Ask anyone who is 17 how that works for them. In my lifetime you could have asked a 20 year-old that same question. We cannot flatly state that anything which is allowed for some but not for others has nothing to do with an entitlement because someone is controlling access to the right. Hell, even a citizenship requirement or voter registration controls access to the right to vote...
Thanks for starting this thread, OP. It's a strange statement, even though (^) yes, "entitlement" can mean simply "right." We know that's not what Scalia meant -- he did not mean a "racial right." Via wiki, and confirmed via the US national archives, the voting rights act: ... prohibits states from imposing any "voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure ... to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color." I simply do not understand the problem. It's very writing protects people of ALL colors, including whites. If I move to a heavily non-white area, this act protects my right to vote against possible shady or unfair restrictions applied by local governance. It's also very interesting that any conservative could applaud the judicial branch getting so pushy in a clearly legislative area. Will be interesting to read the transcripts of these SCOTUS discussions! I really wonder sometimes whether Scalia is losing his (otherwise once prodigious) mind.
But giddy, do you think any type of racial aspect should bear on the right to vote? Age and citizenship are very different from race. The VRA forbids local government actions which unfairly impact the ability of certain groups to vote based on race. Seems like a uniformly great idea to pretty much keep forever, if you ask me. Racism isn't gone, and it isn't going away. Maybe someday the VRA will be protecting me, you and Rush Limbaugh in a largely non-white nation. Not kidding.
Given the simplicity of the text of the 15th Amendment, it's hard to see how this is overturned without pretty clear judicial activism, which the right - and several of the Supreme Court justices on the right - claims to hate.
I don't need to ask anyone. I understand that the 15th amendment makes it a right. You've already had the thread where-in your definition of a right is different from other peoples. I'm not interested in discussing that again.
Tea Partiers and Right-wing kooks would burn the country down before they allowed national voting laws.
They said the same thing with ObamaCare and Obama was able to get it done. I don't think its the right wing extremists who share your view... I think its both parties.
The word entitlement might mean "right," but it connotates as dependence on government. If we go by the connotation of the word, voting is not an entitlement but a right.
Entitlement is a strange word. Outside of politics the word usually has a negative connotation in my experience.... I perceive the word meaning someone is trying to get what they haven't earned. It's the rich kid from my super sweet sixteen expecting a maybach but getting a stock Porsche. This word is a dog whistle. It's code. It's meaning has been twisted socially and is now being used as a political weapon. When FDR said the word it had a different connotation. For all those saying Scalia is losing his mind you are wrong. He is actually the closest thing to a leader the conservative movement has right now.
Race should have no bearing on the ability to vote. Citizenship? Yes. Age? Probably... because you can't let 4 YOs vote. The dicey question for me is the excitement and determination (to the point of providing rides) to those who will vote the way some organization wants them to. This is a distortion of the voting process. Some call it democracy and I'm bewildered by that. It's a democracy because you will help them vote? Unless it is open season on voting, it's not fair that the 17 YO mature, heady honor student on the debate team and headed to the Ivy League cannot vote whereas her 36 YO crackhead aunt can. I want natural barriers to voting. The individual voter needs to care enough about it to make an effort to vote. What constitutes a sufficient barrier is uncertain, of course. We have to have better means of not allowing elections to be bought in any number of ways!
I'm not saying don't protect it due to any of the factors mentioned in the Fifteenth Amendment: "race, color or previous condition of servitude." But we do impose restrictions which undermines your notion of an immutable fundamental right. Fundamental rights have and can change.
I see your point, but here's the problem: it will only be protecting you and Rush Limbaugh in a largely non-white nation if you happen to live in a state that was actively trying to prevent blacks from voting in the 1960s. I don't think there would be an issue at all if it applied to all states or if the 2006 renewal of the law had used updated data to determine which states required pre-clearance.
It's possible for them to change. But thinking that voting is a right that should change is the wrong way to go.
Brotha, that is the reality of the story. Now i get why you don't like my angle. As a nation we make these rules. Sometimes we call them entitlements-- which more appropriately refers to things that you are due due to some contribution you've made, i.e. Social Security or Medicare. Sometimes we call them laws but whatever you call them they are up in the air and subject to change and...... Constitutional review by the court system. I like you FB but my biggest gripe with you as that you want to cut off conversation when it heads in a direction that you are personally opposed to.
I don't oppose cutting off conversation when it goes against my view. I oppose rehashing an argument you already had. I'm not exactly sure what you're position is. The disagreement I have with what I believe is your angle, is that you believe a right is something that can't be restricted to certain people (under 18). I believe those restrictions don't make something less of a right. They are still rights that you acquire at age 18. My position is that things that are in the constitution are rights. Voting is a right.
... in accordance with how we legislate it. Now it's 18; it used to be 21. You talk about rights as if they are unassailable. Convicted felons can't vote, can they? What does the Constitution say about voting rights? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_rights_in_the_United_States "The United States Constitution, in Article VI, section 3, states that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." The Constitution, however, leaves the determination of voting qualifications to the individual states. Over time, the federal role in elections has increased through amendments to the Constitution and enacted legislation, such as the Voting Rights Act of 1965.[2] At least four of the fifteen post-Civil War constitutional amendments were ratified specifically to extend voting rights to different groups of citizens. These extensions state that voting rights cannot be denied or abridged based on the following: Birth - "All persons born or naturalized" "are citizens" of the U.S. and the U.S. State where they reside (14th Amendment, 1868) "Race, color, or previous condition of servitude" - (15th Amendment, 1870) "On account of sex" - (19th Amendment, 1920) In Washington, D.C., presidential elections after 164 year suspension by U.S. Congress (23rd Amendment, 1961) (For federal elections) "By reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax" - (24th Amendment, 1964) (For state elections) Taxes - (Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966)) "Who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of age" (26th Amendment, 1971). In addition, the 17th Amendment provided for the direct election of United States Senators. The "right to vote" is not explicitly stated in the U.S. Constitution except in the above referenced amendments, and only in reference to the fact that the franchise cannot be denied or abridged based solely on the aforementioned qualifications. In other words, the "right to vote" is perhaps better understood, in layman's terms, as only prohibiting certain forms of legal discrimination in establishing qualifications for suffrage. States may deny the "right to vote" for other reasons."
I have no problem with that. What I say now, and in the thread above is that rights can be limited in certain ways. I already mentioned voting age. I don't see any point being made here. That's right. So according to what YOU posted, the U.S. Constitution explicitly mentions the right to vote in the 15th amendment. Also according to what YOU posted there, the U.S. constitution prohibits forms of discrimination. So in other words the Voting Rights act is perfectly in line with the constitution. According to what you've posted, I don't see why you're defending Scalia who's looking more and more like he doesn't understand the Constitution, which is a sad state of affairs.
Huh? See below. What status does "mentioning" have? The US Constitution leaves voting requirements up to the individual states in general and then later stepped in, by Amendment, to prevent racial discrimination and then some reasonable limits on age discrimination-- from age 21 to age 18. I've not made any comment about Scalia.... my comments have been related to the comments. :grin:
All rights are entitlements. So, yes, it is an entitlement. Entitlement is not a negative thing except when people think they are entitled to what they aren't.
