There really needs to be some kind of testing before a person is allowed to vote

[Flash]

You're fun.

 

[JOSweetHeart]

In a way, I am rather surprised if there isn't any testing done already considering those with special needs do not mentally change once they have hit 18 years of age which of course is when a person is labeled old enough to vote.

God bless you always!!!

Holly

 

[Batcat]

at point 6.00 Elder says of the man who doesn't know how many weeks in a year

But I'll bet he has an opinion about inflation or climate change

yep

something needs to change

The one that amazed me was the stupid people who didn’t point out that landing on the sun is impossible.

I find myself wondering if the illegal aliens crossing our Mexican border might be better educated than our own children.

 

[frigidweirdo]

You fail. Obviously you are no fan of or understand our Constitution. Educate yourself on it.

It's not about "understanding out Constitution"..... you can understand it perfectly well and realize it's very flawed and want to CHANGE IT

 

[pknopp]

It's not about "understanding out Constitution"..... you can understand it perfectly well and realize it's very flawed and want to CHANGE IT

Go for it. (No one will even try)

 

[frigidweirdo]

Go for it. (No one will even try)

Because the two main parties don't want to change it, and the majority of people are so ignorant they A) don't know it can be changed and B) have no idea what they could change it to and C) they get told they have "democracy" and they'll believe anything.

However I have noted that my point was received and you've backtracked.

 

[pknopp]

Because the two main parties don't want to change it, and the majority of people are so ignorant they A) don't know it can be changed and B) have no idea what they could change it to and C) they get told they have "democracy" and they'll believe anything.

However I have noted that my point was received and you've backtracked.

No I didn't. The Constitution does not allow for what was stated. The Constitution can be changed but that also is not going to happen.

People know it can be changed. They have NO desire to.

 

[candycorn]

No, really, I am fed up with morons voting

can't have that anymore

morons voting destroys our country, as we are seeing b4 our very eyes.

That's assuming there is no STEALING going on, something I absolutely do not assume, but just say we get rid of all the vote fraud.. ha ha.. but anyhow.. let's assume we do that.

There will still be the problem of morons (produced by liberal indoctrination centers also known as colleges) voting

There are still people who believe the 2020 election was fraudulent. Those people are the dumbest of the dumb.

 

[frigidweirdo]

No I didn't. The Constitution does not allow for what was stated. The Constitution can be changed but that also is not going to happen.

People know it can be changed. They have NO desire to.

The Constitution ALLOWS for what was stated simply because it can be changed.

People don't have a "desire" to change because they're ignorant and manipulated to hell.

 

[TNHarley]

Care4all pknopp
I get a thumbs down but no replies LOL
Its ok. You cant refute it. And your little girlie emotion makes me chuckle.

 

[pknopp]

Care4all pknopp
I get a thumbs down but no replies LOL
Its ok. You cant refute it. And your little girlie emotion makes me chuckle.

Quit thinking you are important enough to always get a reply. Your drivel has been addressed many times.

 

[TNHarley]

Quit thinking you are important enough to always get a reply. Your drivel has been addressed many times.

Yet, you dont refute it

 

[KissMy]

Morons are crated by the government sponsored education system and the mainstream media. It ain't their fault.

So why were republicans so eager to get covid back in schools?

 

[Care4all]

It isnt unconstitutional.
All the constitution protects as far as voting goes, is states cant discriminate based on race and shit. The states could make it to only land owners if they want.
Do any of you "experts" read that document at all?

But it is not just the amendments, it's the Supreme court decisions regarding these amendments, interpreting the meaning of the amendments and whether a law or measure is constitutional or unconstitutional, based on the amendments.

-----------------------

Interpretation: The Fifteenth Amendment | Constitution Center

Interpretations of The Fifteenth Amendment by constitutional scholars

constitutioncenter.org

But in terms of constitutional decisions of the Supreme Court, the two most important provisions with respect to the vote have been the Fourteenth and, to a lesser extent, the Fifteenth Amendments. Although the Fourteenth Amendment was not designed to protect the right to vote and does not expressly mention it, two lines of Supreme Court decisions have provided important protections since the 1960s. In the first line of cases, the Supreme Court created the “one-vote, one-person” doctrine, which requires that there must be fairly equal numbers of people in election districts when electing representatives to a political body—for example, all the congressional districts in a state must have the same number of people. Before the decisions in Baker v. Carr (1962), Reynolds v. Sims (1964), and similar cases, some districts in a state might have had 900,000 people, others only 100,000 people, but voters in each district would elect one representative to Congress. The Court concluded that the Fourteenth Amendment reflected principles of political equality that required each district have, to the extent possible, an equal number of residents, which is what one-vote, one-person means.
The second area of important decisions involves the right to get to the ballot box and cast a vote. Again under the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court first began to recognize this right in the 1960s, in Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections (1966), Dunn v. Blumstein (1972) and many other cases, the Court decided that restrictions on who could vote would be subject to strict scrutiny, the most demanding judicial standard. Once this standard was announced, the Court quickly held unconstitutional virtually all restrictions on voting other than (1) citizenship; (2) residency in the jurisdiction; and (3) age under 18. To evaluate other regulations on the voting process, the Court in later cases, such as Burdick v. Takushi (1992) has created a two-part test that first requires courts to decide if a burden on the right to vote is “severe” or not. If it is, the regulation can survive only under strict scrutiny, which most regulations fail. But if the burden is not severe, the regulation is much more likely to be upheld. Most current constitutional controversies about regulations of the voting process take place under this Burdick framework and require courts to decide, first, whether a regulation imposes a severe burden on the right to vote.
Added to the Constitution in 1870, the Fifteenth Amendment was the final of the three constitutional amendments enacted during Reconstruction in the aftermath of the Civil War. While the Thirteenth Amendment prohibited slavery, and the Fourteenth Amendment barred states from denying “equal protection of the laws,” the Fifteenth Amendment established that the right to vote could not be denied on the basis of race. Though its express terms prohibit all racial discrimination in voting qualifications, the Amendment was aimed at ensuring the enfranchisement of African-Americans. Section 2 of this short but momentous Amendment also gave Congress the power to enact legislation to enforce the right against race-based denials of the vote. The constitutional meaning of the Civil War was reflected in these three amendments; when the Fifteenth Amendment was passed, it represented the principle that African-American citizens—many of them former slaves—were now entitled to political equality.
Yet the most significant fact about the Fifteenth Amendment in American history is that it was essentially ignored and circumvented for nearly a century. This history illustrates that constitutional rights can be little more than words on paper unless institutions exist with the power to make sure those rights are actually enforced. For the first twenty to thirty years after the Amendment was adopted, black adult men (women were generally not permitted to vote at this time) were indeed permitted to vote—and did so in large numbers. Nearly 2,000 African-Americans were elected to public offices during this period. But starting in 1890, Southern states adopted an array of laws that made it extremely difficult for African-Americans (and many poor whites) to vote. This was the start of what is known as the era of disenfranchisement, and it lasted all the way up until 1965. These laws required people to demonstrate literacy, or prove their good character, or pay certain voting taxes, or overcome other hurdles, before they were permitted to vote. As a result of these laws, African-American voting in the South was kept at extremely low levels from 1890 to 1965, despite the Fifteenth Amendment.
Early on in this process of disenfranchisement, the Supreme Court was asked to hold these laws unconstitutional. But in a 1903 case called Giles v. Harris (1903), the Supreme Court refused to do so; the Court stated that it did not have the power to force Southern states to comply with the Fifteenth Amendment. Later that year, in James v. Bowman (1903), the Court held that the Amendment did not authorize Congress to punish private individuals who interfered to prevent African-Americans from voting.
The Supreme Court did eventually invoke the Amendment to hold unconstitutional a few of the specific laws that sought to block African-Americans from effective political participation. In 1944, for example, the Court held unconstitutional rules that in some Southern states prohibited black citizens from voting in political primary elections. Smith v. Allwright (1944). In a well-known case, Gomillion v. Lightfoot (1960), the Supreme Court held that that City of Tuskegee, Alabama, had violated the Fifteenth Amendment when it re-drew the city’s boundaries from a square to an “uncouth twenty-eight sided figure” that put the residences of nearly all black people outside the city’s boundaries. Yet as of 1965, it was still the case that in Mississippi, for example, only 6.3% of African Americans were able to register to vote.
The situation only began to change dramatically in 1965, when Congress used its power to enforce the Fifteenth (and Fourteenth) Amendment by enacting the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (the VRA). The VRA provided a variety of means for the federal government and the federal courts to ensure that the right to vote was not denied on the basis of race.
In modern constitutional law, the Fifteenth Amendment plays a minor role. The reason is that other, broader sources of law have emerged to protect the right to vote. In the 1960s, the Supreme Court concluded that the Fourteenth Amendment protects the right to vote as a general matter, while the Fifteenth Amendment is more limited to protecting against only race-based denials of the right to vote. In addition, federal statutes, such as the VRA and others, now exist to protect the right to vote as well. When cases involving issues of race and the vote are brought today, they will typically be brought simultaneously under the Fifteenth and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as the VRA.
If a law explicitly imposes different rules by race for access to the ballot, there is little doubt the courts today would hold such a law to violate the Fifteenth Amendment. The one case like this in recent decades came from Hawaii, where a law permitted only Native Hawaiians, not all Hawaiians, to vote for certain officials. The Supreme Court concluded that a law limiting who could vote based on their ancestry was equivalent to a law that limited the vote based on race and that Hawaii’s law therefore violated the Fifteenth Amendment. Rice v. Cayetano (2000). But if a voting law does not impose different rules by race, and is challenged as nonetheless racially discriminatory, the Court has concluded that the challenger must show that the law is based on a racially-discriminatory purpose before the Fifteenth Amendment is violated. Mobile v. Bolden (1980).
Although the Fifteenth Amendment does not play a major, independent role in cases today, its most important role might be the power it gives Congress to enact national legislation that protects against race-based denials or abridgements of the right to vote.

 

[TNHarley]

But it is not just the amendments, it's the Supreme court decisions regarding these amendments, interpreting the meaning of the amendments and whether a law or measure is constitutional or unconstitutional, based on the amendments.

-----------------------

Interpretation: The Fifteenth Amendment | Constitution Center

Interpretations of The Fifteenth Amendment by constitutional scholars

constitutioncenter.org

But in terms of constitutional decisions of the Supreme Court, the two most important provisions with respect to the vote have been the Fourteenth and, to a lesser extent, the Fifteenth Amendments. Although the Fourteenth Amendment was not designed to protect the right to vote and does not expressly mention it, two lines of Supreme Court decisions have provided important protections since the 1960s. In the first line of cases, the Supreme Court created the “one-vote, one-person” doctrine, which requires that there must be fairly equal numbers of people in election districts when electing representatives to a political body—for example, all the congressional districts in a state must have the same number of people. Before the decisions in Baker v. Carr (1962), Reynolds v. Sims (1964), and similar cases, some districts in a state might have had 900,000 people, others only 100,000 people, but voters in each district would elect one representative to Congress. The Court concluded that the Fourteenth Amendment reflected principles of political equality that required each district have, to the extent possible, an equal number of residents, which is what one-vote, one-person means.
The second area of important decisions involves the right to get to the ballot box and cast a vote. Again under the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court first began to recognize this right in the 1960s, in Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections (1966), Dunn v. Blumstein (1972) and many other cases, the Court decided that restrictions on who could vote would be subject to strict scrutiny, the most demanding judicial standard. Once this standard was announced, the Court quickly held unconstitutional virtually all restrictions on voting other than (1) citizenship; (2) residency in the jurisdiction; and (3) age under 18. To evaluate other regulations on the voting process, the Court in later cases, such as Burdick v. Takushi (1992) has created a two-part test that first requires courts to decide if a burden on the right to vote is “severe” or not. If it is, the regulation can survive only under strict scrutiny, which most regulations fail. But if the burden is not severe, the regulation is much more likely to be upheld. Most current constitutional controversies about regulations of the voting process take place under this Burdick framework and require courts to decide, first, whether a regulation imposes a severe burden on the right to vote.
Added to the Constitution in 1870, the Fifteenth Amendment was the final of the three constitutional amendments enacted during Reconstruction in the aftermath of the Civil War. While the Thirteenth Amendment prohibited slavery, and the Fourteenth Amendment barred states from denying “equal protection of the laws,” the Fifteenth Amendment established that the right to vote could not be denied on the basis of race. Though its express terms prohibit all racial discrimination in voting qualifications, the Amendment was aimed at ensuring the enfranchisement of African-Americans. Section 2 of this short but momentous Amendment also gave Congress the power to enact legislation to enforce the right against race-based denials of the vote. The constitutional meaning of the Civil War was reflected in these three amendments; when the Fifteenth Amendment was passed, it represented the principle that African-American citizens—many of them former slaves—were now entitled to political equality.
Yet the most significant fact about the Fifteenth Amendment in American history is that it was essentially ignored and circumvented for nearly a century. This history illustrates that constitutional rights can be little more than words on paper unless institutions exist with the power to make sure those rights are actually enforced. For the first twenty to thirty years after the Amendment was adopted, black adult men (women were generally not permitted to vote at this time) were indeed permitted to vote—and did so in large numbers. Nearly 2,000 African-Americans were elected to public offices during this period. But starting in 1890, Southern states adopted an array of laws that made it extremely difficult for African-Americans (and many poor whites) to vote. This was the start of what is known as the era of disenfranchisement, and it lasted all the way up until 1965. These laws required people to demonstrate literacy, or prove their good character, or pay certain voting taxes, or overcome other hurdles, before they were permitted to vote. As a result of these laws, African-American voting in the South was kept at extremely low levels from 1890 to 1965, despite the Fifteenth Amendment.
Early on in this process of disenfranchisement, the Supreme Court was asked to hold these laws unconstitutional. But in a 1903 case called Giles v. Harris (1903), the Supreme Court refused to do so; the Court stated that it did not have the power to force Southern states to comply with the Fifteenth Amendment. Later that year, in James v. Bowman (1903), the Court held that the Amendment did not authorize Congress to punish private individuals who interfered to prevent African-Americans from voting.
The Supreme Court did eventually invoke the Amendment to hold unconstitutional a few of the specific laws that sought to block African-Americans from effective political participation. In 1944, for example, the Court held unconstitutional rules that in some Southern states prohibited black citizens from voting in political primary elections. Smith v. Allwright (1944). In a well-known case, Gomillion v. Lightfoot (1960), the Supreme Court held that that City of Tuskegee, Alabama, had violated the Fifteenth Amendment when it re-drew the city’s boundaries from a square to an “uncouth twenty-eight sided figure” that put the residences of nearly all black people outside the city’s boundaries. Yet as of 1965, it was still the case that in Mississippi, for example, only 6.3% of African Americans were able to register to vote.
The situation only began to change dramatically in 1965, when Congress used its power to enforce the Fifteenth (and Fourteenth) Amendment by enacting the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (the VRA). The VRA provided a variety of means for the federal government and the federal courts to ensure that the right to vote was not denied on the basis of race.
In modern constitutional law, the Fifteenth Amendment plays a minor role. The reason is that other, broader sources of law have emerged to protect the right to vote. In the 1960s, the Supreme Court concluded that the Fourteenth Amendment protects the right to vote as a general matter, while the Fifteenth Amendment is more limited to protecting against only race-based denials of the right to vote. In addition, federal statutes, such as the VRA and others, now exist to protect the right to vote as well. When cases involving issues of race and the vote are brought today, they will typically be brought simultaneously under the Fifteenth and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as the VRA.
If a law explicitly imposes different rules by race for access to the ballot, there is little doubt the courts today would hold such a law to violate the Fifteenth Amendment. The one case like this in recent decades came from Hawaii, where a law permitted only Native Hawaiians, not all Hawaiians, to vote for certain officials. The Supreme Court concluded that a law limiting who could vote based on their ancestry was equivalent to a law that limited the vote based on race and that Hawaii’s law therefore violated the Fifteenth Amendment. Rice v. Cayetano (2000). But if a voting law does not impose different rules by race, and is challenged as nonetheless racially discriminatory, the Court has concluded that the challenger must show that the law is based on a racially-discriminatory purpose before the Fifteenth Amendment is violated. Mobile v. Bolden (1980).
Although the Fifteenth Amendment does not play a major, independent role in cases today, its most important role might be the power it gives Congress to enact national legislation that protects against race-based denials or abridgements of the right to vote.

Read this more carefully and then go back and read what i wrote.
Do it verrrrrry slowly.

 

[notmyfault2020]

Yes. Because now days he would not get that job as a hard working immigrant would run rings around him. I don't know where you live but here, if you only have a high school degree you have no chance.

and that is a human being's fault?

I guess you would tell me that the system is perfect and doesn't victimize anyone at all

ha ha..

no wonder you're in the wrong party

 

[notmyfault2020]

There are still people who believe the 2020 election was fraudulent. Those people are the dumbest of the dumb.

Right.. because YOU say so

and just who the hell are you?

Again, Alinsky is likely frying in hell right now so why do you worship him by obeying his orders to ridicule anyone who disagrees with you?

and you have the nerve to call someone else dumb?

ha ha... hilarious

then there's this: I have a high IQ. I guess you're not so good at measuring IQ over the internet.. gee, whoda thunk it?

 

[candycorn]

Right.. because YOU say so

and just who the hell are you?

Someone who uses evidence to form opinions.

Again, Alinsky is likely frying in hell right now so why do you worship him by obeying his orders to ridicule anyone who disagrees with you?

When I'm debating someone who takes ridiculous stands...I feel quite comfortable ridiculing them.

and you have the nerve to call someone else dumb?

No, I have grounds to call folks like you dumb.

ha ha... hilarious

then there's this: I have a high IQ. I guess you're not so good at measuring IQ over the internet.. gee, whoda thunk it?

If you do have a high IQ, it certainly isn't apparent from your posts.

 

[notmyfault2020]

Anyone who has EVER supported the communist party in this country or any other should be barred for a lifetime from voting

I'm sure my Church would heartily agree.. meaning the TRUE Catholic Church, the Society of St Pius X

because they have carried on the Traditional teachings of Christ, and the CC throughout the centuries has been against communism.. communists were to be excommunicated.. hope they still are.

So yeh, I am going w/ the ancient CC teaching. But even if the Church had never taken a stand against communism.. i have read books about it written by those who were affected by it.. or knew persons affected adversely by it. I would be against it anyway.

Then we see how the neo-communists in this country act and all the vile things they try to force on America.. how their party worked to get rid of a very good president.. a proAmerica president..

they are, as Jason Witlock has said

a Satanic cult

 

[bodecea]

You fail. Obviously you are no fan of or understand our Constitution. Educate yourself on it.

Apparently the OP would not pass their own test. How ironic, eh?