List of things requiring ID

You have shown no such thing. I never said the right to vote depends on what state a person lives in.

Article VI, Clause 2. Become familiar with it.

In fact, become familiar with reading comprehension.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

I am l on familiar with it. If next door neighbors in Kansas City both move on October 30 this year-- one to Oklahoma and one to Minnesota-- and one can vote in this upcoming election in his new precinct and one cannot, they do not have a constitutional (or otherwise) guarantee of a right to vote.

 

They both have a constitutional right to vote. But your neighbor that moved to Oklahoma will be disenfranchised by Oklahoma state voting laws. Perhaps they should have cast an absentee ballot before they moved?

You know how silly your argument is? By your logic any US citizen that:

* is sent overseas by the military the last week of October does not have the right to vote.
* is on vacation out of state on election day does not have the right to vote.
* is in the hospital on election day does not have the right to vote.
(I'm sure I could think of more scenarios.)

Your mistake is assuming an inability to exercise a right is the same thing as not having that right.

 

If you are convicted of a crime, and done your time, then do you still have....
...the right to free speech?
...the right to free religion?
...the right to take part in a peaceful assembly?
...the right to vote?

 

I mentioned this early on in this thread:

Still, many felons have their voting rights restored, it just depends on the state. So, yes, if you are convicted of a crime, depending on the crime and the state, it's possible you could vote again.

 

15th Amendment:
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.

19th Amendment
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 sex.

24th Amendment
The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

26th Amendment
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.

 

How many times are you going to ignore this phrase in the amendments dealing with voting:

...shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State

and then couple that with the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2) and you have an unequivocal right to vote spelled out plain as day.

 

You are correct. States can regulate this area of voting.

I never said it did. I said that if one is at least 18 years old, they have the right to vote, granted by the Constitution.

26th Amendment
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.

I guess a literal reading of that does not prohibit states from allowing under age eighteen people from voting. I'm pretty certain that if any state passed a law allowing it, it would immediately be challenged.

 

Common sense. Just like when....

Never mind. I can see you only want to argue for argument's sake.

 

"It just depends on the state," you say. Does it just depend on the state whether the person has the right to free speech and free religion? If voting is a guaranteed a right, why can it be taken away when those others can't?

 

You're the one that keeps using the word "guarantee". I've never said that word.

 

State photo voter ID laws were challenged. I expect any state law lowering the voting age would also be challenged. There, I answered your question.

 

Please tell us why you think a new law allowing, say, 16 year olds to vote, would not be challenged?