GW's Guaranteed Vote In GW's speech today, someone asked him whether there should be a guaranteed a vote (I believe wrt a constitutional amendment). He said some things about him understanding those in the South being sensitive to such, and that he would consider it. The follow-up question was since Iraqis were guaranteed a vote, shouldn't Americans? His response, no the Iraqi's are not guaranteed a vote; they have to choose to get out and vote. pls help us Bush supporters, please ... just listen to his Q & A sessions. Understand that he does not have the good advice that Reagan had to compensate for any shortcomings (and he may have a few ). The good advice that may have had (e.g. Powell) was ignored in favor of neocons.
Thanks. Guess I'm a newbie. (Didn't really need to anyway; guess no one else was as amused/bemused as I )
Internet source (?) Good commentary... A Missing Foundation for Democracy: The Right to Vote By Jeff Milchen Published September, 2001 As the voting registration drives gear up in anticipation of the November elections, we'll undoubtedly hear repeated exhortations to "exercise our right to vote." While well intentioned, these urgings mask a structural flaw that needs to be exposed: we have no right to vote! It's true that the 15th, 19th, and 26th Amendments to our Constitution refer to a right to vote in the course of prohibiting voting discrimination based on one's race, sex, or (adult) age, but those protections are hollow because governments may disenfranchise (strip of voting privileges) all citizens, so long as it is done without bias. While numerous electoral reforms have been debated since the 2000 presidential election debacle, we should first establish a long-neglected foundation of democracy -- one that already exists in at least 135 nations -- by amending our Constitution to establish an affirmative right to vote and to have our votes count equally. By securing a right to vote as an inherent right of citizenship, numerous other crucial reforms will be more achievable. For example, a right to vote would have armed Florida residents to fight victimization by state officials who purged legally registered citizens (most of them Black and/or Hispanic) from the voter rolls. Presently any state has the power to refuse or ignore our votes in presidential elections, and as Florida's legislature asserted in 2000, any state legislature may simply choose electors with no voter input whatsoever. A right to vote would enable citizens to challenge anti-democratic structures that routinely prevent citizens in several states from enjoying a choice other than Democrats or Republicans. For example, Georgia has institutionalized two-party dominance with no outside competition by requiring independent or "third party" candidates for U.S. Representative to gather signatures from five percent of registered voters, a feat that no person has accomplished in nearly 40 years. While we lack an affirmative right to vote, state officials can and do permanently disenfranchise a citizen for a past felony, even after a sentence is served. Offenses that are misdemeanors in some states are used to deny voting rights in others. Virginia, for instance, strips citizens of voting privileges for life simply for possessing a certain quantity of mar1juana. Regardless of one's position on drug offenses, we should recognize that blocking ex-offenders from political participation undermines the process of re-integrating persons into society as productive, engaged citizens. Then there's the perennial case of Washington D.C. residents, who lack voting representation in Congress entirely. Just months before the Supreme Court decided the 2000 election in Bush v. Gore, a majority of the justices ruled that the nearly 600,000 residents of Washington D.C. have no legal recourse for their lack of representation. In that case, Alexander v. Mineta, the Court majority stated explicitly that our Constitution "does not protect the right of all citizens to vote, but rather the right of all qualified citizens to vote." Though Washington D.C. residents outnumber those of some states and pay taxes like the rest of us, they have no say in the federal laws under which they must live. If that were changed, the capital would be the only U.S. Senate district with a black majority, but bills to right this situation are held hostage by partisan politics. Those who think the Supreme Court could rectify such injustice through a more generous interpretation of our Constitution might wait a long time. In Bush v. Gore the majority reinforced the idea that "the individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote..." Although their statement refers to electoral votes for the presidency, it reinforces the reality that voting is a privilege granted at the discretion of those in power. Though some may consider the legal reasoning in that decision dubious, the Supreme Court is not to blame when it comes to voting rights; the justices have interpreted our Constitution correctly. It is the job of citizens to demand an amendment that will guarantee what American University law professor and Right to Vote Amendment advocate Jamin Raskin calls "the right of the people to vote and, therefore, to govern." While most Americans assume universal suffrage to be a struggle already won, a Constitutional right to vote is the next vital step toward realizing the goal of one person, one vote. link
