Skip to comments.On the Right to Vote Part IV
Posted on 09/25/2017 1:17:32 AM PDT by Jacquerie
Subtitle: Voting isnt a civil right.
It began as a simple clause in Article I § 2. Whoever votes for members to the most numerous house in a state legislature is likewise qualified to vote for representatives to the US House of Representatives. States indirectly determined the qualifications of electors to the US House. So, from the start of our Constitutional republic, the Framers and the ratifying states expected diversity in voter qualifications across the states. The state-level civil society determined the extent of the political right to vote. What wonderful simplicity and wisdom. This is federalism.
Rather than make a long squib even longer, I will not print the various Constitutional articles amendments referenced in this post. I trust my readers have a pocket-size Constitution readily at hand.
In a radical reordering of society after the Civil War, the states ratified three remarkable amendments. Recall from last weeks squib, Congress in this era still thought in the first-principle terms of our Framers. They viewed rights as belonging to one of three categories, Natural, Civil, or Political.
The 13th Amendment of 1865 recognized the Natural Right to freedom. Congress could have stopped there, and left ex-slaves as freedmen. Rather than do as Rome and accept a large population in an in-between condition between slaves and citizens, Congress acted in 1868.
The first section of the 14th Amendment of 1868 made citizens of freedmen. As citizens, they were members of the civil society entitled to civil rights, and no state could abridge their privileges or immunities. Nor could a state deprive anyone, including those here illegally, of equal protection under the law. This nuanced distinction between the civil rights of citizens and non-citizens is important and worth remembering. By implication, the states could abridge the privileges
(Excerpt) Read more at articlevblog.com ...
4. Voting is not the guardian of all other rights. An elective despotism is still a despotism. Voting, as the ultimate protector, renders our governing plan no better than the British system. The Sovereign Capacity of the people expressed through Article V is the guardian of all other rights.
I certainly would not put all my eggs in an Article V basket as this article attempts to do. Roe V Wade was not the first misstep by the Supremes giving the Congress all the proof needed that SCOTUS was on course to usurp all the Congressional powers it could grab. Long before Roe V Wade, the Congress should have acted in protecting “We the People” from the out of control judiciary.
IMHO the statement:”The Sovereign Capacity of the people expressed through Article V is the guardian of all other rights” is not a true statement. The Sovereign capacity of the people expressed through their elected Representatives in the Congress is the guardian of all other rights.
They have sold us into slavery and we have allowed it. An exercise of the Article V means we need a 34 State majority of mind right citizens to get a Call from the Congress. I don’t see it saving us from ourselves. Some do, some don’t, and that is America. I just find a bit more comfort on the side opposing Article V as the end all on this issue.
Fascinating. Educational. Thanks. BUMP!
While we disagree, thanks for a thoughtful post.
<>The Sovereign capacity of the people expressed through their elected Representatives in the Congress is the guardian of all other rights.<>
That’s impossible. The Creature cannot supersede the Creator.
Thank you PG!
Correct. The second amendment is.
Thanks I try, having been educated at FR for lo these many years.
Indeed “we the people” were the creators and loaned a portion of power to those we elect. We expected them to live by the rules “we” created as chains to bind them.
They done busted out of their chains and run among us bringing chaos, destruction, upheaval, division, and all manner of evil.
The question remains what are “we” going to do about it, which brings us back to square one.
I see possibilities, Civil war, not wise, and even more destructive.
Article V, a fight that could result in civil war depending on how much Congress is or is not willing to bend to “we the people”.
A moment reprieve as Donald J. Trump attempts to right the ship.
Doing the same thing we have been doing, guarantees the same result.
Continue the fight that has been the fight from the beginning. The fight for good vs evil. We can’t quit, we know who wins in the end, but the fight must go on. Article V notwithstanding, the fight will not be won until the only King to reign over America returns in his Glory to reign as monarch for a thousand years. Even then, after the thousand years there will still remain those who will oppose the King until they are finally subdued.
It is a fight all are called to fight in various ways available to include Article V if we can reach the threshold.
...and thanks for the kind comments.
I suspect we are closer in our views than some recent posts reflect.
The Left clamors for a civil war, and they may just get one. I thought their grand march through our culture was over when they commandeered our military. Oops. That left sports, and now they soil another once great institution.
When our Constitution gets the amending it so desperately needs, I hope it is in the ordered setting of an Article V Convention and not while delegates stare at bayonets.
Yes, DJT is, at most, a pause, a temporary condition which should take advantage of.
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.