Publius1787
Gold Member
- Jan 11, 2011
- 6,211
- 676
- 190
- Thread starter
- #181
So after all that you STILL haven't bothered to look at the facts you demanded by reading the link provided.
You really need to change that signature of yours. Maybe a picture of an ostrich with its head in the sand?
You keep pointing to a supreme court case, which I have read, as if though the supreme court has never been wrong. Yet at the same time the descision in that case addresses none of what I have said. You can keep pointing to your case if you want but I know its only in the effort of avoiding the facts of the amendment of which the Supreme Court did not address. The 14th Amendment does not contradict itself! If it did ol Thaddeus Stevens would have certainly picked up on it!
Oh, and since you did not reply to or refute anything on my last post I will post it again.
HA! Section2 spells out EXACTLY who section 2 applies to and the punishment for not allowing them to vote! Your above statement is an admission that the states have the right to choose who can and cannot vote (with the exception of the restraints preformed by the other voting amendments). Why doesent Section 1 pertain to voting? Because voting is not an individual right or liberty but a privilage not afforded to such people as dictated by the states. It has always been that way and it shows the intent of the people who wrote it! In the eyes of thoes who wrote that amendment there is no contradiction! End of story! Perioud! Thats all she wrote! The states do have the authority to choos who votes and who doesent (pending they are in complience with the voting amendments).
The decision in the Harper case addresses exactly the core of your argument.
It doesn't matter what the law was 200 years ago, or 150 years ago, or 100 years ago. When you want to change policy now, it matters what it is NOW. And right or wrong, agree or disagree, that case spells out the current status of the law and the recognition of the right to vote as a protected fundamental right under the 14th Amendment, complete with a list of citations for precedent to that effect going back approximately 100 years.
You may disagree with the current state of the law, but you ignore it and deny it at your peril. Learning the history is all well and good, but from a legal point of view it matters not in any context but understanding the present. That's where we live and make policy, not in some fantasyland that may or may not have existed 150 years ago.
And in the present, you are wrong. Section 2 matters not. The 6th and 5th and 17th aren't even germane. Your dismissal of the 24th is a semantic argument that isn't held up by the body of law surrounding the franchise, including but certainly not limited to Harper. And your refusal to understand that we live in the 21st Century, like it or not, blinds you to present reality.
What you propose is unconstitutional and can only happen through the Amendment process, and that idea is dead on arrival. People will not vote away their rights, and it's the kiss of death for any politician who tries to do it for them.
No, it's been fun but you really haven't needed my help in pointing out your stupidity.
Now I'm going to grant your fondest wish and let you have the last word. You're welcome.
Its true that you cant argue with the courts. But like so many positions in government, Justices arent appointed because of their strict adheirance to the constitution. And thus debate still continues. In order to fail at something you must make an attampt at something. You cannot fail to pay a tax if you are not taxed at all. You certainly cannot fail to pay a tax if you not only do not pay taxes, but you get extra money from the taxpayers. U.S. law is written with the english language and the definition of the word fail is absolutly clear. An attempt must be made.
Going back to the 14th Amendment, the fraimers of the 14th Amendment absolutly did not view the amendment as a contradiction. This is beyond self evident fact! You cannot change a law without a constitutional amendment and thus any interpertitation of a law that expressly specifies the opposite of your opinion is wrong! Notice that today the 14th Amendment is not annotated in any form to show later changes like the 3/5th clause is. Yet at the same time if liberty cannot be denied, and I agree with that, then you may not take the fruits of other peoples labor and give it to someone else with no compensation of the person who was forced to give it up. Thus, no matter what your interperitation of the 14th Amendment, (A) the states cannot deny the privilage of voting, or (B) welfare cannot exist.
Last edited:
