From 1789 Till 1917

[Billy_Kinetta]

Denied because of those enumerated reasons? No. But those reasons do not preclude restrictions for other reasons.

Babble on as you might, there is no general right to vote contained in the Constitution.

That you revel in your crazed notion that the right to vote might not exist is a very telling indicator of the true nature of modern American conservatism.

So post the relevant Constitutional text.

The 14th amendment, the 15th amendment, the 19th amendment, the Voting RIGHTS act of 1965 for starters.

Guaranteeing equal protection for citizens and forbidding restrictions of race and sex does not confer a right.

Please post the precise texts wherein these documents confer a general right to vote, and preclude restrictions based upon factors that do not fall within their parameters.

The Constitution does not specifically confer literally thousands upon thousands of rights. It doesn't say that I have the right to drink black coffee, either. So, we have laws. Perhaps, Constitutionally, the voting laws can be changed to only those who don't depend in any way upon the government (excluding the military, of course, you brainless hypocrite), but good luck getting that done.

And good luck getting a Supreme Court, even a conservative one, to uphold an asinine law such as that.

So you say. I have learned that anything is possible when people are motivated.

Take the November election, for example. Against all odds, yes?

 

[ricechickie]

That you revel in your crazed notion that the right to vote might not exist is a very telling indicator of the true nature of modern American conservatism.

So post the relevant Constitutional text.

The 14th amendment, the 15th amendment, the 19th amendment, the Voting RIGHTS act of 1965 for starters.

Guaranteeing equal protection for citizens and forbidding restrictions of race and sex does not confer a right.

Please post the precise texts wherein these documents confer a general right to vote, and preclude restrictions based upon factors that do not fall within their parameters.

The Constitution does not specifically confer literally thousands upon thousands of rights. It doesn't say that I have the right to drink black coffee, either. So, we have laws. Perhaps, Constitutionally, the voting laws can be changed to only those who don't depend in any way upon the government (excluding the military, of course, you brainless hypocrite), but good luck getting that done.

And good luck getting a Supreme Court, even a conservative one, to uphold an asinine law such as that.

So you say. I have learned that anything is possible when people are motivated.

Take the November election, for example. Against all odds, yes?

Yes, and look how well it's working!

America always self-corrects.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Denied because of those enumerated reasons? No. But those reasons do not preclude restrictions for other reasons.

Babble on as you might, there is no general right to vote contained in the Constitution.

That you revel in your crazed notion that the right to vote might not exist is a very telling indicator of the true nature of modern American conservatism.

So post the relevant Constitutional text.

The 14th amendment, the 15th amendment, the 19th amendment, the Voting RIGHTS act of 1965 for starters.

Guaranteeing equal protection for citizens and forbidding restrictions of race and sex does not confer a right.

Please post the precise texts wherein these documents confer a general right to vote, and preclude restrictions based upon factors that do not fall within their parameters.

The Constitution does not specifically confer literally thousands upon thousands of rights.

Indeed, and we are discussing one that it does not. However a claim has been made that it does.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

So post the relevant Constitutional text.

The 14th amendment, the 15th amendment, the 19th amendment, the Voting RIGHTS act of 1965 for starters.

Guaranteeing equal protection for citizens and forbidding restrictions of race and sex does not confer a right.

Please post the precise texts wherein these documents confer a general right to vote, and preclude restrictions based upon factors that do not fall within their parameters.

The Constitution does not specifically confer literally thousands upon thousands of rights. It doesn't say that I have the right to drink black coffee, either. So, we have laws. Perhaps, Constitutionally, the voting laws can be changed to only those who don't depend in any way upon the government (excluding the military, of course, you brainless hypocrite), but good luck getting that done.

And good luck getting a Supreme Court, even a conservative one, to uphold an asinine law such as that.

So you say. I have learned that anything is possible when people are motivated.

Take the November election, for example. Against all odds, yes?

Yes, and look how well it's working!

America always self-corrects.

It's working great.

 

[80zephyr]

They need to get rid of the filibuster on regular legislation too,

since politics and demographics in the long term favor the country having Democratic president with a 50 something Democratic Senate majority.

Actually, demographics don't. Its why the Democrats lost to Trump. They may be a majority of America, but they all live in a few, highly populated places.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

They need to get rid of the filibuster on regular legislation too,

since politics and demographics in the long term favor the country having Democratic president with a 50 something Democratic Senate majority.

Don't count your chickens. There is no constitutional right to vote, and voting privileges may change.

After all, what logic is there in permitting those on the public dole the privilege of voting to increase their benefits?

There are multiple constitutional rights to vote.

List them.

The right not to be denied the vote because of your race, because of your religion, because of your gender, for starters.

Denied because of those enumerated reasons? No. But those reasons do not preclude restrictions for other reasons.

Babble on as you might, there is no general right to vote contained in the Constitution.

If you can take away the right to vote from felons, I suppose you can legally take it away from any group.

Mark

 

[NYcarbineer]

List them.

The right not to be denied the vote because of your race, because of your religion, because of your gender, for starters.

Denied because of those enumerated reasons? No. But those reasons do not preclude restrictions for other reasons.

Babble on as you might, there is no general right to vote contained in the Constitution.

So because we know that you can deny the right to own a gun to certain individuals for certain reasons,

that proves that there is no right to bear arms in the Constitution?

lol, good one.

Ah, stunned silence.

Your ignorance is quite stunning, yes.

You made the argument that because voting can be restricted or denied, then it's not a right.

I'm using your own argument to prove that gun ownership is not a right.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Don't count your chickens. There is no constitutional right to vote, and voting privileges may change.

After all, what logic is there in permitting those on the public dole the privilege of voting to increase their benefits?

There are multiple constitutional rights to vote.

List them.

The right not to be denied the vote because of your race, because of your religion, because of your gender, for starters.

Denied because of those enumerated reasons? No. But those reasons do not preclude restrictions for other reasons.

Babble on as you might, there is no general right to vote contained in the Constitution.

If you can take away the right to vote from felons, I suppose you can legally take it away from any group.

Mark

Short of restrictions forbidden by subsequent amendments, yes.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

The right not to be denied the vote because of your race, because of your religion, because of your gender, for starters.

Denied because of those enumerated reasons? No. But those reasons do not preclude restrictions for other reasons.

Babble on as you might, there is no general right to vote contained in the Constitution.

So because we know that you can deny the right to own a gun to certain individuals for certain reasons,

that proves that there is no right to bear arms in the Constitution?

lol, good one.

Ah, stunned silence.

Your ignorance is quite stunning, yes.

You made the argument that because voting can be restricted or denied, then it's not a right.

That was not my argument. Go back and review.

I'm using your own argument to prove that gun ownership is not a right.

Erroneously.

 

[80zephyr]

Denied because of those enumerated reasons? No. But those reasons do not preclude restrictions for other reasons.

Babble on as you might, there is no general right to vote contained in the Constitution.

That you revel in your crazed notion that the right to vote might not exist is a very telling indicator of the true nature of modern American conservatism.

So post the relevant Constitutional text.

The 14th amendment, the 15th amendment, the 19th amendment, the Voting RIGHTS act of 1965 for starters.

Guaranteeing equal protection for citizens and forbidding restrictions of race and sex does not confer a right.

Please post the precise texts wherein these documents confer a general right to vote, and preclude restrictions based upon factors that do not fall within their parameters.

You owe me an answer first. How is it that we can restrict gun ownership, and yet owning a gun is still a right?

With this answer, you seem to be agreeing with him. If voting is a right, it can still be limited. We do it with felons.

Mark

 

[FJO]

They need to get rid of the filibuster on regular legislation too,

since politics and demographics in the long term favor the country having Democratic president with a 50 something Democratic Senate majority.

Actually, demographics don't. Its why the Democrats lost to Trump. They may be a majority of America, but they all live in a few, highly populated places.

Mark

Exactly! In a republic, such a the United States, it is better to win 26 states by a single vote majority, than to win 24 states by majority of millions.

Don't like it? Why not? It works both ways. If you don't ike it, change the law.

 

[NYcarbineer]

That you revel in your crazed notion that the right to vote might not exist is a very telling indicator of the true nature of modern American conservatism.

So post the relevant Constitutional text.

The 14th amendment, the 15th amendment, the 19th amendment, the Voting RIGHTS act of 1965 for starters.

Guaranteeing equal protection for citizens and forbidding restrictions of race and sex does not confer a right.

Please post the precise texts wherein these documents confer a general right to vote, and preclude restrictions based upon factors that do not fall within their parameters.

You owe me an answer first. How is it that we can restrict gun ownership, and yet owning a gun is still a right?

I don't owe you nuffin'. Apples and screwdrivers.

You're flailing now.

Show us how a constitutional law could be passed that denied poor people the right to vote.

 

[NYcarbineer]

They need to get rid of the filibuster on regular legislation too,

since politics and demographics in the long term favor the country having Democratic president with a 50 something Democratic Senate majority.

Actually, demographics don't. Its why the Democrats lost to Trump. They may be a majority of America, but they all live in a few, highly populated places.

Mark

Exactly! In a republic, such a the United States, it is better to win 26 states by a single vote majority, than to win 24 states by majority of millions.

Don't like it? Why not? It works both ways. If you don't ike it, change the law.

Conservatives hate democratic government. We get it.

 

[80zephyr]

So post the relevant Constitutional text.

The 14th amendment, the 15th amendment, the 19th amendment, the Voting RIGHTS act of 1965 for starters.

Guaranteeing equal protection for citizens and forbidding restrictions of race and sex does not confer a right.

Please post the precise texts wherein these documents confer a general right to vote, and preclude restrictions based upon factors that do not fall within their parameters.

You owe me an answer first. How is it that we can restrict gun ownership, and yet owning a gun is still a right?

I don't owe you nuffin'. Apples and screwdrivers.

You're flailing now.

Show us how a constitutional law could be passed that denied poor people the right to vote.

You know what? 25 years ago, the "right" for gays to marry would have been unthinkable.

NEVER underestimate what can happen in the future.

Any idea, packaged correctly, will be considered.

Mark

 

[ricechickie]

The 14th amendment, the 15th amendment, the 19th amendment, the Voting RIGHTS act of 1965 for starters.

Guaranteeing equal protection for citizens and forbidding restrictions of race and sex does not confer a right.

Please post the precise texts wherein these documents confer a general right to vote, and preclude restrictions based upon factors that do not fall within their parameters.

You owe me an answer first. How is it that we can restrict gun ownership, and yet owning a gun is still a right?

I don't owe you nuffin'. Apples and screwdrivers.

You're flailing now.

Show us how a constitutional law could be passed that denied poor people the right to vote.

You know what? 25 years ago, the "right" for gays to marry would have been unthinkable.

NEVER underestimate what can happen in the future.

Any idea, packaged correctly, will be considered.

Mark

No, it was not unthinkable 25 years ago. It was very much thought of, and being fought for.

 

[80zephyr]

They need to get rid of the filibuster on regular legislation too,

since politics and demographics in the long term favor the country having Democratic president with a 50 something Democratic Senate majority.

Actually, demographics don't. Its why the Democrats lost to Trump. They may be a majority of America, but they all live in a few, highly populated places.

Mark

Exactly! In a republic, such a the United States, it is better to win 26 states by a single vote majority, than to win 24 states by majority of millions.

Don't like it? Why not? It works both ways. If you don't ike it, change the law.

Conservatives hate democratic government. We get it.

Why would that be? Under our Constitution, each state gets to decide who they want to be president, and the vote showed Trump won.

That is democracy in action. Unless you believe that the states are nothing more than boundary lines on a map.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

Guaranteeing equal protection for citizens and forbidding restrictions of race and sex does not confer a right.

Please post the precise texts wherein these documents confer a general right to vote, and preclude restrictions based upon factors that do not fall within their parameters.

You owe me an answer first. How is it that we can restrict gun ownership, and yet owning a gun is still a right?

I don't owe you nuffin'. Apples and screwdrivers.

You're flailing now.

Show us how a constitutional law could be passed that denied poor people the right to vote.

You know what? 25 years ago, the "right" for gays to marry would have been unthinkable.

NEVER underestimate what can happen in the future.

Any idea, packaged correctly, will be considered.

Mark

No, it was not unthinkable 25 years ago. It was very much thought of, and being fought for.

OK, split hairs. Lets say 50 years, or 75. Was there ever a time in America where such an idea would have been ludicrous?

If so, my statement is correct.

Mark

 

[NYcarbineer]

The 14th amendment, the 15th amendment, the 19th amendment, the Voting RIGHTS act of 1965 for starters.

Guaranteeing equal protection for citizens and forbidding restrictions of race and sex does not confer a right.

Please post the precise texts wherein these documents confer a general right to vote, and preclude restrictions based upon factors that do not fall within their parameters.

You owe me an answer first. How is it that we can restrict gun ownership, and yet owning a gun is still a right?

I don't owe you nuffin'. Apples and screwdrivers.

You're flailing now.

Show us how a constitutional law could be passed that denied poor people the right to vote.

You know what? 25 years ago, the "right" for gays to marry would have been unthinkable.

NEVER underestimate what can happen in the future.

Any idea, packaged correctly, will be considered.

Mark

lol, you people are so fucking delusional that it borders on depressing.

Could we legally deny the right to vote to anyone who wants to deny poor people the right to vote?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

So post the relevant Constitutional text.

The 14th amendment, the 15th amendment, the 19th amendment, the Voting RIGHTS act of 1965 for starters.

Guaranteeing equal protection for citizens and forbidding restrictions of race and sex does not confer a right.

Please post the precise texts wherein these documents confer a general right to vote, and preclude restrictions based upon factors that do not fall within their parameters.

You owe me an answer first. How is it that we can restrict gun ownership, and yet owning a gun is still a right?

I don't owe you nuffin'. Apples and screwdrivers.

You're flailing now.

Show us how a constitutional law could be passed that denied poor people the right to vote.

Oh, the density ...

Show me where in the Constitution it says felons can be denied a vote.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

They need to get rid of the filibuster on regular legislation too,

since politics and demographics in the long term favor the country having Democratic president with a 50 something Democratic Senate majority.

Actually, demographics don't. Its why the Democrats lost to Trump. They may be a majority of America, but they all live in a few, highly populated places.

Mark

Exactly! In a republic, such a the United States, it is better to win 26 states by a single vote majority, than to win 24 states by majority of millions.

Don't like it? Why not? It works both ways. If you don't ike it, change the law.

Conservatives hate democratic government. We get it.

Yes, which is why we are not a democracy, and never have been.

Mob rule is a bad thing.