First, that is a specific case, and as it applies to Presidential elections ONLY, does NOT make your point. The Constitution explicitly says that States determine the method of determining electors for the President of the United States. That has always been true and is not dispositive of anything concerning your statement, or mine.
It's like me saying you have "no right to vote" because you don't get to vote directly for Prime Minister.
Here, in part, is article IV of the Constitution of the United States of America. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government. How exactly do you believe this is guaranteed without some mechanism for representation?
Stopping the denial of the right to vote is not the same thing as the actual right to vote.
Apparently, you're not paying attention. Stopping the denial of the right to vote is an explicit qualification made against the States in the regulation of the franchise, because absent a Constitutional Amendment, the Federal Government has no authority in that area. Please do actually read what people take the trouble to post to you. The US does NOT have a National Government, we have a Federal Government, and that means that there are areas in which the States have sovereignty and the Federal Government does not. Determining the qualifications for voting is one of them.
PLEASE stop using a small "C" for Constitution. It's insulting, grammatically incorrect, and deliberately ambiguating. I have a constitution AND a Constitution. YOU have only the former. The US Constitution is a specific legal instrument. That makes it a proper noun. My ancestors (Campbell of Argyll) left Scotland at the beginning of the Nineteenth Century -- long ago -- but do they not still speak English there?
Finally, you apparently don't know the difference between the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, nor even what the Ninth Amendment is about; so let me spell it out for you before you embarrass yourself like this again: The Ninth Amendment (at the time of its ratification) did indeed protect specific rights, most importantly (and it was WELL understood at the time) all of the rights of Englishmen established by the Common Law. The Tenth Amendment guarantees to the States (and secondarily, The People) every power not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. [In particular, must I still beat this dead horse since you determinedly ignored it in my original post?] the right to regulate the Franchise except as amended later on.
Finally, I note you do not press your original and highly foolish claim that your constitution gives you a right to vote that mine doesn't. Your "right" to vote ends tomorrow if a majority of MP's say that it does. That can't happen in the United States, because the Constitution requires every State government be representative: our Congress is explicitly denied a "power" that your Parliament very much does arrogate to itself (through the concept of Parliamentary Supremacy.)
The point you are so determined to miss is this: There is no theoretical temporal limit to the power of Parliament. The limits of Congressional Power were established before the first bell was rung on March 4th 1789.
I am British, not American. And not a Constitutional scholar, merely an educated layman (MA in History) as far as the history of the US Constitution goes. If I am wrong on any point, please take the above into consideration. I am also happy to accept I am in error, as I am well known here for pulling people up on poor UK history/cultural knowledge. You were also unnecessarily insulting at several points in the last post, and there wasnt any need for it.
To your points:
1-’First, that is a specific case, and as it applies to Presidential elections ONLY, does NOT make your point. The Constitution explicitly says that States determine the method of determining electors for the President of the United States. That has always been true and is not dispositive of anything concerning your statement, or mine.’
I was under the impression that the lack of right pertained to the lack of a constitutional right to vote overall.
2—’Here, in part, is article IV of the Constitution of the United States of America. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government. How exactly do you believe this is guaranteed without some mechanism for representation?’
I understand your point, however article IV still does not state Americans have a right to vote, only a form of government to which to vote for. One could argue you are making a leap and an assumption that A.IV+gov=right to vote, when it dosent actually result in that answer.
3-’PLEASE stop using a small “C” for Constitution. It’s insulting,’
Oh, for gods sake. Hardly. Last time I looked, the US Constitution was not a holy document. Nor is the only one in the world. It might be erronous to refer to it in lower case, but hardly insulting. You’re being a touch delicate there.
4—’....grammatically incorrect, and deliberately ambiguating. I have a constitution AND a Constitution. YOU have only the former. The US Constitution is a specific legal instrument. That makes it a proper noun. My ancestors (Campbell of Argyll) left Scotland at the beginning of the Nineteenth Century — long ago — but do they not still speak English there?’
Firstly, I have both. I, as a Briton, have a Constitution. It simply does not take the form of the US Constitution. But that does not mean it is inferior nor non-existant. It is rather typical American arrogance to think so. Especially when the British version is the influence and inspiration for much of the US version.
Secondly, yes we speak English. Quite what you lot speak however is debatable. Its English, but not as we know it. A mangled form.
Manglish.
LOL.
5—’Finally, you apparently don’t know the difference between the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, nor even what the Ninth Amendment is about; so let me spell it out for you before you embarrass yourself like this again:’
I mentioned the 9th (btw, I cut and pasted my reply from my replies on RightNation on a recent similar thread, here it is if you wish to read it:
http://www.rightnation.us/forums/index.php?showtopic=192037&st=0 ) simply because it is usually used in the argument that the US DOES have a right to vote.
6—’Finally, I note you do not press your original and highly foolish claim that your constitution gives you a right to vote that mine doesn’t. Your “right” to vote ends tomorrow if a majority of MP’s say that it does.’
Nope. Any British law has to pass the House of Lords which can reject it, and all laws have to have Royal Assent. Also the British have recourse to both British and European courts. My right to vote, given to me in 1983, cannot be taken away from me except frankly by a dictatorship.
Again, like another poster, you make assumptions and errors in regards to the British system. The very errors you seem to give me no leeway on as regards the US system.
‘The point you are so determined to miss is this: There is no theoretical temporal limit to the power of Parliament’
Yes, there is. The second chamber, the monarch and the courts.