QFAC: What's your stance on the 14th, 15th, the 24th, 25th, and the 26th ammendment?

A few questions about those ones.

The 14th ammendment allows for people of other races to vote. But does it abolish the abolishment of slavery and superseed what measures were taken to eliminate the "slavery groups that shall exist in America?"

Do you agree with the 15th ammendment when it says that "congress shall have the power to enforce this law with appropriate legislation? It says "Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude--"
However they clearly proposed legislation against several Democrats in the election of the year 2000. They said that they couldn't vote who knows why, but do you think that this ammendment should be an inalienable right?

Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay poll tax or other tax.

Section 2.
The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

ALL of these laws says that our rights to vote should be unabridged. That means they cannot take it away however several citizens lost their right to vote. DO you think it's a conspiracy?

AMENDMENT XXVI
Passed by Congress March 23, 1971. Ratified July 1, 1971.

Note: Amendment 14, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 1 of the 26th amendment.

Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States, 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.

Section 2.
The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

They're talking about lowing the voting age so that you can be younger to vote... do you feel that this is against the constitution?

SOURCE: www.archives.gov...

[edit on 16-3-2007 by Maverickhunter]

Originally posted by Maverickhunter
A few questions about those ones.

The 14th ammendment allows for people of other races to vote. But does it abolish the abolishment of slavery and superseed what measures were taken to eliminate the "slavery groups that shall exist in America?"

Technically, the 14th amendment does not ensure sufferage to other races- the 15th amendment does that- the 14th simply says that if a state fails to extend such rights, the state may not then count the disenfranchised for the apportionment of congressmen or electors.

I fail to see how it could be construed as rescinding the 13th amendment, (as you put it, reversing the abolition of slavery) when it makes no specific claim to do so, and in fact extends citizenship to freed slaves and stipulates that they may not be deprived of liberty without due process of law.
Some, if they were particularly racist, might make the claim that this opens the door for reenslavement with due process, as a follow-on to the 13th amendment's provision that involuntary servitude may be imposed as punishment for a crime. This, however, ignores the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment (8th amendment) which would clearly proscribe involuntary servitude in the manner exercised before abolition.
The loophole was successfully exploited for a time by the use of Jim Crow laws to put African Americans on chain gangs, but this was patently unconstitutional as a violation of equal protection and of freedom from cruel and unusual punishment and it deserves no merit as precedent.

I would like to stress that I consider this a practical question, although an obvious one, because I don't think people make the justified inferences from the obvious answer. There continues to be a prison industry in America, one which originated in racism and which today lives on in an even broader form, exploiting the poor of whatever color, and it is costing tax payers an inordinate amount of money while producing no social good. Prison reform, and a revisitation of the penalties we impose for certain violations is long overdue.


As for your next question, I have expressed previously my belief that extensive electoral reform is necessary to ensure that every person entitled to vote is given that opportunity and that their votes are accurately counted. That being said, I also acknowledge that it is constitutional (although I do not necessarily agree with it) to remove voting rights from felons. While it remains constitutional to do so, I will not race-bait or otherwise get petty with the officials who are responsible for screening that process, provided that their jobs are done in an open, verifiable, unbiased manner- something that they have been accused of not doing in the past, and which I will take steps to ensure in the future.

I do believe that the right to vote should be inalienable, but I believe that I may be in the minority on this, and while I will champion the cause of a constitutional amendment to that affect, I will not attempt to override the will of the people in any way if indeed they oppose the amendment.

ALL of these laws says that our rights to vote should be unabridged. That means they cannot take it away however several citizens lost their right to vote. DO you think it's a conspiracy?

If you are referring to what I believe you are referring to, the topic is the accidental inclusion of non-felons in the list of voters expunged for reason of ineligibility due to felony convictions. I do not pretend to know the hearts and minds of the people involved. It is appallingly possible, that is all I can say. I will eliminate the possibility through a transparent process, and ensure a presumption in favor of sufferage in any case of doubt. I will not involve myself in the sometimes racially charged accusations that have been made in that issue though.

I shall answer the remainder of your question at a later time. At present I am keeping someone from things they need to do and I need to get off of the computer.

Edit to add:
My other obligation finished quickly so I'll just finish answering your question in this same post.

Lowering the voting age must be done by constitutional amendment, however, amending the constitution through any the prescribed process is never a violation of the constitution. So no, lowering the voting age is no unconstitutional.

That being said, as a matter of personal opinion, I believe that the voting age should always be consistent with the age at which a person is considered able to make any other decision. It would not make sense to have a person able to vote when they still must obey their parents or to deprive someone of the vote when they are old enough to serve in combat, etc. Therefore any further change in the voting age, in my opinion, would be ill advised unless supported by compelling evidence of a different age at which a person could be reasonably expected to exercise their own reason and judgement reliably.

[edit on 17-3-2007 by The Vagabond]

Originally posted by Maverickhunter
A few questions about those ones.

The 14th amendment allows for people of other races to vote. But does it abolish the abolishment of slavery and supersede what measures were taken to eliminate the "slavery groups that shall exist in America?"

Doubly so:
From Section 1:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

BUT the first sentence in that section expressly declares

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

And so, anyone in the US who owned any slaves who were born in the US literally had no constitutional right to slave ownership of the second generation after 1868.

Do you agree with the 15th amendment when it says that "congress shall have the power to enforce this law with appropriate legislation?

That seems a reasonable and proper statement for any amendment requiring some sort of governmental enforcement for whatever reason.

It says "Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude--"
However they clearly proposed legislation against several Democrats in the election of the year 2000. They said that they couldn't vote who knows why, but do you think that this amendment should be an inalienable right?

Well…on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Where does ‘Democrat’ fit in that? Or does it? Surely you have more information on this issue than ‘who knows why’ in order to expect a thought out legitimate answer. I don’t keep up with the intricate details of legislation or bipartisan politics, and really must be honest and tell you that I don’t know what you are talking about. I will answer with more info, but I don’t want to search it out just to answer this question.
I think that there is surely something more to it than just choice of elephant or donkey…but can’t assume. The 15th amendment is not about politics but about more basic inequality based on being African-American and/or a former slave.

Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay poll tax or other tax.

Section 2.
The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

ALL of these laws say that our rights to vote should be unabridged. That means they cannot take it away however several citizens lost their right to vote. DO you think it's a conspiracy?

Was the reason failure to pay any fair tax? Or something else?

As for ‘Do I think it’s a conspiracy?’ – NO comment.

They're talking about lowing the voting age so that you can be younger to vote... do you feel that this is against the constitution?

Unless there is an amendment created/approved to modify it.

At any rate, it isn’t WISE.
Forget the constitution…18 year olds have more important burdens/issues in their lives than politics. BUT since the draft age is 18…the law is fair but only because it isn’t just to deny a soldier the right to vote over the officials who have his life in their hands.

But then…is it fair to not allow them to buy beer for 3 more years? Certainly that is just as important, to the soldier’s state of mind, as voting is? If they can't handle alcohol, how can we expect them to handle looking down the rifle-barrel of death?

21 or 18…for all questions of majority, is my idea of settling those issues, preferably 21 just for the sake of years never given back if lost. 18-20 is not yet quite grown up enough to warrant compulsory service in the military; particularly when there is no shortage of young men and we are not involved in a major war.
That's slightly off-topic, but still somewhat relevant, I think.

For the record, any one's opinion of a Constitutional amendment (including the President's opinoin) has no force at all. The courts (and ultimately the Supreme Court) are the ones who say how the law is interpreted.

As to the voting age, I'm all for it being age 18. If someone's old enough to serve in the military, old enough to marry, and old enough to drink legally, then they should have full rights as an adult and be able to vote.

HOWEVER...this is under the control of the people. The President/Vice President can't affect it and can only acceed to the wishes of the people themselves. I don't imagine that there'd be a real problem in passing this one... unlike the Equal Rights Amendment.