The statement that “There is no constitutional right to vote” is very misleading.
Article 1, Section 1 provides that members of the House of Representatives shall be chosen by the people of the several states.
The 15th amendment provides: "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…"
The most direct reference to voting is in clause 2 of the 17th Amendment.
Clause 1. The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.
Clause 2. When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of each State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
Then we have Clause 1 of the 26th Amendment which provides: 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.
While the method of presidential selection is left to the state legislatures, all states have opted to use direct voting and as long as they adhere to that decision, the actual voting procedures established by the legislatures must conform to the dictates of the15th and 26th Amendments.
I think the phrasing "no right to vote" is confusing to the average layman, though. Seems like it would be better to lead with "Voting was considered a duty, a responsibility, not a right," which, as I understand it, is how the Founders viewed it.
But when you lead with "it wasn't a right at all," that just gets people's hackles up to where they don't want to listen.
Thank you for the reply. I believe your statement was: “There is no constitutional right to vote” While I accept your assertion of extensive law school study on this subject, your argument is still not persuasive.
There is clearly a difference between a right to vote and a mandate to vote. The right to vote does not come into play until the opportunity arises. As to your potato sack race example. If a legislature chooses that as a method of selection, then no right to vote would be at issue, but when they direct voting as the method of selection, the right to vote is guaranteed by the Constitution. Also, I would hope that your law school taught that when an amendment is properly approved, it becomes part of the Constitution. When I cited Amendment 17, that was indeed germane to the issue.
I am sure you put some thought into your argument and I appreciate that effort. I just disagree with your conclusion.
Well presented argument however I would like to make three points.
I am not supporting your assertion.
You included a material misquotation in your reply. (If a [State] legislature chooses [voting] as a method of selection, then no right to vote would be at issue …….) I actually prefaced the misquoted sentence with the following: “As to your potato potato sack race example”. I then stated: If a legislature chooses that [meaning potato sack race] as a method of selection, then no right to vote would be at issue, but when they direct voting as the method of selection, the right to vote is guaranteed by the Constitution.
Inherent rights are not granted by the constitution but are actually rights derived from the creator. The Bill of Rights specified some of our inherent rights such as speech, press and assembly and emphasized that they were not to be abridged but it did not grant those rights. Very important to this discussion is the Ninth Amendment which states: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Later when the fifteenth amendment was approved, the first 10 words confirmed the inherent right of Citizens to vote and then continued on to confirm certain conditions under which that right could not be abridged. It is interesting that it did not make a blanket prohibition of abridgment and left open denial of that right due to age, and sex which conditions were addressed by later amendments. [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.]
While I initially had no intention of engaging in this type discussion, I must concede that it has been interesting. I haven’t looked at some of these issues in over 60 years as that aspect of my education was not the primary focus of my life and career. I wish you well in your endeavors and applaud your willingness to engage.
The statement that “There is no constitutional right to vote” is very misleading.
Article 1, Section 1 provides that members of the House of Representatives shall be chosen by the people of the several states.
The 15th amendment provides: "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…"
The most direct reference to voting is in clause 2 of the 17th Amendment.
Then we have Clause 1 of the 26th Amendment which provides: 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.
While the method of presidential selection is left to the state legislatures, all states have opted to use direct voting and as long as they adhere to that decision, the actual voting procedures established by the legislatures must conform to the dictates of the15th and 26th Amendments.
I think the phrasing "no right to vote" is confusing to the average layman, though. Seems like it would be better to lead with "Voting was considered a duty, a responsibility, not a right," which, as I understand it, is how the Founders viewed it.
But when you lead with "it wasn't a right at all," that just gets people's hackles up to where they don't want to listen.
yeah, but honey and vinegar, man.
Thank you for the reply. I believe your statement was: “There is no constitutional right to vote” While I accept your assertion of extensive law school study on this subject, your argument is still not persuasive.
There is clearly a difference between a right to vote and a mandate to vote. The right to vote does not come into play until the opportunity arises. As to your potato sack race example. If a legislature chooses that as a method of selection, then no right to vote would be at issue, but when they direct voting as the method of selection, the right to vote is guaranteed by the Constitution. Also, I would hope that your law school taught that when an amendment is properly approved, it becomes part of the Constitution. When I cited Amendment 17, that was indeed germane to the issue.
I am sure you put some thought into your argument and I appreciate that effort. I just disagree with your conclusion.
Well presented argument however I would like to make three points.
I am not supporting your assertion.
You included a material misquotation in your reply. (If a [State] legislature chooses [voting] as a method of selection, then no right to vote would be at issue …….) I actually prefaced the misquoted sentence with the following: “As to your potato potato sack race example”. I then stated: If a legislature chooses that [meaning potato sack race] as a method of selection, then no right to vote would be at issue, but when they direct voting as the method of selection, the right to vote is guaranteed by the Constitution.
Inherent rights are not granted by the constitution but are actually rights derived from the creator. The Bill of Rights specified some of our inherent rights such as speech, press and assembly and emphasized that they were not to be abridged but it did not grant those rights. Very important to this discussion is the Ninth Amendment which states: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Later when the fifteenth amendment was approved, the first 10 words confirmed the inherent right of Citizens to vote and then continued on to confirm certain conditions under which that right could not be abridged. It is interesting that it did not make a blanket prohibition of abridgment and left open denial of that right due to age, and sex which conditions were addressed by later amendments. [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.]
While I initially had no intention of engaging in this type discussion, I must concede that it has been interesting. I haven’t looked at some of these issues in over 60 years as that aspect of my education was not the primary focus of my life and career. I wish you well in your endeavors and applaud your willingness to engage.