For more than two years, the tea party and its allies have lectured the American people about the need to return to our Founding principles, peddling, among other things, a series of constitutional fairy tales about the radical limits allegedly imposed by the Founders on the ability of the federal government to solve national problems. Most recently, in their 2012 party platform, Republicans declare themselves "the party of the Constitution," and, on Sunday, Governor Mitt Romney asserted he was "as conservative as the Constitution." But no amount of Constitution-waving or tricorn-hat-wearing can change one basic fact: this election season, conservative Governors, election officials, and state legislators nationwide are working hard to deny Americans one of their most cherished constitutional rights -- the right to vote.
There's no better moment to highlight this conservative assault on constitutional voting rights than in the coming weeks, as the Nation celebrates the Constitution's 225th Anniversary. Officially, Constitution Day is September 17th, but over the next several weeks celebrations and related events will occur in D.C., Philadelphia and around the country, including an important hearing convened by Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Patrick Leahy titled "The Citizens United Court and the Continuing Importance of the Voting Rights Act." Every one of these events is a perfect opportunity for progressives to speak powerfully against the ongoing efforts by conservatives to suppress the vote.
Perhaps more so than any other constitutional guarantee, the right to vote is deeply embedded in the Constitution's text and history. And yet conservatives are trying to change election rules to disenfranchise eligible voters -- passing restrictive voter I.D. laws, shortening early voting hours, and making it more difficult to register to vote. Some tea party candidates are even advocating repeal of the 17th Amendment, which would strip Americans of their right to vote for U.S. Senators. At the same time, conservatives have embraced rulings by the Supreme Court that allow corporations and the rich to drown out the voices of ordinary Americans in the electoral process.
That's some 225th Anniversary gift for the tea party's beloved Constitution. But it does give progressives the opportunity on Constitution Day 2012 to recapture the constitutional high ground and put the tea party and its allies on the defensive.
We must begin by embracing our constitutional heritage, rather than effectively ceding it to conservatives. Don't believe this is happening? Then spend some time comparing the relative treatment of the Constitution in the Republican and Democratic Party Platforms. The Republican Platform has an entire chapter entitled "Restoration of Constitutional Principles," and the document is infused throughout with claims about our Nation's charter. The Democratic Platform is entirely devoid of anything resembling a constitutional vision. It's no wonder, then, that many Americans assume that conservatives are right about the Constitution. They're the only ones routinely talking about it.
Progressives need to turn this around, and we should start on Constitution Day by reminding the American people of the story of constitutional voting rights. This story begins with our democratic Founding. Never before in world history had a government charter been ratified by the people themselves. Furthermore, rather than keep voters from the polls -- as conservatives are trying to do in 2012 -- the Founding generation took important steps to increase the number of eligible voters in the ratification process, with many states waiving voting restrictions (such as property requirements) and some allowing African Americans to vote for convention delegates.
Although wildly restrictive through a modern lens, the ratification process was inclusive for its time. And the patriots who gathered in Philadelphia did not intend for the document to be complete. Article V, authorizing Amendments, made it clear that the 1787 Constitution was not an end, but a beginning.
Over the past two centuries America has moved ever closer to the full promise of what President Abraham Lincoln called "government of the people, by the people, and for the people." "We the People" have poured precious blood and treasure into a series of reform efforts that produced the six Voting Rights Amendments. These Amendments fundamentally changed our system of government -- outlawing poll taxes in federal elections, giving ordinary Americans the right to elect U.S. Senators, allowing the citizens of our Nation's capital to vote for President, and guaranteeing African Americans, women and 18-year-olds the right to vote.
These Amendments are just as much a part of the Constitution as is the original text, and they call into question state efforts to impose unreasonable, arbitrary restrictions on the right to vote. On Constitution Day 2012, progressives should share this story with our friends, families, neighbors, and co-workers -- anyone who is willing to listen.
But the fight must not end there. As long as conservatives believe they can win elections by changing the ground rules, the battle over voting rights will continue. And as long as conservatives are weaponizing the Constitution for political purposes -- as the Republican Party Platform most certainly does -- progressives must aggressively tell our own story about the Constitution. This story starts in 1787, but it also prominently includes the 27 Amendments ratified over the last 225 years which improved our Constitution by ending slavery, enshrining guarantees of equality and citizenship, expanding the right to vote, and ensuring that the national government has the power and resources necessary to protect the nation, address national challenges and secure civil rights.
Only by telling this story of the whole Constitution, including the Amendments, can progressives truly seize the Constitution from the tea party and its allies and expose their selective ancestor worship for the sham that it is.
It's hard to imagine a better birthday present for the Constitution.
(This piece was written with Tom Donnelly, Constitutional Accountability Center's Counsel and Message Director. It will be cross-posted on www.textandhistory.org).
Follow Doug Kendall on Twitter: www.twitter.com/myconstitution
 |
 |
|
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Electoral Votes (270 to win) |
332 | 206 |
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 65,899,660 | 60,932,152 |
| Percent | 51.1% | 47.2% |
| Democrats* | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Current Senate | 53 | 47 |
| Seats gained or lost | +2 | -2 |
| New Total | 55 | 45 |
| Democrats | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Seats won | 201 | 234 |
I stopped here.This guy obviously is not well educated in American history, let alone Constitutional history. The Constitution only says that your vote for federal offices, i.e. Rep, Pres, or Sen, must be at least 18 yrs old or older, cannot discriminate base on sex or race. Anything else is decided by the states. States decide who can vote and who cannot vote, so long as they do not violate the Constitution on those issues.
I stopped here.This guy obviously is not well educated in American history, let alone Constitutional history. The Constitution only says that your vote for federal offices,...States decide who can vote and who cannot vote,"
The 14th Amendment doesn't leave open that much ground--it just allows states to disenfranchise people for being underage, noncitizens, or criminals.
Anyways, we're not debating laws that would extend or deny the franchise to people where the Constitution does allow it.
Demanding photo IDs, unless accompanied by a serious effort to get them to people without them, is a bckdoor disenfranchisement, and it's aimed at some people who are in the classes protected by the 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th Amendments.
So your problem is that people can't follow the law because it is hard to follow the law. IT is not like DMV's are hard to find or that they are in some secret location where only a handful of people know about them. And it is not aimed at anyone, except for those who are not citizens. That a law happens to fall on more people doesn't mean disenfranchisement anymore than laws being aimed at the rich where they have to pay more money. Nice try, though.
We might not directly guarantee its citizenry the right to vote in our constitution, but we do achieve this via international treaty. Do not believe the hype that right wing politicians and conservative judges spew in the media. We do have a right to vote and most of the world has acknowledged that fact through international law.
They just think that you should prove you are a citizen beforehand.
2. No one has demonstrated that there is ANY problem with vother fraud. People showing up to the polls to vote while impersonating someone else. These laws are a "solution" for a non-existent problem.
3. Southern states have a LONG, UGLY history of using similar laws to strip African-Americans of their constitutional right to vote. "Literacy tests" (While having "grandfather clauses that still allowed illerate whites to vote). Poll taxes. "History tests". All manner of obstacles to either frustrate or intimidate AA's who tried to actually vote.
4. In the states where these laws are tyring to be imposed, a number of Republican state officianls have been arrogant and foolish enough to state their true purpose: To suppress Democratic voter turnout....therefore trying to skew the electorate in ways so that Republicans can win.
Or did you think it was only a coincidence that these laws (and efforst to eliminate early voting days when AA churches tend to vote) in "Swing states", Red states that Obama won in 2008, and Red states with significan Latino populations.
The GOP cannot shape its message to appeal to minority voters, the elderly, and young people.
So they are trying to (ab)use the law in order to make it harder for them to vote.
Illegals being... the 70 million who voted for Obama in 2008? If you had bothered to check out the facts, you would know that many people don't have the photo IDs that Republicans say are necessary; and the Republicans aren't doing nearly as much to get these photo IDs in the hands of those who need them.
Next time, check the situation before making such serious accusations.
http://www.salon.com/2006/09/21/no_right_to_vote/
http://hive.slate.com/hive/how-can-we-fix-constitution/article/the-missing-right-to-vote
And states over up amendments for the people to decide on how to self-govern that state. You know, people of the state deciding their own rules and laws that are within their right? And no one is being stopped from voting since voting has not even taken place yet.
Fifteenth Amendment: Prohibits the denial of the right to vote (suffrage) due to race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Nineteeth Amendment: Extends the right to vote to women.
Twenty-fourth Amendment: Prohibits the revocation of the right to vote due to non-payment of poll taxes.
Twenty-sixth Amendment: Explicitly states that there is a right to vote for all US citizens who are 18 years of age or older...and that it shall not be denied or abridged due to age. Grants Congress the right to enforce this constitutional provision with appropriate laws.
In short, our entire national HISTORY---and the evolution of the Constitution and its interpretation---is marked by the grandual expansion of rights to all citizens. Especially---and most importantly---the right to vote (the franchise).
It is a two-edged sword.
People forget that the basic system of government for the entire WORLD at that time was Authoritarianism. Either at the group level (clan/tribal chiefs and elders) or at the nation-state level (royalty and aristocracy).
Even the reprensentative governments of Classical times (Roman Republicanism and Athenian democracy) did not extend to all citizens.
Our US Constitution was the world's first attempt to introduce representative self-government on a national scale. Yes, it only assured (initially) that all white, property-owning males were represented, and equal under the law....but that was still a remarkable achievement given the time in world history.
What is even MORE remarkable is that we---as a nation---took that modest start...and have slowly (though painfully at times) expanded it to include nearly all citizens.
..and turned a limited Republic into a representative democracy, through a progressive expansion of the franchise, and elimination of all but one (Electoral College) barrier to direct popular voting.
pronounce the most anti american vies imaginable.
It is reactionary, and it is authoritarian.
We are dealing with hypocrits who are terrified of actually living in a free-and-diverse society...so they try to undermine that society so that they---and they alone---can control it. They are only concerned with the "freedoms" of themselves and those most like them. They simply want to dominate and marginalize everyone else...and therefore need to limit the power and scope of the government to protect minority groups (and viewpoints) from such abuses.
Because it is these very safeguards to minority rights in a healthy (classically) liberal democracy, that is the chief obstacle to their authoritarian goals and vision.
We cannot move forward as a country with these false statements they make. If you vote for these people you are not bright.
Of course some of the people that vote for the GOP are here but really they should be reading the funny pages its more their speed.
Except, of course, for the way they've undermined their Holy Bible. That might have been a clue.
They can't.
They are too poor.
Which is the entire point. A specific segment of the voting population is being denied its voting rights by Republicans for their own gain.
Signed,
An actual liberal: my views include leftist economic policies (universal healthcare and stuff) as well as actual respect for individual liberty (including the most important one: the right to bear arms).
Some would like to, but name one who can. Nothing will happen to the Second Amendment anytime soon.
Having said that, I'd propose that we use a 'strict interpretation' of the Constitution, in dealing with this amendment, in either of two ways:
1. No infringement, means NO INFRINGEMENT!
Under this interpretation, that phrase allows anyone within the political boundaries of the US to have and 'bear' ANY weapon, ANYWHERE within that jurisdiction ('no infringement', right?). This means I can tote my suitcase nuke into Congress. Or the White House. Supreme Court. Assault rifles are OK on airplanes, in church, Bio-terror weapons could be your weapon of choice!
2. 'Arms' means whatever arms existed in 1787.
There is precedent for this approach. In 'Ohio v. Kentucky' (1980), the SCOTUS decided that the Kentucky state line is the right bank (north side) of the Ohio River at its low water mark, AS IT EXISTED IN 1792, when KY reached statehood.
By that argument, the 2nd Amendment should STILL allow you to tote your 'arms' anywhere you choose, but you would be restricted to arms that existed in 1787, when the Constitution was ratified. This would restrict firearms to muzzleloaders, eliminate nukes, airplanes, missiles, etc., and all bio-weapons (except, perhaps, smallpox infested blankets).
Of course you could still tote your Kentucky Long Rifle, Bowie knife, etc. into the SCOTUS, if you like. Afterall, "no infringement..."
We saw, first hand, how corrupt Democrats are when voting on an issue. The voice vote at the Democratic convention on the issue of 'God' and 'Jerusalem' turned into a pathetic fiasco. On the voice vote it was clear the 'NO's' had the most votes, not once, but three times. The 'NO's' won the vote all three times, but the LA mayor declared the 'YES' votes to win by a 2/3 majority. Just how pathetic can a politician get? This was plainly an error for all the world to see and hear.
Just another example of crooked Democratic voting. No wonder Republicans need only legal Americans voting. Democrats would have dead people, illegals, jail birds, and who knows who else, voting. Oh yes, they have already had those people voting in some elections.
Chicago voters are going to lose their illegal voter's crown to LA if they're not careful.
I'm not going to waste my time reading past the first paragraph. I'd never be able to correct all the lies. Some one must do it since there are an abundance of falsehoods floating around this website. What should I expect from a bunch of intolerant liberals?
Conservatives even admit they have NO PROOF of voting by illegals, yet they still try to prevent voting from citizens who just don't happen to have the "right" kind of ID. How much more hypocritical can they be?
No one is disputing that every legal citizen has a right to vote. We just want to make sure corruption does not exist. Nothing wrong with that! No one wants to deny legal citizens their Constitutional right to vote. Why can't you understand that? It's very simple!
There is proof of voter fraud at various places over the years. No doubt about that! The 'right' kind of ID is easy enough and cheap enough to obtain. You're grabbing at straws, and it's obvious you've listened to many Democrats wanting to manipulate your thinking. How much more hypocritical can you be? Get your head on straight!