Voting and driving as rights/ statuatory rights

[larrymeyer]

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/voting/intro/intro.htm


United States Department of Justice

Civil Rights Division
Voting Section
Introduction To Federal Voting Rights Laws
Introduction To Federal Voting Rights Laws
Before the Voting Rights Act
The Voting Rights Act of 1965
The Effect of the Voting Rights Act

The Voting Rights Act, adopted initially in 1965 and extended in 1970, 1975, and 1982, is generally considered the most successful piece of civil rights legislation ever adopted by the United States Congress. The Act codifies and effectuates the 15th Amendment's permanent guarantee that, throughout the nation, no person shall be denied the right to vote on account of race or color. In addition, the Act contains several special provisions that impose even more stringent requirements in certain jurisdictions throughout the country.

Adopted at a time when African Americans were substantially disfranchised in many Southern states, the Act employed measures to restore the right to vote that intruded in matters previously reserved to the individual states.
Section 4 ended the use of literacy requirements for voting in six Southern states (Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Virginia) and in many counties of North Carolina, where voter registration or turnout in the 1964 presidential election was less than 50 percent of the voting-age population. Under the terms of Section 5 of the Act, no voting changes were legally enforceable in these jurisdictions until approved either by a three-judge court in the District of Columbia or by the Attorney General of the United States. Other sections authorized the Attorney General to appoint federal voting examiners who could be sent into covered jurisdictions to ensure that legally qualified persons were free to register for federal, state, and local elections, or to assign federal observers to oversee the conduct of elections.

Congress determined that such a far-reaching statute only in response to compelling evidence of continuing interference with attempts by African American citizens to exercise their right to vote. As the Supreme Court put it in its 1966 decision upholding the constitutionality of the Act:

Congress had found that case-by-case litigation was inadequate to combat wide-spread and persistent discrimination in voting, because of the inordinant amount of time and energy required to overcome the obstructionist tactics invariably encountered in these lawsuits. After enduring nearly a century of systematic resistance to the Fifteenth Amendment, Congress might well decide to shift the advantage of time and inertia from the perpetrators of the evil to its victims.

South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301, 327-28 (1966).

At the time the Act was first adopted, only one-third of all African Americans of voting age were on the registration rolls in the specially covered states, while two-thirds of eligible whites were registered. Now black voter registration rates are approaching parity with that of whites in many areas, and Hispanic voters in jurisdictions added to the list of those specially covered by the Act in 1975 are not far behind. Enforcement of the Act has also increased the opportunity of black and Latino voters to elect representatives of their choice by providing a vehicle for challenging discriminatory election methods such as at-large elections, racially gerrymandered districting plans, or runoff requirements that may dilute minority voting strength. Virtually excluded from all public offices in the South in 1965, black and Hispanic voters are now substantially represented in the state legislatures and local governing bodies throughout the region.

[headcase]

Originally Posted by ThomasJ

Ah, yes....the equal protection clause.

"But when the right to vote at any election is denied or in any way abridged, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State."

In other words, states may restrict this so-called "right" to vote.

If our Constitution provides for equal protection under the law, why, then, does the Voting Rights Act only apply to certain states who were held in political disfavor in the 70's?

"No affirmative right to vote

While the title of the Voting Rights Act might imply that it established an explicit right to vote for President for U.S. citizens, there is no such federal right. However, the Voting Rights Act and three constitutional amendments that prevent discrimination in granting the franchise have established in United States Supreme Court jurisprudence that there is a "fundamental right" in the franchise, even though voting remains a state-granted privilege. However, states are given considerable leeway when it comes to this "fundamental right".

In Bush v. Gore (2000), the Supreme Court ruled that, "The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States," a logical conclusion given the history of the Electoral College. States do not have to extend suffrage to ex-felons, nor do they have to allow citizens to register and vote on Election Day. In 2008, the Supreme Court upheld voter ID laws, claiming that the states had an interest in deterring voter fraud. While the Supreme Court has stated that the right to vote and the right to be a candidate are connected, they have often upheld state laws that make it difficult for independent and minor party candidates to be included on the election ballot.

Washington, D.C., not being a state, has been granted only limited voting rights by Congress, which controls the District "in all cases whatsoever", according to the District Clause of the Constitution. U.S. Representative Jesse Jackson, Jr. re-introduced House Joint Resolution 28 in March, 2005, to amend the U.S. Constitution and create a federal right to vote. The resolution had 60 co-sponsors as of October, 2006."

This is what you have based your argument, that the right to vote doesn't exist, on?
God I hope not. The people of the U.S., have never had the right to ELECT the President or Vice-President. The process is very clearly spelled out in the Constitution, and gives that power to the states through Electors. Those Electors can pretty much be chosen by any means the state deems appropriate, with few restrictions. It goes on to say that in the event of ties, the process gets kicked to the Congress. But, I have already been through this. In the time I have been here, I have tried to remind people of the fact that their vote for President means nothing. It is something most people really do know, but seem to not want to admit. However, in relation to the ridiculous assertion that the people of this country don't have the right to vote, legal residents of this country have the right to vote in every election except Presidential. For the Presidential general election, you must be a citizen. Agreed this election means nothing in the grand scheme of things, but it does provide a look into the will of the people. It doesn't, though, mean that the right to vote doesn't exist. God I hope this issue gets put to bed, and the driver license thing takes over the thread.....

[pex]

Where does the constitutional right to travel end and the privilege to drive begin?

[unloved]

Originally Posted by unloved

Would everyone please read the 9th ammendment. Okay, now explain to me why anyone thinks that anything has to be specifically addressed by our U.S. Constitution in order to be a right.

Originally Posted by ThomasJ

Correct, which is why states are allowed to deny the opportunity/privilege to vote to anyone except on the basis of race, sex, and age. For example, they could deny it to the illiterate or to those on welfare. Remember, our electoral college votes for president/vice president, not the population. Sure, some state constitutions tie popular vote to their electors, but that is just legislative grace. The state can pick any group of people - your grandmother's knitting circle, for example - to select its electors.

ThomasJ,
I do not appreciate your co-opting my post to support your argument. Particularly since I think it's obvious that I disagree with said argument.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

In modern vernacular: " Just 'cause we didn't mention it in this here document, doesn't mean it ain't a right!

[ThomasJ]

Originally Posted by headcase

This is what you have based your argument, that the right to vote doesn't exist, on?

No, it's based on the fact that there is no constitutionally guaranteed right to vote in a federal election; it is based on the fact that states can restrict voting privileges to whomever, except on basis of sex, age, or race. It is based on the fact that there is no right to vote.

[headcase]

Originally Posted by ThomasJ

No, it's based on the fact that there is no constitutionally guaranteed right to vote in a federal election; it is based on the fact that states can restrict voting privileges to whomever, except on basis of sex, age, or race. It is based on the fact that there is no right to vote.

I will just respond that you have the right to your opinions, no matter how insane they may be.

[mjfletcher]

Originally Posted by headcase

I will just respond that you have the right to your opinions, no matter how insane they may be.

No he doesn't. Nowhere in the constitution is anyone guaranteed the right to have an opinion, so he only has the privelige to his opinion. He has the right to speak it, but only the privelige of having it. At least, according to the logic he's using he has no such right to an opinion.

[exceltoexcel]

Originally Posted by ThomasJ

No, it's based on the fact that there is no constitutionally guaranteed right to vote in a federal election; it is based on the fact that states can restrict voting privileges to whomever, except on basis of sex, age, or race. It is based on the fact that there is no right to vote.

This is absolutely correct and I started the argument

However in PA you have the right to vote in our constitution


This, however, is not the point I was arguing. In fact, while we have the right by our state constitution, we do not have a protected right to vote for any federal office within the US constitution. On my way home that day I actually remembered that I argued this point before, for the other side. In fact, our state could have or could in the future, decide to elect our electors by rolling dice and not conduct a general election at all. I was flat out wrong.

We do have the right to vote, but not via the US constitution.

I was in fact WRONG on the US Consitituion

I am not wrong about the statutory right to drive.


http://sites.state.pa.us/PA_Constitution.html

Qualifications of Electors
Section 1.
Every citizen 21 years of age, possessing the following qualifications, shall be entitled to vote at all elections subject, however, to such laws requiring and regulating the registration of electors as the General Assembly may enact. 1. He or she shall have been a citizen of the United States at least one month. 2. He or she shall have resided in the State ninety (90) days immediately preceding the election. 3. He or she shall have resided in the election district where he or she shall offer to vote at least sixty (60) days immediately preceding the election, except that if qualified to vote in an election district prior to removal of residence, he or she may, if a resident of Pennsylvania, vote in the election district from which he or she removed his or her residence within sixty (60) days preceding the election.
General Election Day
Section 2.
The general election shall be held biennially on the Tuesday next following the first Monday of November in each even- numbered year, but the General Assembly may be law fix a different day, two-thirds of all the members of each House consenting thereto: Provided, that such election shall always be held in an even-numbered year.

[exceltoexcel]

Originally Posted by chrisjames_71

Thats funny, considering the State of PA calls it a PRIVILEGE. I believe the term is "operating privilege". You may want to read Chapter 15 of the PA Vehicle Code Title 75. Pay particular attention to Subchapter B.
Even better, I copied a little bit of it for you:

SUBCHAPTER B
COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEM FOR DRIVER
EDUCATION AND CONTROL
Sec.
1531. Administration of system by department.
1532. Suspension of operating privilege.
1533. Suspension of operating privilege for failure to respond
to citation.

1539. Suspension of operating privilege on accumulation of
points.
1540. Surrender of license.
1541. Period of disqualification, revocation or suspension of
operating privilege.
1542. Revocation of habitual offender's license.
1543. Driving while operating privilege is suspended or
revoked.
1544. Additional period of revocation or suspension.
1545. Restoration of operating privilege.

I deleted a few areas, but feel free to go read it. I am pretty sure when you are going through the process of getting the license, the paperwork tells you it is a privilege. Nowhere does it say it is a "right"

They can title it anything "right to own a pink hat." The title has no authority only the definitions.

It is a statutory right because it is a statute and if you meet it they cannot arbitrarily decide not to allow you to do it.