you have the “right” to steal from someone. Why? Because besides being morally repugnant, there are laws which abrogate your “right” to do anything you desire to do. In that sense, some “rights” are actually “privileges” IF the definition of a privilege is a “right” that can be granted or removed by government edict. I’ve always maintained that the right to keep and bear arms for one’s self-defense or the defense of one’s nation is a UNIVERSAL right enjoyed by any human being and that it’s only codified in THIS country because our Founders had the foresight to do so. But the right is just as valid for the Chinese or North Korean coolie as it is for any free American.

1 Like

Your Right to keep and bear arms is predicated on your not being found guilty of a felony.
Your Right to speak freely or publish freely is contingent on whether you are publishing illegal content like child pornagraphy or inciting violence.
Your Right to own property and keep your privacy unless a specific warrant has been obtained is predicated on whether an officer observes something about you or your property that he deems is “probable cause”.
The Right to not be denied life without Due Process of Law is predicated on whether you are a baby or a white male.
The Right to be free from federal government oversight in any manner not specifically enumerated in the Constitution is so violated that even mentioning it is a joke.

Are those examples proof that we don’t really have those Rights but actually proof that they are really privileges?

Like all Rights they can be surrendered by our actions or deprecated by corrupt polititions and judges but that does not mean that they cease to be our “Rights” and become “Privileges” granted by the State; it just means that we are too cowardly to defend our own Rights.

I have always maintained that the prohibition of convicted felons from owning a firearm is borderline unconstitutional, though being convicted of a felony DOES cost one some of their other civil rights enjoyed by most citizens. What is the logic behind prohibiting a convicted embezzler from owning a firearm for self-protection, for example? Technically, embezzlement is a felony, but it’s not a VIOLENT felony that justifies disarming an otherwise law-abiding citizen and making him helpless and vulnerable to any predator he might encounter.

I am not defending the criteria that any felony equals a surrender of 2nd Amendment Rights, I agree that a non violent felony shouldn’t be included; I was just pointing out that the government defining the qualifications for a Right does not change the Right into a privilege.

You have the Right unless you take an action to disqualify yourself from the Right, in the case of voting the Right belongs to all citizens who reach the age defined and who do not disqualify themselves through their actions; the age can be changed and the original scheme of excluding women did not last due to the inherent hypocrisy of the idea. The issue of slaves was more tricky to resolve because citizens could not be slaves, that meant the naturalization process had to be dealt with in order to meet the citizenship requirement to vote; but once that was dealt with the Right to vote for former slaves was as secure as for any other citizen.

I just don’t see how the vote can be considered a privilege when the belief that it was a human Right fueled our revolution and the Constitution that we finally settled on currently calls the vote a Right in 5 different places.

Maybe considering the vote a “privilege of citizenship” by the rest of the world is appropriate but it seems impossible to consider the vote anything less than a Right for United States citizens.

I believe that the distinction here is Positive vs Negative Rights.

Voting would seem to fit Positive Right as it is something that exists via contract. Negative Rights meanwhile exist with or without a contract. The Constitution mentions both sorts of rights, but its language asserts “shall not be infringed” or clauses like it to insist some of these rights pre-exist itself. Which would be the Negative Rights.

You may call a Positive Right a “privilege” but I don’t feel that fully captures what they are, unless the contract itself defines them as such. Such as the contract for entering a theme park; buying the ticket grants you privilege to enter the premises, that may be revoked at any time.

…and being an American citizen, reaching the age of 18 and not having been convicted of a felony allows one to register and vote in the United States. Note that one cannot vote without having first REGISTERED to vote, establishing the venue (precinct) in which one may vote by way of proving residency. I cannot vote in Tampa, FL, because I don’t LIVE in Tampa, FL and staying at a Tampa, FL Holiday Inn for a couple of weeks does not establish residency there. Yet, Michigan unionist Democrats tried to CLAIM residence in Milwaukee, WI, by staying in hotels there and then voting, trying to oust Wisconsin’s governor just a few years ago. As soon as the election was over (and they’d lost) they all disappeared back to Michigan.

Does a 3 year old have the right to own (and use) a firearm without supervision?

Just because there are rules created to administer rights doesn’t mean they aren’t rights.

Would a frog bump its butt when it jumped if it had wings?
That’s a stupid comment, CSB…but about par for most of your other posts here, I suppose.

1 Like

And I thought the Mr. Brown had left us for greener pastures…

At any rate, what do you think of the Portland and Seattle rioters, Mr Brown? Are they your kind of people? What are you Democrats s going to do with them once Biden is president? They aren’t going away, you know. They won’t be satisfied until they have overthrown the government.

These are the responsibilities you will have once you take over.

I don’t support rioters.

Trying to tack this on mt is like me asking you what you think of people who kill abortion doctors. As a Christian what are you going to do about that?

So you can be against abortion but not for murder. See how that works?

I can be for things that people in Portland support and against the violence.

Let’s hope the corruption subsides, we end the harmful trade war, steam civil unrest, deal with virus by increasing testing and getting the states, ALL of the states the resources they need to combat it, while at the same time creation a cohesive, credible plan and rolling it out from the top. Re-enter the Paris Climate agreement, working toward an affordable healthcare system for everyone (probably this administrations biggest failure to date…Well…That and the trade war)…The list goes on…

Take over the government? Thanks for the laugh. The only thing that terrifies me in that statement is that you really believe it.

No, these aren’t my responsibilities.

Oh they won’t take over the government. The Democrats will shoot them all before that happens. One thing you learn from history is that that the people who have the power will fight like hell to keep it. The wealthy Democrats are no exception.

If you have read my position, you know that I have been pro-choice, but I have had to modify that view to help hold the GOP together.

Your side is so full of corrupt liars, but you won’t believe anything I write, so why bother?

Did you see that “House hearing” yesterday with Attorney General Barr? It was a disgrace, but since your is brain is made of cast iron, I’m sure that you enjoyed the Democrat representatives’ derogatory.

Yep, the climate foolishness is the quickest path to socialism. You haven’t changed. And China will get to belch out carbon like a steamship until 2030 because, of course, they already communist and don’t need to be “reformed.”

And, China has been such a wonderful trading partner. Everything that has gone wrong is Trump’s fault. Biden or more accurately, the African-American woman he picks for VP, will fix everything. Right?

Biden will be in a memory care unit before his term is up. He’s just like my mom was five years before she passed. She spent the last two years unable to speak because of dementia.

Don’t miss the point. You can support an idea even if people on “your side” take things too far.

I can simultaneously condemn the violence in Portland and support ideas about what they are upset about.

However, to insinuate that most or all people that support those positions are all violent looters is just to admit that you are watching sources feeding you what they want you too see.

I have it recorded. As you seemed to have noticed, I was gone for more than a week. I was on vacation and I’m still catching up at work. I will watch it soon. That said, the only disgrace (before Barr went on to Capitol) Hill is Barr.

Right, can have responsible climate policy without socialism…lol

First, we’ve burned more fossil fuels in our history than China has…So if we look at it that way, it’s a little hypocritical. That said, China has made huge efforts to change it’s output and has plans to use more renewables than the US.

I wonder what will come first, that or Trump and (more of) his minions being sent to jail?

Irony alert.