The 14th Amendment - Section 2 - Can it be enforced?

Jump to latest Follow Reply
S

Shavano

Ars Legatus Legionis
59,253
Subscriptor
  • #1
    US Constitution, Amendment 14, Section 2 says:
    Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
    Click to expand...
    This interacts with

    and the 19th Amendment
    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.

    Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
    Click to expand...
    thus the right of women to vote is equal to that of men, and I think the 14th, Section 2 would apply if a state restricted the right of women (or a class of women) to vote, just like it would for men.
    and the 26th also extends the right to vote to citizens as young as 18:
    Section 1. 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.

    Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
    Click to expand...
    I understand this to mean 18 year olds have the same protections to their voting as 21 year olds, including the sanctions listed in 14A Section 2.

    This whole framework is now in question due to the SCOTUS striking down Colorado's attempt to keep Donald Trump off a primary ballot, since a state court found him to be ineligible for reason of having engaged in an insurrection. IOW, I think the Court set up a situation wherein a State could disenfranchise a minority group, or the even a majority of its citizens, and there would be no way to put sanctions in place unless by statutes enacted by Congress.

    For example, if the enforcement of Texas's new voting restrictions were found to effectively deny voters in Harris county a chance to vote, or if long lines due to insufficient polling places kept people from voting, in some states, how could this be enforced, and who would have the ability to make such a finding? How could the reduction of representation in Congress be implemented, and who would do the implementing?
     
    QtDevSvr

    QtDevSvr

    Ars Legatus Legionis
    11,701
    Subscriptor++
  • #2
    Your concerns are completely legitimate as far as I can see. They and much else are why I think the SCOTUS "decision" in the Colorado case was the biggest judicial fuck-up since, I dunno, Dred Scott? We are living in an age of anti-democratic coup by oligarchic-powered elites. There is no "law of the land" anymore. There is just what the oligarch-elites choose to do, or choose to ignore, for times and places of their choosing.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: uno2tres, Louis XVI and Technarch
    CPX

    CPX

    Ars Legatus Legionis
    23,643
    Subscriptor++
  • #3
    Shavano said:
    This whole framework is now in question due to the SCOTUS striking down Colorado's attempt to keep Donald Trump off a primary ballot, since a state court found him to be ineligible for reason of having engaged in an insurrection. IOW, I think the Court set up a situation wherein a State could disenfranchise a minority group, or the even a majority of its citizens, and there would be no way to put sanctions in place unless by statutes enacted by Congress.
    Click to expand...

    In what way is Section 2's framework in question because of the Colorado ruling? That specifically addressed ballot access by creating a whole-ass requirement out of thin air requiring Congress to act. I'm not seeing how the Section 3 interpretation affects potential Section 2 abuse one way or the other.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Neverm1nd
    CPX

    CPX

    Ars Legatus Legionis
    23,643
    Subscriptor++
  • #5
    Shavano said:
    If the court ruled that it applies to section 3, why would you think they wouldn't apply it to section 2?
    Click to expand...

    Because their Section 3 methodology only worked on a state action with respect to what the court claimed the federal government did or did not empower a state government to do with respect to ballot access. The court wants a federal law empowering states to remove ballot access.

    Your claimed concern is the other way around with the federal government hypothetically barred from stopping a state action. The court may find some twisted way to rule in favor of the state because they are the assholes they are, but it's not going to be using their Section 3 reasoning to get there.
     
    QtDevSvr

    QtDevSvr

    Ars Legatus Legionis
    11,701
    Subscriptor++
  • #6
    CPX said:
    Because their Section 3 methodology only worked on a state action with respect to what the court claimed the federal government did or did not empower a state government to do with respect to ballot access. The court wants a federal law empowering states to remove ballot access.

    Your claimed concern is the other way around with the federal government hypothetically barred from stopping a state action. The court may find some twisted way to rule in favor of the state because they are the assholes they are, but it's not going to be using their Section 3 reasoning to get there.
    Click to expand...
    Respectfully you can not just parrot the "reasoning" of the court in this case and call that mimicry an exposition of their "methodology" in the case. You have to look at the matter analytically.

    Their actual methodology was to completely disregard the black letter command of Section Three and invent a contradictory and logically indefensible requirement of Congressional legislation, which requirement has the effect of voiding the constitutional force of a part of the Constitution.

    That seems like a "methodology" ripe for abusive re-application upon Section 2. Or anywhere else.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Louis XVI
    CPX

    CPX

    Ars Legatus Legionis
    23,643
    Subscriptor++
  • #7
    QtDevSvr said:
    Respectfully you can not just parrot the "reasoning" of the court in this case and call that mimicry an exposition of their "methodology" in the case. You have to look at the matter analytically.

    Their actual methodology was to completely disregard the black letter command of Section Three and invent a contradictory and logically indefensible requirement of Congressional legislation, which requirement has the effect of voiding the constitutional force of a part of the Constitution.

    That seems like a "methodology" ripe for abusive re-application upon Section 2. Or anywhere else.
    Click to expand...

    That's kinda my point here, if you'd kindly reconsider my post. This part specifically addresses it:

    The court may find some twisted way to rule in favor of the state because they are the assholes they are, but it's not going to be using their Section 3 reasoning to get there.
    Click to expand...

    If we're just going on "court makes up any shit they want" reasoning, none of the reasoning matters and they will cut up whatever part of the Constitution they want regardless of what words on paper mean to anyone. If we're applying actual analysis to the OP's contention and content, then how the court gutted Section 3 does not offer any path to gutting Section 2 in the manner OP asserts. I didn't say they wouldn't do it, either, just that the Colorado case isn't the springboard to get there.
     
    QtDevSvr

    QtDevSvr

    Ars Legatus Legionis
    11,701
    Subscriptor++
  • #8
    CPX said:
    If we're applying actual analysis to the OP's contention and content, then how the court gutted Section 3 does not offer any path to gutting Section 2 in the manner OP asserts. I didn't say they wouldn't do it, either, just that the Colorado case isn't the springboard to get there.
    Click to expand...
    I do not see how the OP is in any way phrased to be restricted to or even directed at the specific rationale used by the Court in their Section Three reasoning, so I don't see your point in saying it has to be, nor that the details of a hypothetical future Section 2 case dovetail the situation in the Section Three case.

    Section Three protects the people from insurrectionists gaining office, and the Court, with bullshit misdirection, has unconstitiutionally deprived the people of that protection. Shavano raises a concern that, since Section 2 protects citizen's right to vote, the Court may similarly employ any manner of bullshittery so as to deny judicial enforcement of that constitutional protection, and demand that enforcement of the right wait for legislation from a dysfunctional congress.
     
    S

    Shavano

    Ars Legatus Legionis
    59,253
    Subscriptor
  • #9
    QtDevSvr said:
    I do not see how the OP is in any way phrased to be restricted to or even directed at the specific rationale used by the Court in their Section Three reasoning, so I don't see your point in saying it has to be, nor that the details of a hypothetical future Section 2 case dovetail the situation in the Section Three case.

    Section Three protects the people from insurrectionists gaining office, and the Court, with bullshit misdirection, has unconstitiutionally deprived the people of that protection. Shavano raises a concern that, since Section 2 protects citizen's right to vote, the Court may similarly employ any manner of bullshittery so as to deny judicial enforcement of that constitutional protection, and demand that enforcement of the right wait for legislation from a dysfunctional congress.
    Click to expand...
    Exactly that. The Colorado case only demonstrates the kind of disrespect for logic and the words of the Constitution that are likely to similarly applied to whatever case might be made that State A (let's call it Alabama) had disenfranchised a portion of its electorate, therefore requiring the application of Section 2, i.e. the proportionate reduction of representation in Congress.

    The bigger question is, even if you had a court determined to carry out Section 2, how would you do it? Let's say 14A S2 requires that Texas's representation be reduced by 3 seats (an 8% reduction). How is it to be determined which 3 seats they lose? Does the whole state get redistricted by the same legislature that interered with citizens' voting rights?
     
    CPX

    CPX

    Ars Legatus Legionis
    23,643
    Subscriptor++
  • #10
    QtDevSvr said:
    I do not see how the OP is in any way phrased to be restricted to or even directed at the specific rationale used by the Court in their Section Three reasoning, so I don't see your point in saying it has to be, nor that the details of a hypothetical future Section 2 case dovetail the situation in the Section Three case.
    Click to expand...

    Because of the narrow constraint provided by the OP:

    Shavano said:
    This whole framework is now in question due to the SCOTUS striking down Colorado's attempt to keep Donald Trump off a primary ballot, since a state court found him to be ineligible for reason of having engaged in an insurrection. IOW, I think the Court set up a situation wherein a State could disenfranchise a minority group, or the even a majority of its citizens, and there would be no way to put sanctions in place unless by statutes enacted by Congress.
    Click to expand...

    My point is that if you're looking at the legal minutiae used to strike down the Colorado case, then you have to look at something using the actual Section 3 ruling and not just "they'll make anything up!" because the latter option just gets us to where everything in the framework of the Constitution is up for creative interpretation. That's entirely possible, but then having a discussion specifically regarding Section 2 as a consequence of the Section 3 ruling comes across as too myopic for the topic at hand...especially since this:

    IOW, I think the Court set up a situation wherein a State could disenfranchise a minority group, or the even a majority of its citizens, and there would be no way to put sanctions in place unless by statutes enacted by Congress.
    Click to expand...

    ...is a 15th, 19th, and 26th Amendments issue, not a 14th Amendment issue. Changing the number of representative seats in a state =/= abridging the right to vote. But continuing on the 14th Sec 2 rabbit hole:

    For example, if the enforcement of Texas's new voting restrictions were found to effectively deny voters in Harris county a chance to vote, or if long lines due to insufficient polling places kept people from voting, in some states, how could this be enforced, and who would have the ability to make such a finding? How could the reduction of representation in Congress be implemented, and who would do the implementing?
    Click to expand...

    Absent some other law regarding the apportionment procedure, this falls on the decennial census and the House Clerk notifying the states. I imagine any contest to these numbers would take place after the January 25th date with a suit from a state to the House Clerk.

    QtDevSvr said:
    Section Three protects the people from insurrectionists gaining office, and the Court, with bullshit misdirection, has unconstitiutionally deprived the people of that protection. Shavano raises a concern that, since Section 2 protects citizen's right to vote, the Court may similarly employ any manner of bullshittery so as to deny judicial enforcement of that constitutional protection, and demand that enforcement of the right wait for legislation from a dysfunctional congress.
    Click to expand...

    Say it with me again, Section 2 does not protect the right to vote, it ensures House representation.
     
    CPX

    CPX

    Ars Legatus Legionis
    23,643
    Subscriptor++
  • #11
    Shavano said:
    Exactly that. The Colorado case only demonstrates the kind of disrespect for logic and the words of the Constitution that are likely to similarly applied to whatever case might be made that State A (let's call it Alabama) had disenfranchised a portion of its electorate, therefore requiring the application of Section 2, i.e. the proportionate reduction of representation in Congress.

    The bigger question is, even if you had a court determined to carry out Section 2, how would you do it? Let's say 14A S2 requires that Texas's representation be reduced by 3 seats (an 8% reduction). How is it to be determined which 3 seats they lose? Does the whole state get redistricted by the same legislature that interered with citizens' voting rights?
    Click to expand...

    Yes? Seems fairly simple that the method for internal districting based on apportionment does not change despite disenfranchisement. The bigger issue I'm seeing here is what you're arguing as disenfranchisement.
     
    QtDevSvr

    QtDevSvr

    Ars Legatus Legionis
    11,701
    Subscriptor++
  • #12
    CPX said:
    My point is that if you're looking at the legal minutiae used to strike down the Colorado case, then you have to look at something using the actual Section 3 ruling and not just "they'll make anything up!" because the latter option just gets us to where everything in the framework of the Constitution is up for creative interpretation. That's entirely possible, but then having a discussion specifically regarding Section 2 as a consequence of the Section 3 ruling comes across as too myopic for the topic at hand
    Click to expand...
    For sake of discussion I'll call the "They'll make anything up!" concern the "wide" reading of the OP, and the "same reasoning as the Section Three case" the "narrow" reading. You prefer narrow and I prefer wide. You argue that narrow is compelled, since a wide reading would allegedly be inconsistent with Shavano's focus on applying the Section Three reasoning solely to Section Two, and not the rest of the constitution.

    That's not a good argument: Shavano isn't committed to the view that the wide reading only impacts with Section Two. He's merely choosing to focus discussion on it's impact with Section Two. It's true that the wide reading raises myriad other potential concerns ("What if a President claims legislative power and the Court bullshits about the black letter meaning of Art. 1 Sec. 1 and lets that stand?"), but there's nothing illogical about ignoring those other possibilities and simply focusing a discussion on Section Two.

    I can see how you can come to view that focus as ultimately "myopic", but conversely, your preference for the narrow reading ends up with a take on this matter that strikes me as ultimately obtuse. But we needn't beat each other on this difference any further. There are at least the two ways to read the matter and the resultant discussions will play out in their different directions.
    CPX said:
    ..especially since this:


    ...is a 15th, 19th, and 26th Amendments issue, not a 14th Amendment issue. Changing the number of representative seats in a state =/= abridging the right to vote. But continuing on the 14th Sec 2 rabbit hole:
    Click to expand...
    I take your point that Section Two is (mostly) about apportionment, but it is at least partly (and probably problematically) about enfranchisement. And it seems to me that it brings enfranchisment into play in a way that isn't covered by the 15th, 19th, and 26th. Those amendments are all class-focused (race/color, sex, age), whereas the enfranchisement clause of Section Two imposes a penalty on disenfranchisement simpliciter, irrespective of class concerns.
     
    CPX

    CPX

    Ars Legatus Legionis
    23,643
    Subscriptor++
  • #13
    QtDevSvr said:
    For sake of discussion I'll call the "They'll make anything up!" concern the "wide" reading of the OP, and the "same reasoning as the Section Three case" the "narrow" reading. You prefer narrow and I prefer wide. You argue that narrow is compelled, since a wide reading would allegedly be inconsistent with Shavano's focus on applying the Section Three reasoning solely to Section Two, and not the rest of the constitution.

    That's not a good argument: Shavano isn't committed to the view that the wide reading only impacts with Section Two. He's merely choosing to focus discussion on it's impact with Section Two. It's true that the wide reading raises myriad other potential concerns ("What if a President claims legislative power and the Court bullshits about the black letter meaning of Art. 1 Sec. 1 and lets that stand?"), but there's nothing illogical about ignoring those other possibilities and simply focusing a discussion on Section Two.

    I can see how you can come to view that focus as ultimately "myopic", but conversely, your preference for the narrow reading ends up with a take on this matter that strikes me as ultimately obtuse. But we needn't beat each other on this difference any further. There are at least the two ways to read the matter and the resultant discussions will play out in their different directions.
    Click to expand...

    It's not my preference for a narrow reading, it's about the only way I can make sense of the entire OP's contention about legal arguments. Are we discussing legalese around the Section 3 rulings consequences or the politics/philosophy? It's fine to go either way, but legal discussions require some actual structure and thus limitations. Claiming the Section 3 ruling somehow affects Section 2 at a functional/legal level requires an explicit understanding of how both sections and the court ruling function, which strikes me as OP's point for citing other amendments with specificity.

    QtDevSvr said:
    I take your point that Section Two is (mostly) about apportionment, but it is at least partly (and probably problematically) about enfranchisement. And it seems to me that it brings enfranchisment into play in a way that isn't covered by the 15th, 19th, and 26th. Those amendments are all class-focused (race/color, sex, age), whereas the enfranchisement clause of Section Two imposes a penalty on disenfranchisement simpliciter, irrespective of class concerns.
    Click to expand...

    Section 2 is a Constitutional sanction between the states but the apportionment action would remain limited to the census apportionment action taken January 25th on decade +1. Any state feeling they are improperly losing seats to a disenfranchising state would have standing to sue, being denied their fair representation in the House. But Section 2 is only a remedy for states to leverage against other states. Nothing in the Constitution currently precludes the federal judiciary from ruling on the constitutionality of a state's franchise actions nor Congress from leveraging other sanctions against states, such as tying federal funds to constitutional enfranchisement.
     
    S

    Shavano

    Ars Legatus Legionis
    59,253
    Subscriptor
  • #14
    CPX said:
    It's not my preference for a narrow reading, it's about the only way I can make sense of the entire OP's contention about legal arguments. Are we discussing legalese around the Section 3 rulings consequences or the politics/philosophy? It's fine to go either way, but legal discussions require some actual structure and thus limitations. Claiming the Section 3 ruling somehow affects Section 2 at a functional/legal level requires an explicit understanding of how both sections and the court ruling function, which strikes me as OP's point for citing other amendments with specificity.
    Click to expand...
    You could ask for clarification before you contradict. That would be nice.
    The reason I cited the other amendments is that I believe there's an interaction between 14A SS 2 and the other amendments that extend voting rights to other groups. Specifically, I think that women and people under 18 years old are now included along with men over 21 in the reasons why 14A SS2 might be invoked. IOW if a state put up obstacles to women voting, it should lose half its representation in the House of Representatives. That would, according to what I think was the intended reading of Amendment, be automatic, just as it was supposed to be automatic that an insurgent who had sworn to protect the Constitution would be ineligible to hold office. And until this year it was regarded just so. The ruling changes the legal landscape, not just of 14A SS3 but the 14th more generally, and in effect to every other amendment where the Constitution prescribes something and Congress hasn't detailed it out with statute law.
    CPX said:
    Section 2 is a Constitutional sanction between the states but the apportionment action would remain limited to the census apportionment action taken January 25th on decade +1.
    Click to expand...
    I don't see why it couldn't take action immediately on the state passing a law that disenfranchises a portion of its citizens, or rather prior to the next election. For example let's say in 2025 Texas's Texas's legislature says people must have some proof of voting eligibility that some fraction of its citizens don't have and can't get. I'm thinking their apportionment could be reduced as early as 2025, effective in the 2026 election; it would not have to wait for new Census.
    CPX said:
    Any state feeling they are improperly losing seats to a disenfranchising state would have standing to sue, being denied their fair representation in the House. But Section 2 is only a remedy for states to leverage against other states. Nothing in the Constitution currently precludes the federal judiciary from ruling on the constitutionality of a state's franchise actions nor Congress from leveraging other sanctions against states, such as tying federal funds to constitutional enfranchisement.
    Click to expand...
    I partially agree with that. It's the federal government taking action against a state, not one state taking action against another.

    I could imagine a case arising either on the federal government's taking initiative and reducing a state's representation, or because a citizens of the affected state alleges that they and a large enough group of others are being denied their right to vote. In the latter case, they'd appeal, I imagine, to a federal court, and ask for the 14th Amendment sanction to be applied, in addition to the state being ordered to allow them to vote, and whatever other sanctions might exist under the law.
     
    CPX

    CPX

    Ars Legatus Legionis
    23,643
    Subscriptor++
  • #15
    Shavano said:
    You could ask for clarification before you contradict. That would be nice.
    Click to expand...

    I did? :confused: Apologies if it was overly confrontational, that was not the intent.

    Shavano said:
    The reason I cited the other amendments is that I believe there's an interaction between 14A SS 2 and the other amendments that extend voting rights to other groups. Specifically, I think that women and people under 18 years old are now included along with men over 21 in the reasons why 14A SS2 might be invoked. IOW if a state put up obstacles to women voting, it should lose half its representation in the House of Representatives. That would, according to what I think was the intended reading of Amendment, be automatic, just as it was supposed to be automatic that an insurgent who had sworn to protect the Constitution would be ineligible to hold office. And until this year it was regarded just so. The ruling changes the legal landscape, not just of 14A SS3 but the 14th more generally, and in effect to every other amendment where the Constitution prescribes something and Congress hasn't detailed it out with statute law.
    Click to expand...

    Pretty sure all you'd need to unfuck this approach outside of Section 3 is to leverage this type of challenge at the 2nd Amendment. That scope would get nailed down with some serious haste. By all rights, the federal government doesn't have a law enshrining the right to bear arms. Or if we need to stick with the 14th, let the Democrats challenge Section 4 next time a debt limit fight comes along.

    Shavano said:
    I don't see why it couldn't take action immediately on the state passing a law that disenfranchises a portion of its citizens, or rather prior to the next election. For example let's say in 2025 Texas's Texas's legislature says people must have some proof of voting eligibility that some fraction of its citizens don't have and can't get. I'm thinking their apportionment could be reduced as early as 2025, effective in the 2026 election; it would not have to wait for new Census.
    Click to expand...

    Section 2 specifies that a state is essentially "reducing its population count for the purposes of representation", which means the apportionment is governed by 2 USC 2A (Reapportionment Act of 1929). The numbers for apportionment are only considered as part of the census. And even if we could formulate an argument in favor of immediate reapportionment in this event, we know this court would trash it by saying "we got a law for that".

    Shavano said:
    I partially agree with that. It's the federal government taking action against a state, not one state taking action against another.

    I could imagine a case arising either on the federal government's taking initiative and reducing a state's representation, or because a citizens of the affected state alleges that they and a large enough group of others are being denied their right to vote. In the latter case, they'd appeal, I imagine, to a federal court, and ask for the 14th Amendment sanction to be applied, in addition to the state being ordered to allow them to vote, and whatever other sanctions might exist under the law.
    Click to expand...

    I have no idea how the court proceedings would work on this one. Part of why the liberal concurrence/dissent in the Section 3 ruling was so batshit to me is how they wanted the plaintiffs to sue the state in federal court but I have a moderate degree of confidence that the federal court would tell the plaintiffs to pound sand for lack of standing.
     
    E

    etr

    Ars Scholae Palatinae
    741
  • #17
    dragongoddess said:
    Nowhere in the Constitution or Bill of Rights is it enumerated that a citizen has the right to vote.
    Click to expand...
    The 26th Amendment declares that, "The right...to vote," cannot be denied to citizens based on age if they are at least 18 years old.

    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.
    Click to expand...

    There is certainly room in the original Constitution to deny the ability to vote for a range of criteria, but the weight of amendments over the years was swinging toward a right to vote, anyway.

    An unreasonable court could certainly find loopholes, but an unreasonable court can gin up reasons to ignore text and precedent anyway.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Bardon
    D

    dragongoddess

    Ars Praefectus
    5,006
  • #21
    etr said:
    The 26th Amendment declares that, "The right...to vote," cannot be denied to citizens based on age if they are at least 18 years old.



    There is certainly room in the original Constitution to deny the ability to vote for a range of criteria, but the weight of amendments over the years was swinging toward a right to vote, anyway.

    An unreasonable court could certainly find loopholes, but an unreasonable court can gin up reasons to ignore text and precedent anyway.
    Click to expand...
    But my point here is where in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights is it enumerated that a Citizen has the Right to Vote. There are passages saying that you cannot be denied the Right to Vote because of this ,that or whatever but nowhere is it in black and white written down that citizens have the Right to Vote. We have a Right to our religion or no religion, Free Speech, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Jury Trial, and such except the Right to Vote. The Right to Vote is an Individual Right yet it is not in our Bill of Rights and given this court...
     
    E

    etr

    Ars Scholae Palatinae
    741
  • #22
    dragongoddess said:
    But my point here is where in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights is it enumerated that a Citizen has the Right to Vote. There are passages saying that you cannot be denied the Right to Vote because of this ,that or whatever but nowhere is it in black and white written down that citizens have the Right to Vote. We have a Right to our religion or no religion, Free Speech, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Jury Trial, and such except the Right to Vote. The Right to Vote is an Individual Right yet it is not in our Bill of Rights and given this court...
    Click to expand...
    There's a reason I went to the 26th Amendment and mentioned the long term trend.

    Going back to ratification, voting was *definitel*y not a universal right, even for cis white men. As I recall it could be--and was--restricted to land owners, for example. Following the Civil War, African Americans were denied the ability to vote based on other sham "non-racial" criteria.

    Now, it would not behoove states to restrict the voting pool to zero, since some federal offices are directly elected, but I'm largely on board with the position that the ability to vote was not a right since it could be trivially legislates away from you.

    That said, I'm pretty sure "right to vote" was in the lexicon by the time women won it, and now we have it directly in the Constitution in the 26th Amendment.

    While one could parse the text of the current Constitution to suggest that the ability to vote can be disallowed for any factor not amended against, an honest historical appraisal would scupper that argument. The idea that there should be any restrictions to keep an adult white man from voting was probably out of currency by the Civil War, and definitely by the 1920's. Jim Crow laws were probably the main exception, since they theoretically could have been wielded by whites. However, they weren't because they were window dressing to restrict the vote by race.

    Then you have the 26th Amendment mentioning a "right" to vote. Any reasonable person has to see that weighing strongly against any restrictions.
     
    Bardon

    Bardon

    Ars Praefectus
    5,777
    Subscriptor++
  • #23
    dragongoddess said:
    But my point here is where in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights is it enumerated that a Citizen has the Right to Vote. There are passages saying that you cannot be denied the Right to Vote because of this ,that or whatever but nowhere is it in black and white written down that citizens have the Right to Vote. We have a Right to our religion or no religion, Free Speech, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Jury Trial, and such except the Right to Vote. The Right to Vote is an Individual Right yet it is not in our Bill of Rights and given this court...
    Click to expand...
    He literally just showed you the text of the 26th amendment. Stating that you cannot be denied the right to vote very clearly states that you have the right to vote.
     
    D

    dragongoddess

    Ars Praefectus
    5,006
  • #24
    Bardon said:
    He literally just showed you the text of the 26th amendment. Stating that you cannot be denied the right to vote very clearly states that you have the right to vote.
    Click to expand...
    The 19th is you cannot be denied the right to vote because of sex yet nowhere is the right to vote enumerated in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Just because there is text saying you cannot be denied the right to vote because of certain parameters that indicate discrimination does not mean that the Right exists. If the Right to Vote is not enumerated in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights then all of these parameters protecting the Right to Vote are just nonsense. How can you protect a Right that is not enumerated in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.
     
    • Wow
    Reactions: Bardon
    S

    Shavano

    Ars Legatus Legionis
    59,253
    Subscriptor
  • #25
    dragongoddess said:
    The 19th is you cannot be denied the right to vote because of sex yet nowhere is the right to vote enumerated in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Just because there is text saying you cannot be denied the right to vote because of certain parameters that indicate discrimination does not mean that the Right exists. If the Right to Vote is not enumerated in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights then all of these parameters protecting the Right to Vote are just nonsense. How can you protect a Right that is not enumerated in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.
    Click to expand...
    I agree with this. You can't be denied because of race, or of sex, or of age if you're over 18. You can still be denied the right to vote because of an "other crime". It was assumed by the writers that "other crime" meant serious crimes only, but you've just seen how this court twists the words and ignores the plain meaning. Now you can commit a crime by not having a place to sleep and if a state decides that means you can't vote, they'd uphold it. They'd uphold disenfranchisement for any reason any Republican legislature wanted to declare that would help cement their power.
     
    Louis XVI

    Louis XVI

    Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
    9,984
    Subscriptor
  • #26
    dragongoddess said:
    The 19th is you cannot be denied the right to vote because of sex yet nowhere is the right to vote enumerated in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Just because there is text saying you cannot be denied the right to vote because of certain parameters that indicate discrimination does not mean that the Right exists. If the Right to Vote is not enumerated in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights then all of these parameters protecting the Right to Vote are just nonsense. How can you protect a Right that is not enumerated in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.
    Click to expand...
    I think this is a tortured reading of the 19th and 26th Amendments. If the Constitution says that a right can’t be taken away for particular reasons, that extremely clearly implies that the right does indeed exist. It doesn’t matter if the right is established in the original Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or a subsequent amendment; they’re all binding.

    Of course, the Supreme Court isn’t above tortured readings of the Constitution (see the invention of an individual right to bear arms, ignoring half of the 2nd Amendment). Unfortunately, there’s no textual way to prevent bad-faith interpretations of the text. If the Court wants to pretend that certain words mean things other than what they mean or don’t exist, the language of the Constitution is no protection.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Bardon
    E

    etr

    Ars Scholae Palatinae
    741
  • #27
    I don't have time to dig through the amendments properly, but, "The vote should not be denied to someone based on..." would not create a right where one does not exist.

    Operating strictly off the text itself, having an amendment refer to a right that has not previously been in the document is messy. While saying, "It's just a turn of phrase without other text," is tortured, saying it unequivocally establishes a clear right can be messy, too.

    That's where the textualism argument to look at history comes in. There's strong reason to think people saw voting as a right by the time the 26th Amendment was passed, so we might as well consider it to have established that right (unless we make the argument a prior amendment already did so).

    I'm with Shavano that the permanent/lengthy denials of the vote to ec-convicts is ridiculous. Frankly, cruel and unusual should be cited against that garbage in most cases. (I can imagine heavier restrictions for special cases, such as prior participation in voter fraud. However, it's silly to say a former armed robber is safe to put on the streets and be off probation but an unacceptable risk of voter fraud.)

    Returning to my earlier comments on the 26th Amendment, I'd really like to see a better court day, "By the time 19th Amendment passed, the country generally did not deny rights to someone it considered to have the right to vote. As such, the 19th Amendment should be taken to affirm that women have the same rights as men in all respects ". I don't know that history quite lines up with that (see Jim Crow), but it would be a convenient (if less robust) way to get the ERA in the back door.
     
    D

    dragongoddess

    Ars Praefectus
    5,006
  • #28
    Louis XVI said:
    I think this is a tortured reading of the 19th and 26th Amendments. If the Constitution says that a right can’t be taken away for particular reasons, that extremely clearly implies that the right does indeed exist. It doesn’t matter if the right is established in the original Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or a subsequent amendment; they’re all binding.
    Click to expand...
    Therein is my point. You have protections to exercise a Right that is not enumerated in the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights. This Right is assumed which scares the heck out of me given the makeup of the SCOTUS and an upcoming election. People have been voting since our inception and is assumed that we as citizens have such a Right to Vote even though no such Right exists in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

    Now we have textualist judges on the SC. They can rule that the 14,15,17,19 and 26th Amendments or any related legislation is either unconstitutional or meaningless as there is no Right to Vote enumerated in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.
     
    • Wow
    Reactions: Bardon
    S

    Shavano

    Ars Legatus Legionis
    59,253
    Subscriptor
  • #29
    dragongoddess said:
    Therein is my point. You have protections to exercise a Right that is not enumerated in the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights. This Right is assumed which scares the heck out of me given the makeup of the SCOTUS and an upcoming election. People have been voting since our inception and is assumed that we as citizens have such a Right to Vote even though no such Right exists in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

    Now we have textualist judges on the SC. They can rule that the 14,15,17,19 and 26th Amendments or any related legislation is either unconstitutional or meaningless as there is no Right to Vote enumerated in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.
    Click to expand...
    I don't think they go that way. I think they simply find there's no mechanism to enforce it because Congress ain't passed a law that says how it's to be enforced.
     
    Louis XVI

    Louis XVI

    Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
    9,984
    Subscriptor
  • #30
    dragongoddess said:
    Therein is my point. You have protections to exercise a Right that is not enumerated in the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights. This Right is assumed which scares the heck out of me given the makeup of the SCOTUS and an upcoming election. People have been voting since our inception and is assumed that we as citizens have such a Right to Vote even though no such Right exists in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

    Now we have textualist judges on the SC. They can rule that the 14,15,17,19 and 26th Amendments or any related legislation is either unconstitutional or meaningless as there is no Right to Vote enumerated in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.
    Click to expand...
    They can’t rule than an amendment is unconstitutional, because amendments are the Constitution, just as much as the original Constitution and the Bill of Rights. (The Bill of Rights is just the first 10 Amendments.)

    I guess I don’t understand your concern about the specific wording. Since the Court is going to interpret the Constitution to mean whatever they want it to, it doesn’t really matter what it says.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Bardon
    You must log in or register to reply here.
    Jump to latest Follow Reply
    Jump to latest Follow Reply