Jesse Jackson, Jr., is proposing a constitutional amendment to establish a right to vote, why?
Face it, States are the ones that get to determine how officials will make their way to D.C.
It just so happens to be that all states allow their citizens to vote, but all that means is that we vote at the pleasure of our respective states.
If Florida decided to award its electoral votes via a 40-yard dash contest, there’s nothing the federal government could do about it. http://crushliberalism.com/2008/01/14/there-is-no-constitutional-right-to-vote-in-federal-elections/
I am an older minority and I am not too stupid to get an ID, a driver's license, or a birth certificate. It was not a burden. It took less time than it took to get my blood checked this morning at my doctor's office.
The only thing I found to be inconsistent was your unsupported presupposition that 2nd amendment supports believe it to be absolute. Most of us have no problem with state "shall issue" laws.
OK, I may concede there is no constitutional right to vote for presidential electors. However, if the constitution says you can't deny a citizen the right to vote based on race or gender, only that they must be over 18, how can states prevent a qualified voter (i.e. non-felon) from voting for U.S. senator? Or U.S. House?
And President is the ONLY nationally elected office. All others are elected by local elections. :)
And the States make their own laws regarding such elections (Senators, House of Representatives).
Article 1 Section 4 of the US Constitution:
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of choosing Senators.
and as far as college students - I believe they should vote from their "home of record" unless they can show they have made a permanent move to their college town.
List of close elections.
Many libs will say there might be fraud - but it would not make any difference in the results - or does it?
Actually, I like the ideal of the Middle East - when you vote you get you finger inked - so 1) that would keep a person from voting more than once
2) It would be easy to recognize those who DO NOT vote.
True that, and even it is not without its local aspect since the election is actually for electors, not the presidential candidate.
Elections at all levels are up to the states to carry out. No person has any inherent right to vote for president. As I think I saw earlier states could choose their electors with a 50 yard dash if they wanted.
That being the case the states have the absolute right to decide who can and can't vote. If they want to make presentation of a photo ID they have every right to do so.
The federal government have put a few restrictions on that choice, i.e. race, gender, over 18 etc, but generally speaking states can do what they want.
Technically incorrect -
The Constitution (Amendment # 26 states ) states:
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.
Thus if a State or Commonwealth wanted to allow 12 year olds to vote - that would be legal
In fact California has the most radical proposal: a constitutional amendment that would give 16-year-olds a half vote and 14-year-olds a quarter vote in state elections ...
Actually, the Vice-President is a nationally elected figure, elected by the same Electoral College the President is.
The President cannot fire or demand resignation of the Vice-President during his or her term of office.
Now, a President can dump a VP while running for reelection like Obama is now for the next term.
In fact, if I was in the business of advising Obama, I would advise him to dump brain surgeon Biden and replace him with Clinton or a moderate of some stature.
The choosing of a VP candidate is a function of party rules and the Presidential candidate's choice.
In 1956, for example, Stevenson opened the nomination for VP to the convention.
JFK ran and lost.
There are a lot of what ifs in history, but if Agnew had refused to resign while being investigated in 1973 for tax evasion (imagine that), Nixon, with his stellar character in his own right, could not have forced Agnew to step down.
Had the Watergate investigation been further along at the time, we might have had President Spiro for a period of time.
Think about that one.
In reality, that is not as heart stopping as President Biden.
As President/Vice-President are elected together as a ticket the voter has no right to vote for a Vice-President apart from voting for the ticket. Electors can (and have) departed from voting for the Vice-President on the winning ticket but it is an aberration and does not change the fact the individual voter must vote for the Vice-President named by his Presidential choice.