Most Republicans view voting as privilege

[Panama pfRedd]

Sept 5, 2021 12:42:35 GMT -5 Walter said:

Sept 5, 2021 8:40:31 GMT -5 Panama pfRedd said:

Absentee ballot, not an everyone mail in ballot. Another lie.

Did you receive a ballot in the mail? Yes or no?
I did.
Did you request an absentee ballot?
I didn't, but still got the ballot. How 'bout you?
Explain how that happened.

f off

[Walter]

Sept 5, 2021 22:45:52 GMT -5 Panama pfRedd said:

Sept 5, 2021 12:42:35 GMT -5 Walter said:

Did you receive a ballot in the mail? Yes or no?
I did.
Did you request an absentee ballot?
I didn't, but still got the ballot. How 'bout you?
Explain how that happened.

f off

LOL...
Carry on.

[Panama pfRedd]

Sept 6, 2021 10:25:17 GMT -5 Walter said:

Sept 5, 2021 22:45:52 GMT -5 Panama pfRedd said:

f off

LOL...
Carry on.

I'm not playing your ignorant games you lying f--ing ass hole. LOL...

[AlaCowboy]

All this bitching and whining takes the thread away from its original premise.

Most Republicans view voting as privilege

I argued that this is correct. Eligibility to vote is determined by individual state legislatures. Once one meets those qualifications, the Constitution guarantees that eligibility as a right, but it is the individual state that extends the privilege.

[trnyerheadncough]

Sept 6, 2021 15:06:55 GMT -5 AlaCowboy said:

All this bitching and whining takes the thread away from its original premise.

Most Republicans view voting as privilege

I argued that this is correct. Eligibility to vote is determined by individual state legislatures. Once one meets those qualifications, the Constitution guarantees that eligibility as a right, but it is the individual state that extends the privilege.

Except it isn’t a privilege. It’s a right. It’s an irrevocable entitlement granted at birth to a citizen. The fact that a state can add qualifications (like…residence) doesn’t suddenly reduce that entitlement.

[Panama pfRedd]

Sept 7, 2021 7:53:00 GMT -5 trnyerheadncough said:

Sept 6, 2021 15:06:55 GMT -5 AlaCowboy said:

All this bitching and whining takes the thread away from its original premise.

Most Republicans view voting as privilege

I argued that this is correct. Eligibility to vote is determined by individual state legislatures. Once one meets those qualifications, the Constitution guarantees that eligibility as a right, but it is the individual state that extends the privilege.

Except it isn’t a privilege. It’s a right. It’s an irrevocable entitlement granted at birth to a citizen. The fact that a state can add qualifications (like…residence) doesn’t suddenly reduce that entitlement.

Irrevocable?
Wrong.

[AlaCowboy]

Sept 7, 2021 7:53:00 GMT -5 trnyerheadncough said:

Sept 6, 2021 15:06:55 GMT -5 AlaCowboy said:

All this bitching and whining takes the thread away from its original premise.

Most Republicans view voting as privilege

I argued that this is correct. Eligibility to vote is determined by individual state legislatures. Once one meets those qualifications, the Constitution guarantees that eligibility as a right, but it is the individual state that extends the privilege.

Except it isn’t a privilege. It’s a right. It’s an irrevocable entitlement granted at birth to a citizen. The fact that a state can add qualifications (like…residence) doesn’t suddenly reduce that entitlement.

It's only a "right" for those that each individual state extends the privilege to vote. Any citizen that fulfills the requirements set forth by each individual state then has the right to vote in the elections of that state. But each state sets forth the requirements necessary to be extended the privilege of being eligible to vote.
In essence, the Constitution, and Supreme Court rulings, give citizens the the right to vote only if they meet state requirements. Try exercising your "right" to vote if you haven't registered to vote.
Just because the Supreme Court has used such phrases as "voting is a fundamental right" (Richardson v Ramirez, 1974) doesn't mean that "right" can't be withdrawn if an individual state denies it to certain individuals.
It's like saying I have the "right" to drive just because I have a valid drivers license. But the state requirements must be met before the privilege of driving can be extended to me.

[trnyerheadncough]

Sept 7, 2021 8:26:05 GMT -5 Panama pfRedd said:

Sept 7, 2021 7:53:00 GMT -5 trnyerheadncough said:

Except it isn’t a privilege. It’s a right. It’s an irrevocable entitlement granted at birth to a citizen. The fact that a state can add qualifications (like…residence) doesn’t suddenly reduce that entitlement.

Irrevocable?
Wrong.

Irrevocable by birth, although I acknowledge that one can lose it through commission of a felony.

[trnyerheadncough]

Sept 7, 2021 9:39:44 GMT -5 AlaCowboy said:

Sept 7, 2021 7:53:00 GMT -5 trnyerheadncough said:

Except it isn’t a privilege. It’s a right. It’s an irrevocable entitlement granted at birth to a citizen. The fact that a state can add qualifications (like…residence) doesn’t suddenly reduce that entitlement.

It's only a "right" for those that each individual state extends the privilege to vote. Any citizen that fulfills the requirements set forth by each individual state then has the right to vote in the elections of that state. But each state sets forth the requirements necessary to be extended the privilege of being eligible to vote.
In essence, the Constitution, and Supreme Court rulings, give citizens the the right to vote only if they meet state requirements. Try exercising your "right" to vote if you haven't registered to vote.
Just because the Supreme Court has used such phrases as "voting is a fundamental right" (Richardson v Ramirez, 1974) doesn't mean that "right" can't be withdrawn if an individual state denies it to certain individuals.
It's like saying I have the "right" to drive just because I have a valid drivers license. But the state requirements must be met before the privilege of driving can be extended to me.

Just because a state sets eligibility criteria to permit voting in a particular state election doesn’t suddenly render the right to vote into a privilege. It just doesn’t.

The same way that your right to bear arms doesn’t suddenly turn into a privilege because a particular state has requirements necessary before you can lawfully do so.

On top of it all, the Nineteenth Amendment specifically refers to it as the right to vote. Not a privilege.

[AlaCowboy]

Sept 7, 2021 11:12:15 GMT -5 trnyerheadncough said:

Sept 7, 2021 9:39:44 GMT -5 AlaCowboy said:

It's only a "right" for those that each individual state extends the privilege to vote. Any citizen that fulfills the requirements set forth by each individual state then has the right to vote in the elections of that state. But each state sets forth the requirements necessary to be extended the privilege of being eligible to vote.
In essence, the Constitution, and Supreme Court rulings, give citizens the the right to vote only if they meet state requirements. Try exercising your "right" to vote if you haven't registered to vote.
Just because the Supreme Court has used such phrases as "voting is a fundamental right" (Richardson v Ramirez, 1974) doesn't mean that "right" can't be withdrawn if an individual state denies it to certain individuals.
It's like saying I have the "right" to drive just because I have a valid drivers license. But the state requirements must be met before the privilege of driving can be extended to me.

Just because a state sets eligibility criteria to permit voting in a particular state election doesn’t suddenly render the right to vote into a privilege. It just doesn’t.

The same way that your right to bear arms doesn’t suddenly turn into a privilege because a particular state has requirements necessary before you can lawfully do so.

On top of it all, the Nineteenth Amendment specifically refers to it as the right to vote. Not a privilege.

The 19th Amendment only applies to sex. Does that make Congress sex traffickers?
You stated earlier that voting is "an irrevocable entitlement granted at birth to a citizen" yet you admit that the "right" to vote may be revoked by state law. So, are the rights guaranteed by the Constitution subject to being revoked by state law? If so, they aren't rights, but are privileges.

[trnyerheadncough]

Sept 7, 2021 11:44:02 GMT -5 AlaCowboy said:

Sept 7, 2021 11:12:15 GMT -5 trnyerheadncough said:

Just because a state sets eligibility criteria to permit voting in a particular state election doesn’t suddenly render the right to vote into a privilege. It just doesn’t.

The same way that your right to bear arms doesn’t suddenly turn into a privilege because a particular state has requirements necessary before you can lawfully do so.

On top of it all, the Nineteenth Amendment specifically refers to it as the right to vote. Not a privilege.

The 19th Amendment only applies to sex. Does that make Congress sex traffickers?
You stated earlier that voting is "an irrevocable entitlement granted at birth to a citizen" yet you admit that the "right" to vote may be revoked by state law. So, are the rights guaranteed by the Constitution subject to being revoked by state law? If so, they aren't rights, but are privileges.

The fact that it only applies to sex is irrelevant. The amendment specifically refers to the right to vote….not the privilege to vote. Hence, the Constitution recognizes it as a right.

To your second part, there’s a distinction to be made here between natural rights and legal rights. Habeas corpus is a legal right, but can, and has been, suspended in certain situations. The right to vote isn’t a natural right. It’s a legal one. Doesn’t make it “not a right”.

And again, one can have their second amendment rights similarly revoked. Is the “right to bear arms” now merely a privilege?

[Panama pfRedd]

Sept 7, 2021 11:04:14 GMT -5 trnyerheadncough said:

Sept 7, 2021 8:26:05 GMT -5 Panama pfRedd said:

Irrevocable?
Wrong.

Irrevocable by birth, although I acknowledge that one can lose it through commission of a felony.

Does that mean you lied?

[trnyerheadncough]

Sept 7, 2021 12:44:24 GMT -5 Panama pfRedd said:

Sept 7, 2021 11:04:14 GMT -5 trnyerheadncough said:

Irrevocable by birth, although I acknowledge that one can lose it through commission of a felony.

Does that mean you lied?

No. It doesn’t mean that at all.

[Panama pfRedd]

Sept 7, 2021 12:48:29 GMT -5 trnyerheadncough said:

Sept 7, 2021 12:44:24 GMT -5 Panama pfRedd said:

Does that mean you lied?

No. It doesn’t mean that at all.

Is the right to vote revocable, yes or no.
If the answer is yes then you lied knowing full well that what you said wasn't true.

[trnyerheadncough]

Sept 7, 2021 12:59:20 GMT -5 Panama pfRedd said:

Sept 7, 2021 12:48:29 GMT -5 trnyerheadncough said:

No. It doesn’t mean that at all.

Is the right to vote revocable, yes or no.
If the answer is yes then you lied knowing full well that what you said wasn't true.

It’s revocable in the event one commits a felony or other circumstance wherein the state has retained the power. In ordinary cases, the answer is no.

My initial response was with regard to ordinary cases, just as I’d say the same as to the right to bear arms.

I didn’t lie. Again, if you can’t figure out what it means to lie, I’m not going to keep drawing you pictures since you’re either retarded, or trying hard to act like you are. A lie is an INTENTIONAL stated falsehood. I wasn’t intentionally doing any such thing since I’m not going to bother to list every friggin’ exception to the general rule.

Quit wasting my time if you don’t have anything constructive to add.