The 15th amendment: How does it apply to arguments over whether voting is a right or a privilege?

[jacksonlamb]

Oh, I have, several in fact. Obviously you haven't.

No, you have not. Because did not abandon them in 1868. He did not take office until the following year. It was the administration of Hayes' eight years later that did that.

You drew pictures of flowers that were not pretty in class, yes.

 

[EdwinAMartin]

No, you have not. Because did not abandon them in 1868. He did not take office until the following year. It was the administration of Hayes' eight years later that did that.

You drew pictures of flowers that were not pretty in class, yes.

You don't know when the 15th was passed, do you dumbass? prior to that, the Feds began defunding the Freedman's Bureau, and generally abandoning the southern states. Being stupid, you probably just suck up the usual propaganda from the Lincoln Myth and other fake news.

Those in the PEanut Gallery with a serious interest in the history can find copies of Ordeal By Fire ...

Ordeal by fire : the Civil War and Reconstruction : McPherson, James M : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

xxvi, 671 pages : 23 cm

archive.org

... and even better history, Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution: 1863-1877:

Review of Foner, Eric. Reconstruction Updated Edition: America's Unfinished Revolution, 1863-18. Harper Perennial Modern Classics

earlyhistorybloggerus.blogspot.com

https://www.jstor.org/stable/27568165

Don't rely on commie distortions and idiot parrots like 'Jackson' here. And yes, ladies and germs, 'Reconstruction' began in 1863, not after the war, and it began with 'contraband camps' where hundreds of thousands of 'free blacks' were forced to endure starvation and disease as bad or worse as any Civil War prison camp as the North exported record crops to Europe and made sure not many blacks set foot in northern states.

Those who were forced to work on the govt. plantations fared a little better, but not much. Lincoln declared them 'free' and paid them wages, about $2-$4 a month, in greenbacks, which amounted to about half of what the average southern plantation owner spent in subsistence for slaves, the latter about $60 a year, which also included medical care on top of subsistence.. They could not leave their 'free' plantations without written permissions from their new Yankee owners... err ....'employers ... or get thrown back into the prison camps pretending to be 'refugee aid stations'.

More stuff as well, re the carpetbaggers sent down to plunder the South began whining they couldn't make a profit off those lazy Negroes n stuff, and the abandoning of any pretense of black equality. Indeed the whole premise was abandoned long before the 15th, and afterwards Grant refused to enforce it.

 

[jacksonlamb]

Eddy, whataboutism works no more for you than any other conservative cuck incel.

You said Grant abandoned them in 1868. He was not President in 1868.

 

[EdwinAMartin]

Eddy, whataboutism works no more for you than any other conservative cuck incel.

You said Grant abandoned them in 1868. He was not President in 1868.

Says some terrorist loving kiddie mutilating left winger on the innernetz. I said it was all a dead letter by 1867, and Grant refused to enforce it after it passed, and every legitimate historian says so too, gimp. And, I pointed out what it didn't do re civil rights. Now run along and wet another diaper and get some more instructions from the Hive. You didn't even know what year it was passed, so all you did here was break wind and pee yourself.

 

[jacksonlamb]

Says some terrorist loving kiddie mutilating left winger on the innernetz. I said it was all a dead letter by 1867, and Grant refused to enforce it after it passed, and every legitimate historian says so too, gimp. And, I pointed out what it didn't do re civil rights. Now run along and wet another diaper and get some more instructions from the Hive. You didn't even know what year it was passed, so all you did here was break wind and pee yourself.

You got mixed up and said it wrongly. That will not change. You are locked into your myth. What did Grant do after the Louisiana political massacre.

 

[EdwinAMartin]

You got mixed up and said it wrongly. That will not change. You are locked into your myth.

lol no, I didn't, you did.

What did Grant do after the Louisiana political massacre.

Lost support from his own Party and cut a deal to keep Democrats in control the Louisiana House, and did nothing to aid black suffrage. It was about keeping Republican control of the state, not concern for black people. The Federal troops failed to keep order.

Why? Didn't you know? Of course not. You just did some shallow Google Scholaring and thought you found a gotcha. Want to know more?

 

[jacksonlamb]

lol no, I didn't, you did.



Lost support from his own Party and cut a deal to keep Democrats in control the Louisiana House, and did nothing to aid black suffrage. It was about keeping Republican control of the state, not concern for black people. The Federal troops failed to keep order.

Why? Didn't you know? Of course not. You just did some shallow Google Scholaring and thought you found a gotcha. Want to know more?

It was the rise of the white Louisianians going bonkers at black voting and massacring them.

Thus, Grant flooded the state with Union troops to keep order.

Eddy, either you are lying or you are seriously mentally/emotionally disturbed.

 

[EdwinAMartin]

It was the rise of the white Louisianians going bonkers at black voting and massacring them.

Thus, Grant flooded the state with Union troops to keep order.

Eddy, either you are lying or you are seriously mentally/emotionally disturbed.

lol 2,000 troops in an entire state isn't a flood, and they failed; they couldn't even take control of one Parish. You don't know what you're talking about. Read a book, dumbass.

 

[jacksonlamb]

lol 2,000 troops in an entire state isn't a flood, and they failed; they couldn't even take control of one Parish. You don't know what you're talking about. Read a book, dumbass.

So you admit it, and, yes, it was a 'flood' enough to put down the insurrection.

 

[EdwinAMartin]

So you admit it, and, yes, it was a 'flood' enough to put down the insurrection.

lol no, it wasn't. You're just stupid, is all.

 

[jacksonlamb]

lol no, it wasn't. You're just stupid, is all.

In denial.

 

[Vrenn]

Read the first ten words after "Section 1." Totally contrary to democrat desires.

Stop this nonsense, okay
' You just making yourself stupid.\

 

[Concerned American]

Stop this nonsense, okay
' You just making yourself stupid.\

Stupid is when someone has no cognizant rebuttal and they resort to irrelevant ad homs.

 

[jacksonlamb]

 

[Muhammed]

Somebody I am acquainted with posed a question. That question was - if one supports a national voter list, do they also support a national gun registry, and if not, why?

We have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

There is no constitutional right to vote.

You would have known that had you simply read the US Constitution BEFORE you started a thread about it.





..next time do your homework. Read the constitution.

 

[jacksonlamb]

We have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

There is no constitutional right to vote.

You would have known that if you simply read the US Constitution BEFORE you started a thread about it.

Stop being a Maga shitazz.

Yes — the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly commented on the right to vote, though the Constitution does not explicitly state a single, universal “right to vote” clause. Instead, the Court has interpreted various amendments and principles to affirm that voting is a fundamental right.

Here are the most important Supreme Court statements and principles, organized clearly.

​

In multiple decisions, the Court has held that the right to vote is fundamental because it preserves all other rights.

Key examples:

• Reynolds v. Sims (1964) The Court stated that the right to vote is “a fundamental matter in a free and democratic society.” It emphasized that the right is preservative of all other rights.
• Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections (1966) The Court struck down poll taxes and held that wealth cannot determine access to the ballot, reinforcing that voting is a fundamental right protected by equal protection.
• Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886) Although not a voting case, the Court famously described voting as “a fundamental political right, because it is preservative of all rights.”

​

The Court often cites the 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th Amendments, which prohibit denying the vote based on:

• race (15th)
• sex (19th)
• failure to pay a poll tax (24th)
• age for citizens 18+ (26th)

These amendments imply that voting is a right that cannot be abridged for those reasons.

Your open tab even discusses the 15th Amendment in this context.

​

Even when the Court narrows voting protections, it still acknowledges the right’s constitutional significance.

Examples from recent reporting:

• The Court is considering cases that could weaken parts of the Voting Rights Act, but the Act itself exists to enforce the 15th Amendment’s protection of the right to vote.
• Debates over mail‑in ballots (e.g., Watson v. RNC) revolve around how states administer elections, not whether citizens have the right to vote.

​

For example, Canada’s Supreme Court (not U.S.) has very explicit language about the right to vote being essential to dignity and democratic participation. This sometimes appears in discussions comparing U.S. and Canadian jurisprudence.

​

Yes — the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that voting is a fundamental right, even though the Constitution protects it through multiple amendments rather than a single clause.

 

[Muhammed]

Stop being a Maga shitazz.

Yes — the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly commented on the right to vote, though the Constitution does not explicitly state a single, universal “right to vote” clause. Instead, the Court has interpreted various amendments and principles to affirm that voting is a fundamental right.

Here are the most important Supreme Court statements and principles, organized clearly.

​

In multiple decisions, the Court has held that the right to vote is fundamental because it preserves all other rights.

Key examples:

• Reynolds v. Sims (1964) The Court stated that the right to vote is “a fundamental matter in a free and democratic society.” It emphasized that the right is preservative of all other rights.
• Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections (1966) The Court struck down poll taxes and held that wealth cannot determine access to the ballot, reinforcing that voting is a fundamental right protected by equal protection.
• Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886) Although not a voting case, the Court famously described voting as “a fundamental political right, because it is preservative of all rights.”

​

The Court often cites the 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th Amendments, which prohibit denying the vote based on:

• race (15th)
• sex (19th)
• failure to pay a poll tax (24th)
• age for citizens 18+ (26th)

These amendments imply that voting is a right that cannot be abridged for those reasons.

Your open tab even discusses the 15th Amendment in this context.

​

Even when the Court narrows voting protections, it still acknowledges the right’s constitutional significance.

Examples from recent reporting:

• The Court is considering cases that could weaken parts of the Voting Rights Act, but the Act itself exists to enforce the 15th Amendment’s protection of the right to vote.
• Debates over mail‑in ballots (e.g., Watson v. RNC) revolve around how states administer elections, not whether citizens have the right to vote.

​

For example, Canada’s Supreme Court (not U.S.) has very explicit language about the right to vote being essential to dignity and democratic participation. This sometimes appears in discussions comparing U.S. and Canadian jurisprudence.

​

Yes — the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that voting is a fundamental right, even though the Constitution protects it through multiple amendments rather than a single clause.

That's irrelevant garbage in/garbage out AI drivel, not the constitution.

The only relevant FACTS are in the constitution.

The right to keep and bear arms is in the constitution, the right to cast votes without identity and eligibility verification is not.

And Jan 6, 2029, it isn't going to be Pence presiding over the certification proceedings. It's going to be JD Vance.

 

[jacksonlamb]

Those are findings of the Supreme Court.

And you oppose with it your feelings.

 

[Concerned American]

Instead, the Court has interpreted various amendments and principles to affirm that voting is a fundamental right.

That 'fundamental right' is afforded to citizens of a certain age--not just anyone that shows up at the polls. It is incumbent on the government to provide for a secure process to ensure that persons ineligible to vote are not allowed to vote.

 

[Muhammed]

Those are findings of the Supreme Court.

And you oppose with it your feelings.

I never said I opposed it. I said it was irrelevant.

You would understand the difference if you were not a retard.

How did you get so ******* stupid, moron? Were you just born a FAS baby, or did you huff a lot of paint? Or what?