Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
Posted on 06/29/2006 9:46:59 AM PDT by AZRepublican
"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."
It's time I clear up a major misconception over what the fifteenth amendment really is all about.
When we speak of the fifteenth amendment we usually do so under the assumption that the amendment is an outright constitutional mandate granting citizens the right to vote. The fifteenth amendment is not a constitutional right to vote. This is because the right of suffrage was left with the independent States to grant or withhold and where the jurisdiction over such matters was left by the US Constitution.
What right the fifteenth does guarantee when a State does provide suffrage, is that the State cannot deny anyone the right to vote based upon "race, color, or previous condition of servitude." When Governor Boutwell of Massachusetts first proposed the fifteenth amendment before the Reconstruction Committee of the 40th Congress, it included the words "nativity and religious belief." This language set off alarm bells because undesirable immigration was sweeping the nation and States (specifically the pacific States) did not want to surrender their right to exclude suffrage to foreigners.
Rep. Thomas Fitch (NV), prior to him becoming a member of the House, approached Governor Boutwell and suggested to him that if the words "nativity and religious belief" were not removed from the proposed 15th amendment that Nevada might not be able to ratify the amendment. Fitch argued that if the words "nativity and religious belief" became part of the US Constitution pacific states would be prevented from excluding Chinese from the right to suffrage. Boutwell being concerned with the potential troubles of ratification even with all the southern States excluded from the ratification process, eventually dropped the language from the fifteenth.
This essentially allowed for States to deny Chinese (or any other race) suffrage not on their race, but based upon their "nativity."
No one at the time believed that the fifteenth amendment enacted any additional rights other than assuring newly freed blacks in the southern States would not be denied the right to cast a ballot if the States extended the right to the white man. The right to suffrage still belongs with the States and not the federal government, and the States can elect to withhold the right to anyone other than a citizen regardless of that citizen’s color or gender.
Now, if we can just get some states to block persons from voting based upon their being Muslim fundamentalists, registered as Democrats, or other reasons as long as it was not based upon "race, color, or previous condition of servitude" we'll be all set. :^)
The right to suffrage still belongs with the States and not the federal government, and the States can elect to withhold the right to anyone other than a citizen regardless of that citizen’s color or gender.
..or age.
Gah, hit enter too soon. Ignore my previous entry. Obviously age is an issue, since you have to be over 18.
Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
I'm not sure that is true. The constitution forbids denial of voting rights (on account of age) tho anyone who is at least 18.
But if a state wanted to allow 16 year olds to vote, I don't think the constitution would forbid it.
I wonder if a citizen's right to vote can be considered to have been abridged when voter fraud occurs (illegals voting, dead-people voting, etc.) because the citizen's vote is effectively "cancelled" by the fraudulent vote.
Yeah, there still is that pesky 26th amendment, eh.
Y'all might have the right to vote; but it's been a while since any were actually counted...
I doubt it.
Your right to vote is not infringed if somone else illegally votes.
Nevada turned out to be the first state to ratify the amendment. California and Oregon rejected it (and only ratified it much later, in the 20th century). Several other states rejected it. The Southern states which had not yet been "re-admitted" were required to ratify the amendment for readmission.
No one with a mortgage could vote?
Yes, I know you meant renters. Im just pickin at nits...
I believe there is a supreme court ruling in a oregon case back in the 70's that concluded congress is powerless over local/state elections as far as age requirements are concerned. This is most likely why Madison omitted it.
That sure would exclude a bunch of people who rent.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.