Posted on 03/11/2016 2:34:59 PM PST by EBH
Edited on 03/11/2016 3:25:01 PM PST by Sidebar Moderator. [history]
COLUMBUS, Ohio
(Excerpt) Read more at timesfreepress.com ...
so clear they needed a judge’s ruling?
My bad! You’re stating what I am.mthey are allowed by law to vote in the primary
If the state wants to lower the age, then the woding would need to change.
Figure reference would be made to reference 15 ear old and above not being able to be challenged based on age.
18 is the standard now based on the 18 year peg in there.
The United States Constitution
Article [XXVI.]
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.
Should be 21.
Not true. The wording is negative, not positive. It stops a state from banning 18 or older. It doesn't ban a state from allowing younger that 18. I read law all day long. You need to be careful seeing stuff that isn't there. This amendment does not set a minimum age if a state wants to go lower than 18.
I’m not really too upset about this. But shouldn’t there be more consistency in relation to “youths”? If they need to be coddled on their parents health insurance policy until they are 26 years old how can they be trusted to make such an important decision as voting for the person to run the country?
Just sayin’.
Making the rules is what keeps Congresscritters and Senators employed. Deciding who/what gets the exemption, exception, subsidy, exclusion and/or immunity is how they make their fortunes...
True words.
Old enough to fight in the military = old enough to vote IMO.
She’s feeling the “Bern” and throwing ashtrays.
Which is why you should support this ruling. This is an Ohio issue. Not a federal one. This is keeping the Feds out of it. As far as the Feds are concerned, as long as anybody over 18 isn’t denied, and as long as they are not denied based on gender or ethnicity, they stay out of it.
I guess even on Free Republic, the U.S. Constitution means nothing.
To expound: if Ohio were to pass a law that raised the voting age to 19, it would be unconstitutional. If they were to pass a law denying blacks or women, it would be unconstitutional. If the pass a law lowering the voting age to 16, it WOULD be constitutional because they aren’t denying anybody.
I cast my first vote in Indiana in a primary at the age of 17 in 1974. I voted Republican and have done so every election since. My choices on Election Day have very little to do with teachers, age, or the colleges I have degrees from. My biggest influence in politics was always my father, still is and he’s been gone 20 years now.
Hahahahaha. “Perineal” battleground. LOLOL.
Aww man! I should read the comments before posting. You beat me to it!
This is COMPLETLY constitutional. If you are saying that those who agree with the ruling don’t understand the constitution, you are wrong.
No it doesn’t.The States can't deny the vote for anyone 18 or over based on age, but that doesn't mean they must deny it for those under 18.It says if you are 18 or older, you cannot be denied on the basis of age.
Meanwhile, the States are free to use a coin-toss to choose their electors if they wish. there is no (Federal) Constitutional right for the People to vote for President.
It’s the adjective form of perineum.
” Anatomy.
1.
the area in front of the anus extending to the fourchette of the vulva in the female and to the scrotum in the male.
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.