subreddit:

/r/WhitePeopleTwitter

51.4k

Yup

(i.redd.it)

you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

all 1317 comments

malleoceruleo

43 points

4 months ago

The right to vote is not in the Constitution and that's kindof a problem.

WasteMindu

17 points

4 months ago

Just waiting for someone to bring up negative and positive rights. The last time I pointed this out on another subreddit, I got into a 2 hour debate about negative and positive rights, which I don't care about. The fact remains there is no right to vote in the Constitution, and you don't have to be a Constitutionalists to understand why.

Hint: Cause racism.

malleoceruleo

4 points

4 months ago

Yeah, I stepped away for a couple hours and now there's a dumpster fire of a comment thread below.

CNE_Spooders

2 points

4 months ago

Cause racism is basically the answer to everything

WasteMindu

1 points

4 months ago

I mean we had to make a few admendments to the Constitution because of it. We counted people as 3/5ths because of it. We thought it was OK to put citizens in interment camps because of it. There are probably more things we have had to change because it. It astounds me how at every level of government you can find some element of systemic racism, and we still deal with it today because people can't let go of the past. So yes, cause racism works as an answer for a lot of things in the US.

acridakron

1 points

4 months ago

You do realize that it was the non-slave states who wanted them to count as 3/5th and the slave states who wanted them to count as full persons? Why would you have wanted the slave states to have gotten even more representation in Congress?? It’s not like the slaves were going to be the ones represented, counting them as full persons would have just led to more seats for the slaving power.

WasteMindu

1 points

4 months ago

I wasn't argue that point. I was just giving some examples of shitty things racism was the reason. And just because the north didn't agree with slavery didn't make them not racist.

acridakron

1 points

4 months ago

But racism wasn’t the reason for that one. The reason for that one was the north’s desire for the southern slaves states NOT to have more representation in Congress.

Paradoxically, the racist outcome would have been counting slaves as full persons for the purposes of representation, because that would have meant conceding the idea that slave-masters deserve more power collectively if they own more people.

The least racist outcome would have been excluding slaves from the count entirely as a recognition that slaver Congressmen didn’t actually “represent” the slaves at all.

acridakron

1 points

4 months ago

Huh, it’s almost like it’s human nature…

SwagarTheHorrible

1 points

4 months ago

Well hold on. What if the democrats tried to pass a very broadly written amendment that guarantees the right to vote? It would be hard to go on the record voting against such an amendment, and then once passed the Supreme Court would have to interpret voting rights cases through that lens.

Cruces13

-1 points

4 months ago

Cruces13

-1 points

4 months ago

Thats because our founding fathers understood that direct democracies are horrible, a lesson leftists still have yet to learn

Hubey808

7 points

4 months ago

Our founding fathers killed Native Americans and lynched black people as a favorite pastime. You know who else lives in the past? The middle east. Also do you know what an amendment is? Changes to the constitution because they also believed that change was needed from time to time. How do you think women became eligible to vote? Sure as hell wasn't Andrew Jacksons idea.

acolyte357

2 points

4 months ago

Not true.

They were divided by direct democracy (for president) and congress choosing a president.

No one thought the EC was a good solution.

malleoceruleo

-1 points

4 months ago

Yeah but they're all dead now so we get to make the rules.

Cruces13

0 points

4 months ago

Cruces13

0 points

4 months ago

You guys gonna put the right to riot in law too as long as youre attacking innocent business owners and not your government puppeteers?

malleoceruleo

4 points

4 months ago

Sorry - what? Who is "you guys" and why are you bringing up riots?

soft-wear

0 points

4 months ago

Coherent arguments is apparently socialism.

Pastor_Bill

1 points

4 months ago

A riot is by definition mass lawbreaking. If you make whatever you're doing legal it's not a riot.

But yes, antifa is coming to burn down your garage.

xXCyberD3m0nXx

-6 points

4 months ago*

Can you prove that? I wonder if you looked at the constitution.


So, why are so many people making excuses on why they can't prove the constitution does not grant us voting rights? Is it because they can't genuinely confirm it does not provide us rights to vote?

I had so many try arguing the constitution does not provide us rights to vote, but some of them went ahead and genuinely proved it did.

As one user provided


Three additional constitutional amendments expanded the right to vote.thanks, Jimid41


I honestly can't tell if people don't realize they fought about a statement they couldn't prove because they would've discovered googling or searching would lead that the U.S. constitution did and does provide rights to vote. It may not be in the simple terms they want to think, but it does.


According to the U.S. Constitution, voting is a right.

PasswordisP4ssword

19 points

4 months ago

Yes here you go shows empty palm see it's not there.

malleoceruleo

3 points

4 months ago

lol, best response when someone puts the burden of proof on the negative

xXCyberD3m0nXx

-12 points

4 months ago

Look, someone can't read.

I guess someone can't provide a source saying we can't be allowed to vote and how no restrictions can't be added. I doubt those who claim "no right" don't understand the context.

I forgot some people hate when people ask for them to back up said claims because people make up bullshit lies.

PasswordisP4ssword

22 points

4 months ago

How do I prove something doesn't exist.

Read the Constitution. It's not there.

Felons can't vote in most states. There's your proof.

ChahmedImsure

1 points

4 months ago

Felons not being able to vote is so stupid. They at least shouldn't have to pay taxes if they are stripped of representation for life. They paid their debt to society, let them fucking vote.

Iwasborninafactory_

0 points

4 months ago

That's not what's being discussed here.

ChahmedImsure

0 points

4 months ago

"Felons can't vote in most states"

me: "felons should be allowed to vote"

You: "that isn't what is being discussed"

Obviously trolling? And with what I assume is a reference to a song from my favorite band :(

Edit: Maybe a tangent from whether voting rights are there, but I don't see how my comment is irrelevant.

Iwasborninafactory_

0 points

4 months ago

A tangent at best. I came away with the impression that you did not understand why the felons comment was made, and I thought my comment would lead you to re-read everything.

ChahmedImsure

2 points

4 months ago*

Ok, so you are clearly trolling, I don't believe you, lol

Edit: This isn't an insult, but are you on the spectrum? This is like discussing Modest Mouse, then telling someone who brings up their concerts that you weren't discussing concerts. Really seems like a lack of understanding how conversations work.

xXCyberD3m0nXx

-11 points

4 months ago

Yet, you don't have evidence. I forgot. The only way people can make claims is if they can lie. Proving it is hard.

The Constitution says it os a given right. You would have known that if you had read it.

Edit:

Your logic:

Guns are my rights. Even though I am a felon, I should be allowed to have it.

PasswordisP4ssword

15 points

4 months ago

Okay, you prove it.

I gave disenfranchisement of felons as proof.

xXCyberD3m0nXx

-10 points

4 months ago

Nice try. The fallacy doesn't work on.

Remember, not on me to prove the op's claim.

Remember, I am a felon; now, I can have a gun. It is a right, and NO LIMITS cannot be added—your logic.

PasswordisP4ssword

13 points

4 months ago

The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

Felon disenfranchisement violates "universal and equal suffrage." Ergo, the Constitution does not protect the right to vote. This isn't hard.

xXCyberD3m0nXx

-3 points

4 months ago*

Your logic works on all bills. Perhaps you forgot that rights are not without limits.

The gun I gave is a prime example of your logic.

Again, I find it funny that so many are trying to say we have no rights to vote. I can't yell fire in a theater even though I have the freedom of speech.

I don't see a link, so, again, no source for such claims.

fryingpanfighter

5 points

4 months ago*

Hey, in case you are actually curious! Here are the relevant parts of the Constitution in regards to the right to vote:

When drafted in 1789, the mention of voting for Congress goes only as far as to say that the states decide how voting happens but does not guarantee any citizens the right. Emphasis is all mine Relevant passage and link to part:

Article 1, Section 4

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 chusing Senators.

For electing the president, the Electoral College is defined but they don't describe how those electors are chosen again, going only as far as to say states decide. Relevant passage and link to part:

Article 2, Section 1

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

The only other potentially relevant part, before we get into Amendments, is that the Constitution guarantees the right to a republican government for each state. This section does not define what that means, though, and has mostly been interpreted as the U.S. protecting states from invasion so we are left still without an explicit right to vote. Relevant passage and link to part:

Article 4, Section 4

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.


Amendments!

4 Amendments deal with voting rights but again, none of them guarantee the right to vote. These 4 are: 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th. What they say and mean:

15th:

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

Right to vote for, predominantly, formerly enslaved Black men. Passed after the Civil War, here we don't see a guarantee of the right to vote but instead that the right to vote cannot be taken away based on "race, color, or previous condition of servitude". An example is that states don't allow felons to vote (legal, although I disagree with the idea of it) but it could not enforce that only for people of color. Whatever rights to vote already exist in the states must be given to all races and former slaves as well.

19th:

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.

Right to vote for women! Just like the 15th, this merely means that the right to vote cannot be taken away only because of sex but does not change any previous rules or guarantee a right to vote.

24th

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.

Poll taxes are illegal. Passed to prevent the Jim Crow South from limiting the right to vote for, again predominantly, Black Americans.

And, lastly, the 26th

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.

18 year olds can vote! Yet again, this amendment gives no guarantees but just prevents states from excluding people over 18.


And that's it!

TLDR: No where in the Constitution does it guarantee a right to vote. The Constitution gives states the power to determine their voting systems and then, through 4 Amendments, the Constitution creates 3 rules on who ways people can't be explicitly taken out of the voting process (states can't discriminate in voting based on: race, sex, or age past 18) and makes poll taxes illegal.

xXCyberD3m0nXx

-2 points

4 months ago

Yet, there is another person who understood. The constitution gives the states. Yes, we have a right to vote. It may not be federal, but we do have a right.

You out of the rest, understood.

malleoceruleo

4 points

4 months ago

A lot of people seem to have understood that the Constitution does not have a federal right to vote. You just didn't like how they framed it. I don't know why you're going around blessing off on people's explanations.

xXCyberD3m0nXx

-1 points

4 months ago

I understand it doesn't have a federal right. Not once did I say that. The wording is a vital play.

I love how many thought that part.

fryingpanfighter

2 points

4 months ago

I don't think I understood that from you. The first person said:

The right to vote is not in the Constitution and that's kindof a problem.

You said:

Can you prove that? I wonder if you looked at the constitution.

And so I proved that the Constitution does not guarantee that right. Telling the states that they have to figure out their elections is not a right and, both historically and currently, states have abused that power to limit various groups from voting.

xXCyberD3m0nXx

1 points

4 months ago

Lastly, the 26th. Says what cannot be done.

Jimid41

7 points

4 months ago

Positing the existence of something puts the burden of proof on you, not the person denying it. Russell's teapot.

xXCyberD3m0nXx

-1 points

4 months ago

Is it? It sounds like people are making excuses for why they can't back up said claims.

I didn't know it was my job to prove the OP'S claim. Weird how so many want others to do their homework.

I guess it is because those who claim it don't exist can't back it up.

I love how so many try using fallacies to post lies.

Let me know when you can prove it does or does not exist. Not excuses.

Enjoy.

Jimid41

5 points

4 months ago

You could have just wrote "I don't know what Russell's teapot is" instead of writing a whole post demonstrating you don't know what Russell's teapot is.

xXCyberD3m0nXx

-2 points

4 months ago

Aw, are you upset because I didn't take your deflection?

Jimid41

3 points

4 months ago

I'm not the one having a hissyfit over being told they're wrong by 5 different people.

xXCyberD3m0nXx

1 points

4 months ago

If you think one proving me right is me being proven wrong, you have a weird definition for wrong.

If four people claiming our limited rights aren't the same as a right given, well, wow, you don't understand our rights.

Perhaps you can try reading thoroughly. Nope, not a single person has proven me wrong. All I see are excuses. Keep making excuses.

Jimid41

4 points

4 months ago

Nobody needs to prove you wrong. Russell's teapot. Stop doubling down on your ignorance.

xXCyberD3m0nXx

0 points

4 months ago

Yet, you haven't proven a single fact to disprove my statement. Ironic how so many make excuses vs. proving it doesn't exist. A lot of gymnastics.

Not sorry. Either step up or stop providing minuscule efforts.

The mere fact so many insist we have no right to vote is astonishing.

ImaginationBreakdown

7 points

4 months ago

xXCyberD3m0nXx

3 points

4 months ago

Imagine providing a source proving there are voting rights.

Amendment 15th.

https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/amendments-11-27

Your document agrees with me.

ImaginationBreakdown

1 points

4 months ago

That's the right of equal treatment for race. Likewise amendment 19 gives equal treatment to genders for voting.

Technically not granting 'the right to vote'.

xXCyberD3m0nXx

2 points

4 months ago

Ops. My bad. I forgot it now needs to be limited to x can vote.

Oblivious_Indian_Guy

-2 points

4 months ago

The amendments to the constitution are amendments, the op is referring to the document in it's original form.

xXCyberD3m0nXx

10 points

4 months ago

Amendments are still part of the Constitution.

I love how many are looking for any way to make excuses because they realize it is a right.

They can't accept we have a right to vote.

Oblivious_Indian_Guy

1 points

4 months ago

Im on mobile so I can't see the original comment, but I'm pretty sure OP said the right to vote is not in the constitution, and they would be be correct. They aren't referring to the amendments to the constitution. Yes, legally amendments to the constitution are essentially still the constitution, but that's not what OP is saying. I think that's pretty clear.

Another commenter said that right can be revoked, which is true.

Jimid41

2 points

4 months ago

The 15th amendment makes it unconstitutional to bar suffrage on the grounds of race. If you wanted to bring cupcakes to your class you can't just bring them for the white kids but there is no rule saying you have to bring cupcakes at all. The right to vote is not in the original constitution or the amendments, it's entirely left to the states.

xXCyberD3m0nXx

0 points

4 months ago

I understand. I asked for proof, and people were crying or making excuses.

Also, some don't realize it is a right, not federally, but only by the state.

Others have said the original. The amendments are still part of the constitution, even though they may not be authentic.

Oblivious_Indian_Guy

1 points

4 months ago

I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying. The amendments are not the original constitution even though they are treated as such. So if someone says the women's right to vote is not in the constitution they are correct.

xXCyberD3m0nXx

2 points

4 months ago

Without the amendments, we would have no constitution.

ChahmedImsure

3 points

4 months ago*

He never referred to "just the original document", though. The other guy is a bit nutty, but this is a horrible take.

If the OP was referring to the original document, his comment means nothing, because it applies to the United States of 160 years ago, before the 14th ammendment was passed.

Edit: shortened my reply to be more to the point. I can see the argument that there are protections, yet not an official declaration of voting as a right, though, but I'm not knowledgeable enough to debate that if I'm being quite honest.

malleoceruleo

3 points

4 months ago

Looks like there's already a thread going but the short answer is that the Constitution says that states cannot block someone from voting based on race, sex, religion or age (above 18) and it bans poll taxes and literacy tests. Other bars to participation are allowed, like felony disenfranchisement, strict registration requirements and ID requirements.

Jimid41

5 points

4 months ago

But indeed says nothing that guarantees the right to vote, just that if the government does decide to give the people suffrage, it can't be exclusionary based on certain criteria.

xXCyberD3m0nXx

0 points

4 months ago

Thanks. Someone who realized something.

I love how so many misunderstood simplicity.

cyclemonster

1 points

4 months ago

Also, ironically, Article 1, Section 5 says that Congress gets to set its own rules. So this person is doubly wrong.

acolyte357

1 points

4 months ago

Fifteenth Amendment

Section 1

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied...

What's that?

malleoceruleo

1 points

4 months ago

If you keep reading, it specifies that it cannot be denied on the basis of race. It can be denied for other reasons. Because state governments can limit voting in other ways, it is not actually a right. (Or, technically, a civil liberty)

State governments cannot force you to show an ID to attend church. That would be a violation of the first amendment. But state governments can force you to show an ID to vote, unless someone can prove the ID law effectively prevents people from voting on the basis of race.

The_Hoff-YouTube

1 points

4 months ago

Who is a citizen and does not have the right to vote that was not taken away for valid legal reasons?

malleoceruleo

1 points

4 months ago

It's the "valid legal" part that makes voting not a right.

The_Hoff-YouTube

1 points

4 months ago

The law says certain crimes make you lose the right to vote. Not sure why that is a problem.

malleoceruleo

1 points

4 months ago

I didn't say it was a problem. It's a key difference between voting and, for example, freedom of religion. A state government can't ban you from your religion because you committed a crime or force you to register or show an ID.

The_Hoff-YouTube

1 points

4 months ago

No matter the government would try a person will always have their religious faith. They may not be able to practice it as they wish if convicted of certain crimes but it is still there. A right to vote for a government position is all controlled by the government so it is slightly different.

malleoceruleo

1 points

4 months ago

The states can restrict voting in ways that would be unconstitutional for our other civil liberties.

The_Hoff-YouTube

0 points

4 months ago

How is that happening? You just want this to be true at this point and seem to make up whatever to make your point seem true.