Posted on 06/02/2024 10:37:41 PM PDT by CFW
Kris Kobach is touting this ruling, so it must be something good.
Voting is a construction based on the type of government the population chooses to live under. Rights come from God with responsibilities. IF voting was a right you can’t take it away. rights are inalienable. cannot be separated from the person. I’m in favor of Voting being constructed around property ownership.
“That’s not true. Some states allowed both male and female voters...”
I am referring to when the Constitution was written and adopted in 1789. Only men could vote who owned land.
Why did it require a Constitutional amendment to allow women the vote if they were already voting?
https://www.amrevmuseum.org/virtualexhibits/when-women-lost-the-vote-a-revolutionary-story
The amendment to the Constitution was needed to restore the rights the Democrats took that away from them in the early 1800s.
Also, don’t forget that men in the militia could vote, hence the numbers of men in the militia.
All rights are reserved to that states and the people. Article X, Bill of Rights.
I dislike the adjectives they use.
One should distinguish a natural right e.g life, liberty, pursuit of happiness etc.
From a civil right e.g voting, jury trial, legal representation etc.
Ditto. I know Kris. One of the most impressive people I have ever met.
I think they mean that a “right” that can be restricted in various ways is not a “fundamental” right, that is an unrestricted, foundation right.
If it were a fundamental right, then why wasn’t everyone allowed to vote?
They were not at first.
I don’t think women were allowed, or black people.
So politically, they were allowed as laws were passed.
“The mechanism we have chosen” is the key word here. Mechanism chosen is a political issue, it is negotiable, it is subject to change, therefore it is not fundamental, which are neither negotiable nor subject to change.
Those weren’t laws. Those were amendments to the constitution. Two different scenarios.
I think the fetishization of voting began under Clinton. This notion, that the most important thing is for every uninformed simpleton to cast a vote, is madness. To my mind, if you can’t be bothered to comply with simple rules the you’re too stupid or too lazy to govern my future
The left wants a fundamental “right” to cheat.
The Declaration does, however, lay out the foundational concept of natural law, that our rights come from God and are thus “unalienable” (blame John Adams for using that awkward version of the word). Thus, we as citizens have the right to rebel against a tyrannical government and replace it. Statutes, and even the Constitution itself, are subordinate to natural law.
Theoretically you are correct, but no court is going to quote the declaration in an opinion.
With fraudulent elections it is also the means to enslave you. Check out how the people in Venezuela love eating the exotic animals from their zoos so much they overwhelmingly voted to keep their kings.
We have observed country after country vote in Marxist kings while thinking it can never happen here, well this is how it is done and it has happened here. Big cities make fraudulent elections easier and now they are big enough they can control the whole state and they do.
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.