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.
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.