Ame®icano;2221741 said:Ame®icano;2221537 said:And what that tells ya? States has power to change their system. As long they do it withing constitutional boundaries.
It's all aimed on controlling election. For instance, around 15 states allows 17 years old to vote in primaries if their 18th birthday comes before the election, while other states have restrictions on younger then 18 year old.
Can you tell me what those states gain by doing that?
The "as long as they do it within Constitutional boundaries" part is the key here. Going back to the thread topic, changing the system to require an unconstitutional poll tax or to deny anyone the right to vote based on class is not within their power.
They can take the right away completely and put it back in the hands of the State Legislature, and if that's what you're advocating then it's perfectly legal. But can you imagine what would happen?
Finally we're getting somewhere. I am talking about legality, you're talking about practicality and what if's?
You see, I don't know why Obama insist on voting rights for felons, unless he's looking at them as his constituents. We can't rationalize on just one right, in this case "right to vote" without looking on other rights. If felons paid their debt to society, why don't we give them back all rights they lost? How about giving back to felons rights to bare arms? Why only right to vote is questionable? Where do you draw that line?
In regarding of "constitutional boundaries", the first one is that Constitution doesn't give right to vote to anyone. It only says in it's amendments that certain groups cannot be denied to vote if they meet all criteria. It's left to the states to regulate it.
I haven't heard of Obama insisting on voting rights for felons. That is strictly a State issue. As are Second Amendment rights and other questions. It is up to the States to determine what they think are the proper penalties for criminal acts within the guidelines of the Constitution.
But you're wrong about the nature of the right to vote. It's an IF/THEN thing. IF the States determine they will allow their citizens to vote for Presidential electors, THEN that franchise is subject to the Equal Protection clause of the 14th. It's an all or nothing proposition, they cannot grant the right only to certain groups.
Equal protection of the laws is a fairly easy concept, it means just what it says. Laws must be applied equally to all or, since voting is considered a fundamental right, there had better be a darn good reason for it. Financial status or ability to pay a poll tax is not a good enough reason, and the law has been clear and settled on that for a long time.