Poll: Majority of Republicans believe Trump is President right now

[Spider-Dan]

On the first page of that link:

To submit an online application, you will need:

Your Florida driver license (Florida DL) or Florida identification card (Florida ID card) issued by the Florida Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles.
The issued date of your Florida DL or Florida ID card; and
The last four digits of your Social Security Number (SSN4).

[pondwater]

I bolded the relevant qualifier in your citation.  SCOTUS most certainly did NOT assert that citizens have no explicit right to vote; states may legally choose their Electoral College delegates in ways other than voting.

The article you linked is either stupid or dishonest.  Taken in good faith, that article means that we ALSO "do not have an explicit constitutional right" to freedom of religion, or speech, or of assembly; the Constitution only says that laws restricting those things are illegal.  But it never specifically says you have those rights in the first place!

So by the standard that you claim voting is not a constitutional right, protesting or freedom of religion aren't constitutional rights, either. To say that constitutional guarantees that the government may not make a law restricting (x) "does not technically mean you have a right to (x)" is, again, either lying or dumb.

It's literally called the "Bill of Rights" which sets protections and restricts laws from limiting those rights. Freedom of religion, or speech, or of assembly are covered in the "Bill of Rights". You will find no such protections for the right to vote. In absence of such protections, it's not a right, it's a privilege. Please provide me with something in the constitution that explicitly says that you either have the "right to vote" or that "it's illegal to restrict your right to vote". I'll wait, LMFAO.......

And here's another one

The right to vote is something most Americans hold as sacred. But the Constitution is clear on the matter. Although the 15th, 19th, and 26th Amendments say voting rights can no longer be limited based on race, color, prior status as a slave, sex, or age, none of these amendments affirmatively state that a citizen of this country will be allowed to vote. Additionally, each state has significant discretion to establish specific eligibility qualifications to cast a ballot.

And another one


And another one

The ironic part about this conversation is that the articles I linked are left leaning rags pushing for a Constitutional Amendment to guarantee the right to vote. These people are actually pushing YOUR AGENDA and you're arguing with them because you aren't man enough to admit that you're simply wrong

[Spider-Dan]

It's literally called the "Bill of Rights" which sets protections and restricts laws from limiting those rights. Freedom of religion, or speech, or of assembly are covered in the "Bill of Rights". You will find no such protections for the right to vote. In absence of such protections, it's not a right, it's a privilege. Please provide me with something in the constitution that explicitly says that you either have the "right to vote" or that "it's illegal to restrict your right to vote".

First off: the term "Bill of Rights" does not appear in the Constitution (or its amendments).  The first ten amendments are popularly referred to as the "Bill of Rights," but that is not their legal text.  So if we're playing the pedantic game of "Point out exactly where in the Constitution it says blahblah," you shouldn't even be mentioning the words "Bill of Rights."

That being said, we call them the "Bill of Rights" because - to any reasonably sane person - a law that prohibits restrictions on (x) is a guarantee on your right to (x).  But if you want to insist that the Constitution doesn't technically say you have a "right to vote" (or a "right to freedom of speech," or a "right to freedom of religion")... OK, I guess?  It's an obviously ridiculous claim, and it would get you laughed out of any court, but it is, indeed, an accurate literal reading of the words to say that those freedoms are technically not explicitly guaranteed themselves (only a ban on laws restricting them).

I notice that you don't seem to have a response to the question of what your SCOTUS citation means.  Do you have any other SCOTUS decisions to cite?  Because I have one for you: Barron v. Baltimore (1833), in which SCOTUS ruled that the first ten amendments "contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the State governments."  This ruling would seem to be... problematic for your interpretation of how rights work.

The ironic part about this conversation is that the articles I linked are left leaning rags pushing for a Constitutional Amendment to guarantee the right to vote.

It's only "ironic" because of the conservative mindset towards politics.  See, because I'm not a conservative, I am not wedded to reflexively defending stupid claims by others on my side of the spectrum, solely out of partisan interest.  I can just call them out and say, "That idea is stupid and wrong," instead of being forced to defend the idea that, say, President Obama is planning to invade Texas.

[pondwater]

First off: the term "Bill of Rights" does not appear in the Constitution (or its amendments).  The first ten amendments are popularly referred to as the "Bill of Rights," but that is not their legal text.  So if we're playing the pedantic game of "Point out exactly where in the Constitution it says blahblah," you shouldn't even be mentioning the words "Bill of Rights."

That being said, we call them the "Bill of Rights" because - to any reasonably sane person - a law that prohibits restrictions on (x) is a guarantee on your right to (x).  But if you want to insist that the Constitution doesn't technically say you have a "right to vote" (or a "right to freedom of speech," or a "right to freedom of religion")... OK, I guess?  It's an obviously ridiculous claim, and it would get you laughed out of any court, but it is, indeed, an accurate literal reading of the words to say that those freedoms are technically not explicitly guaranteed themselves (only a ban on laws restricting them).

I notice that you don't seem to have a response to the question of what your SCOTUS citation means.  Do you have any other SCOTUS decisions to cite?  Because I have one for you: Barron v. Baltimore (1833), in which SCOTUS ruled that the first ten amendments "contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the State governments."  This ruling would seem to be... problematic for your interpretation of how rights work.
It's only "ironic" because of the conservative mindset towards politics.  See, because I'm not a conservative, I am not wedded to reflexively defending stupid claims by others on my side of the spectrum, solely out of partisan interest.  I can just call them out and say, "That idea is stupid and wrong," instead of being forced to defend the idea that, say, President Obama is planning to invade Texas.

2A: the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

It literally say "the right", so why do I need an ID?

[Spider-Dan]

Seems like minor nitpicking to complain about (sometimes, in certain situations) having to show an ID to carry a gun.  After all, your 2nd Amendment rights are violated every time you get on a plane or enter a courtroom.  So under a hyper-literal reading of the Constitution, where a law that prohibits the government from making a law restricting a right does not technically confer that right, isn't a gun-free courtroom a violation of your Constitutional rights?  Isn't a law that prevents you from calling for the President to be assassinated a violation of your freedom of speech?

If this is the kind of binary all-or-nothing interpretation of civil rights you want to use, the outcomes get very silly, very quick.

[pondwater]

Seems like minor nitpicking to complain about (sometimes, in certain situations) having to show an ID to carry a gun.  After all, your 2nd Amendment rights are violated every time you get on a plane or enter a courtroom.  So under a hyper-literal reading of the Constitution, where a law that prohibits the government from making a law restricting a right does not technically confer that right, isn't a gun-free courtroom a violation of your Constitutional rights?  Isn't a law that prevents you from calling for the President to be assassinated a violation of your freedom of speech?

If this is the kind of binary all-or-nothing interpretation of civil rights you want to use, the outcomes get very silly, very quick.

Where is the part of the Constitution that affirms your the right to vote? Or where is the part of the Constitution that makes it illegal to restrict your right to vote? I'm waiting.....

[Spider-Dan]

I had a different reply planned, but it turns out that the Constitution does explicitly affirm a right to vote in the 15th, 19th, and 26th Amendments.  From the horse's mouth itself:

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.

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 XXVI, 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.

There are the magic words you've been asking for.  Are you man enough to admit that you're simply wrong?

[pondwater]

I had a different reply planned, but it turns out that the Constitution does explicitly affirm a right to vote in the 15th, 19th, and 26th Amendments.  From the horse's mouth itself:

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.

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 XXVI, 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.

There are the magic words you've been asking for.  Are you man enough to admit that you're simply wrong?

You're picking and choosing only the parts you want, I highlighted the relevant parts for you. Those 3 amendments were specifically added to prevent abuses to protected classes.

The 15th, 19th, and 26th Amendments do not explicitly grant anyone the right to vote. Instead, they prohibits federal and state governments from placing restrictions on voting based on three sets of criteria: race, color, previous condition of servitude, sex, and age.

Based on that criteria exactly as written. Aside from those 5 specific reasons can the government legally deny citizens from voting?

[Spider-Dan]

Your claim was that there is no part of the Constitution that explicitly affirms a right to vote.  But it's literally right there: multiple Amendments state that the right of citizens to vote shall not be restricted for (reason).

Now, you could have been making the argument that the (real and obvious) right of citizens to vote can legally be restricted for various valid reasons other than the ones specifically prohibited... but that's not the road you decided to take.  Instead, you chose to insist that such a right doesn't even exist, based on nutjob claims from random websites.  (How incredibly ironic that the one "left-wing" theory you decide to hitch your wagon to is so transparently false!)

Once more, for clarity:

The cited Amendments specifically reference a right to vote in the process of stating how that right (WHICH MUST THEREFORE EXIST) may NOT be denied or abridged.

But please, I encourage you to continue to explain why that explicitly stated right doesn't actually exist.  I anticipate such discourse will come in handy for our future discussions of the 2nd Amendment.

[pondwater]

Your claim was that there is no part of the Constitution that explicitly affirms a right to vote.  But it's literally right there: multiple Amendments state that the right of citizens to vote shall not be restricted for (reason).

Now, you could have been making the argument that the (real and obvious) right of citizens to vote can legally be restricted for various valid reasons other than the ones specifically prohibited... but that's not the road you decided to take.  Instead, you chose to insist that such a right doesn't even exist, based on nutjob claims from random websites.  (How incredibly ironic that the one "left-wing" theory you decide to hitch your wagon to is so transparently false!)

A left wing theory? Was Justice Antonin Scalia and the majority decision a "left wing" theory when they ruled that, “The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College.”?

If state legislatures can legally select presidential electors without public input. Which means that citizens do not have the right to vote for electors, who in turn are not obligated to vote in the peoples’ interest. How is that constitutional and legal if you actually have a right to vote? At that point your right to vote would be denied or abridged? What are "various valid reasons" in that scenario? If a state legislature can "choose" to do that, what happened to your right to vote?


So you're calling information from the National Museum of American History a nutjob claim from a random website?

As written, the Fifteenth Amendment does not explicitly grant anyone the right to vote. Instead, it prohibits federal and state governments from placing restrictions on voting based on three criteria: race, color, and previous condition of servitude. Later voting rights amendments to the U.S. Constitution—especially the Nineteenth and Twenty-Sixth Amendments—copied the Fifteenth’s structure and its wording, declaring that the right to vote “shall not be denied” on account of sex or age, respectively. These amendments removed important barriers to suffrage, but they stopped short of affirming that all Americans have a constitutional right to vote. Even today, U.S. states have incredible power over who is allowed to participate in elections.

Once more, for clarity:

The cited Amendments specifically reference a right to vote in the process of stating how that right (WHICH MUST THEREFORE EXIST) may NOT be denied or abridged.

But please, I encourage you to continue to explain why that explicitly stated right doesn't actually exist.  I anticipate such discourse will come in handy for our future discussions of the 2nd Amendment.

It really doesn't even matter. This discussion was about voter ID. I listed many things that require ID in modern society. In layman's terms, specifically why shouldn't everybody be required prove their identity when voting?

[Spider-Dan]

A left wing theory? Was Justice Antonin Scalia and the majority decision a "left wing" theory when they ruled that, “The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College.”?

Again: for electors for President!  Citizens DON'T have the Constitutional right to for for electors for President, in exactly the same sense that they DON'T have the right to vote on ratifying international treaties.  State legislatures MAY legally choose electors for President of the United States on a basis other than the vote of their citizens.

So you're calling information from the National Museum of American History a nutjob claim from a random website?

There is a difference between "not ALL citizens have the right to vote" (which is clearly true) and "there is no right to vote whatsoever" (which is not true).  For example, you believe that the right of citizens to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but citizens who are incarcerated aren't allowed to keep and bear arms!  So does that right even exist at all?  (This example is particularly relevant because many of the groups you previously referenced are specifically advocating for the right of convicts to vote.)

There are rights that are specifically enumerated in the Constitution that nonetheless have legal restrictions placed on their exercise.  Voting is one of them.

I listed many things that require ID in modern society. In layman's terms, specifically why shouldn't everybody be required prove their identity when voting?

You already proved your identity when you registered to vote.  (see: the FL website mentioned by ArtieChokePhin)

Unless you are also proposing that we completely eliminate ALL voting-by-mail, the result of voting ID laws is that people who are allowed to vote-by-mail don't have to show photo ID when casting their ballot, but people who are not allowed to vote-by-mail do have to.

[pondwater]

Again: for electors for President!  Citizens DON'T have the Constitutional right to for for electors for President, in exactly the same sense that they DON'T have the right to vote on ratifying international treaties.  State legislatures MAY legally choose electors for President of the United States on a basis other than the vote of their citizens.
There is a difference between "not ALL citizens have the right to vote" (which is clearly true) and "there is no right to vote whatsoever" (which is not true).  For example, you believe that the right of citizens to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but citizens who are incarcerated aren't allowed to keep and bear arms!  So does that right even exist at all?  (This example is particularly relevant because many of the groups you previously referenced are specifically advocating for the right of convicts to vote.)

There are rights that are specifically enumerated in the Constitution that nonetheless have legal restrictions placed on their exercise.  Voting is one of them.

It seems like you are arguing with the National Muesum of American History and many many other people who are more qualified than you on the subject.

the Constitution does explicitly affirm a right to vote in the 15th, 19th, and 26th Amendments.

As written, the Fifteenth Amendment does not explicitly grant anyone the right to vote.

You already proved your identity when you registered to vote.  (see: the FL website mentioned by ArtieChokePhin)
Unless you are also proposing that we completely eliminate ALL voting-by-mail, the result of voting ID laws is that people who are allowed to vote-by-mail don't have to show photo ID when casting their ballot, but people who are not allowed to vote-by-mail do have to.

You specifically brought up rights? What does any of that have to do with rights?

[Dolphster]

What has happened in The Forum over the last few years makes me a bit sad.  I used to really enjoy reading and participating in the "current events" threads here as they used to be thought provoking and sensible conversations between people with different thoughts on things.  But over the last few years, it has become just the same handful of people digging in their feet and making comments that are increasingly inflated and passed off as "facts" while arguing with others.  And both "sides" are equally guilty.  I could almost think up a current event topic and create an entire discussion, playing the parts of a handful of people here from both sides because everyone essentially just says the same things, cites the same alleged facts, etc etc regardless of what the topic is because everyone here has become so predictable in what they are going to say.  There are two or three "conservative posters who make ridiculous claims that don't have much validity and there are two or three of their counterparts from the liberal side who make ridiculous claims that don't have much validity and all of them are so dedicated to their party politics that it renders them incapable of having a dialog in which they actually consider what the other person is saying because they are too busy coming up with their "gotcha" rebuttal to have any interest in an actual exchange of ideas and consideration of those ideas.  That is why the same 8 or so people here are pretty much the only ones that post about current events/politics.  It is like they just keep saying the same things and the only thing that changes is the title of the thread.  I'm not slamming you guys, y'all are really just a microcosm of what our entire society has become.  Just a nation of people who think that whoever yells the loudest wins, no matter what it is that they are yelling.  I could start a thread titled "Which Is Better, Italian Food or Mexican Food" and by page 2, the discussion would be "Crazy Orange Hair Man Destroyed This Country" and "Crazy Joe Biden Is Going To Let Putin Annex The Country"

[pondwater]

What has happened in The Forum over the last few years makes me a bit sad.  I used to really enjoy reading and participating in the "current events" threads here as they used to be thought provoking and sensible conversations between people with different thoughts on things.  But over the last few years, it has become just the same handful of people digging in their feet and making comments that are increasingly inflated and passed off as "facts" while arguing with others.  And both "sides" are equally guilty.  I could almost think up a current event topic and create an entire discussion, playing the parts of a handful of people here from both sides because everyone essentially just says the same things, cites the same alleged facts, etc etc regardless of what the topic is because everyone here has become so predictable in what they are going to say.  There are two or three "conservative posters who make ridiculous claims that don't have much validity and there are two or three of their counterparts from the liberal side who make ridiculous claims that don't have much validity and all of them are so dedicated to their party politics that it renders them incapable of having a dialog in which they actually consider what the other person is saying because they are too busy coming up with their "gotcha" rebuttal to have any interest in an actual exchange of ideas and consideration of those ideas.  That is why the same 8 or so people here are pretty much the only ones that post about current events/politics.  It is like they just keep saying the same things and the only thing that changes is the title of the thread.  I'm not slamming you guys, y'all are really just a microcosm of what our entire society has become.  Just a nation of people who think that whoever yells the loudest wins, no matter what it is that they are yelling.  I could start a thread titled "Which Is Better, Italian Food or Mexican Food" and by page 2, the discussion would be "Crazy Orange Hair Man Destroyed This Country" and "Crazy Joe Biden Is Going To Let Putin Annex The Country"

It's been going on for more than a few years. But then again, it's just entertainment. No one is really going to change each other's mind. What is your opinion Dolphster. Do you think that requiring voter ID is somehow unreasonable? Or do you think that it's reasonable? Why?

[dolphins4life]

Oddly, it seems the Democrats had a much better case claiming the election was stolen in two thousand.