Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Fly320s on November 05, 2012, 03:34:35 PM
-
Radio talk show host Neal Boortz is a bit famous for espousing the idea that there is no "right to vote" in the US?
I disagree with him, but I haven't heard his full argument in years, so I might be forgetting something.
What say you?
-
Yes, citizens seem to have the right to express their preference for one of two rulers. I don't see them having the right to actually choose who will be in control over their physical lives though.
-
I thought his argument was we have a right to vote, but not a duty? Maybe I am thinking of somebody else...
-
To stab at it blindly, I would guess that he's talking about the fact that voting is mostly a function of state and local governments, though the Constitution (as amended) lists a few criteria that states may NOT use (race, sex, etc). Then of course, there is some micromanagement coming from the Voting Rights Act.
-
Hmmm... He seems to say here exactly that - we don't have a right to vote. Granted, he's saying it in context of trying to sell you his book. Shocking, I know. He claims there is no right to vote in the Constitution. I have to wonder if he's ever read the 15th, 19th, 23rd & 26th amendments?
http://www.boortz.com/weblogs/nealz-nuze/2012/sep/05/democrats-and-their-right-vote/
http://www.boortz.com/weblogs/nealz-nuze/2006/sep/25/2006-09-25/
-
Hmmm... He seems to say here exactly that - we don't have a right to vote. Granted, he's saying it in context of trying to sell you his book. Shocking, I know. He claims there is no right to vote in the Constitution. I have to wonder if he's ever read the 15th, 19th, 23rd & 26th amendments?
http://www.boortz.com/weblogs/nealz-nuze/2012/sep/05/democrats-and-their-right-vote/
http://www.boortz.com/weblogs/nealz-nuze/2006/sep/25/2006-09-25/
I think boortz knows a thing or two about the issue. You have not heard a segment where he expounds upon it. Currently posting with my phone so i cant explain in detail though
-
He claims there is no right to vote in the Constitution. I have to wonder if he's ever read the 15th, 19th, 23rd & 26th amendments?
Do those amendments say that you have a right to vote, or do they say that you cannot be barred from voting, for the reasons stated? If a law says that you can't be denied a job based on race, is it saying that you have a right to a job?
-
Yea, if I didn't have a right to vote, I'd be a bit irate about being taxed.
-
Yea, if I didn't have a right to vote, I'd be a bit irate about being taxed.
We could come up with some kind of a slogan like - No taxation without regurgitation!!
-
Get convicted of a felony and see where your "right" to vote goes.
-
Boortz has used the 2000 case Bush V. Gore and the SCOTUS decision to emphasize his case.
It is essentially:
The state (by which it is meant the state one lives in such as Alabama, in my case) decides how it will choose the president. If it decides to use a popular vote then it cannot deny that vote based on race, sex, religious persuasion, as various amendments and court decisions have decided.
However, the state can legally decide to choose the president a different way if it wants, such as say, a flip of a coin.
There is no right to individually vote for the president ensconced in the Constitution (according to Boortz), although it is possible some states may give this right to its residents.
Now look, guys; I don't want to get in a pissing contest about this. I'm repeating Boortz's argument, which I suspect is right. However, maybe it is wrong. If you don't like it then please whine to Boortz. BTW you might want to hurry up as he's off the air January 20, 2013. He's retiring. That's right he;'s been in broadcasting 42 years and he's OUTTA THERE early next year.
If you do call him up be prepared to be keelhauled, boiled in radio oil, rhetorically drawn and quartered, smeared, demeaned, insulted, and basically disrespected in a multitude of different ways.
Boortz is such a pleasant personality ........ [tinfoil]
-
Boortz's position is that you do not have a right to vote for POTUS. We the people do not elect the president. The States elect the president VIA the Electoral College.
-
Boortz's position is that you do not have a right to vote for POTUS. We the people do not elect the president. The States elect the president VIA the Electoral College.
Yeppers.
And at the risk of thread drift, I was telling people (such as Mrs. Dual) who are down on the Electoral College that I'd be willing to back a Constitutional Convention that would draft an Amendment that throws the POTUS over to the popular vote if the 17th Amendment were also repealed and the states got the Senate back.
-
Boortz's position is that you do not have a right to vote for POTUS. We the people do not elect the president. The States elect the president VIA the Electoral College.
That is true, as far as the foederal constitution is concerned. That doesn't mean we have no such rights, as citizens of our respective states.
-
I'll read this thread after posting this post.
There is no natural right to vote.
It is a civil right.
Liberty demands a right to vote.
Licentiousness is not liberty.
The "freedom" of licentiousness undermines liberty.
We get the government we deserve.
-
Yea, if I didn't have a right to vote, I'd be a bit irate about being taxed.
You ought to still be irate about being taxed unreasonably.
Stuff like being taxed multiple times on the same money, stuff like property taxes meaning you don't own property, you rent it, the death tax, and so on. Plenty to get righteously irate about.
But I would say he is correct in postulating that you don't have a guaranteed, direct "right to vote" in a federal election (usually this comes up about Presidential elections). If a federal election is being held, then they cannot restrict you from voting based on sex, race, and so forth, i.e. Jim Crow style bullshit to intimidate/prevent blacks from voting.
Oh, and the people that bitch about not voting for Pres directly with the Electoral College? At least under the EC every state has SOME say in the election vs. the alternative...the states with lower population getting little to no say in the election...all in all, I think it's a pretty decent system, especially when you don't have certain groups running around getting the dead vote out and "finding" absentee ballots...
-
15th 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 race, color, or previous condition of servitude."
17th Amendment...
"The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years"
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."
I'd say it's the 24th Amendment that does the most damage to Mr. Bortz's argument:
"The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax."
-
Your right to vote can be denied on the basis of having a rather large nose or big feet. The 15th, 19th and 24th say nothing about big feet or large noses.
-
Sometimes I wonder if Heinlein's version of earned suffrage would be a blessing.
-
15th 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 race, color, or previous condition of servitude."
17th Amendment...
"The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years"
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."
I'd say it's the 24th Amendment that does the most damage to Mr. Bortz's argument:
"The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax."
I would say that Boortz's response would be that every last one of those, including the last, was to abolish tests or reasons that the vote was denied to certain subgroups. The 24th abolished a poll tax, for example.
-
If you look at them individually, yes his argument may have some meir. But they can't be held individually, they must be assessed as part of a collective body.
-
Sometimes I wonder if Heinlein's version of earned suffrage would be a blessing.
Starship Troopers all the way, baby!
-
If you look at them individually, yes his argument may have some meir(sic; meir=merit?). But they can't be held individually, they must be assessed as part of a collective body.
Why? Do they have a different individual meaning than as a conglomerate? I don't see why.