Comments on: The US Supreme Court Fails to Protect Our Voting Rights!

By: ETJB

ETJB — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 20:26:25 +0000

Legally this is a complicated issue and I find that people on the left and right often get important pieces wrong.

No where in the federal constitution does it say that citizens have a right to vote, to seek or hold public office or to have political organizations. If you read the document, little or nothing is explicitly said about these political rights.

Race, color, or sex based tests for voting are unconstitutional. So is age — when you are at least 18 . Notice nothing is said, beyond poll taxes and literacy tests, about indigent status or religious or political creed or disability or sexual orientation.

Note that even less is said about candidacy rights. Most of the founding fathers hated the very idea of political organizations, and thus the constitution says nothing about them.

Yes, it could be argued that such political rights are protected by the 1st and 14th amendments, and that would make a great deal of legal and historical sense.

Maybe, you should support the Voting Rights Amendment or the Political Liberty Amendment?

By: Falcon

Falcon — Sun, 10 Aug 2008 16:26:19 +0000

People should be required to show ID to vote. A person who really wants to vote will make an effort to obtain an ID. Every person 18 and over needs an ID to function in our society. Its called Personal Responsibility. Or should the government subsidize ID’s too. Do homeless people vote?? All ballots should only be in English, because all citizens are required to know english. You should know this, if your a lawyer. We should not be spending money on making ballots for people who do not speak english. The gov’t doesn’t need to make voting or for that matter anything else “easier” for anyone. Its there for all of us you just have to want it.

By: Falcon

Falcon — Sun, 10 Aug 2008 03:28:26 +0000

If a person really wants to vote they will put a little effort in obtaining an ID. Do homeless people vote? Ballots should only be in english, citizens are required to know english. Are you really a lawyer? Oh you probably want the government to subsidize these people so they can get an ID. Where does personal responsibilty cme in?

By: the Kaiser

the Kaiser — Mon, 19 May 2008 05:57:14 +0000

Boy…that’s deep. It’s safe to say you didn’t read this posting…did you?

By: jerry

jerry — Sat, 17 May 2008 14:29:36 +0000

i feel the us supreme court ruling on indina was right for america.yes you have the right to vote but you must show id when voting in illinois!

By: Michaelr

Michaelr — Fri, 16 May 2008 22:57:02 +0000

This Supreme Court completely ignored the 24th Amendment and restricted their legal opinions to the equal-protection clause of the 14th Amendment to decide the Indiana case. This should tell all of us the clear cut political bias of this U.S. Supreme Court. Ruling against Voter’s Rights seems so fascist, then again when you remind yourself that Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, John Paul Stevens, and John Roberts make up the majority of this court then you can understand why they voted that way. Ruling against voter’s rights is one of the most powerful weapons to use against disenfranchising entire groups of people. Doesn’t anyone see that? These are the same people, except for John Roberts who put George W. Bush in the White House in 2000. And they did that completely against the will of the people. Don’t forget to vote.