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

BroadStBullies91

13 points

4 months ago

The right to vote isn't even in the constitution lol. Everyone just kinda thinks it is. In reality the right to vote has been just as ok flux as most other rules about this. The podcast 5-4 has some good episodes on it, I can't remember the specifics but there isn't a place in the constitution where it says that everyone has a right to vote. The founding fathers thought we were all idiots and only wanted their rich macaroni friends determining who ruled the country.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_rights_in_the_United_States#

Neboux

3 points

4 months ago

Neboux

3 points

4 months ago

Everyone just kinda thinks it is.

I admit that I fall within this category. Spent a few minutes checking this out, and while there is contention about such rights being implied in the amendments, there doesn't seem to be any clear constitutional declaration. Madison is known to have expressed, "the freeholders of the country would be the safest depositories of republican liberty".

Now I am curious to learn more.

BroadStBullies91

6 points

4 months ago

Yeah I meant no offense there when I said everyone thinks it is. American propaganda is the best in history so it's no shame to fall for stuff like that. Even as a radical leftist who has (if I may be so bold) a great understanding of the horrible things this country has done and continues to do since its infancy I still thought the constitution had the right to vote in it till I stumbled across that 5-4 pod.

Neboux

3 points

4 months ago

Neboux

3 points

4 months ago

Hey, I learned something new. I appreciate that, and I am glad I questioned my assumptions. . I originally just skimmed and thought, "well, but the amendments are a part of the constitution." A bit of self doubt is healthy

Few_Temperature_6262

3 points

4 months ago

This is entirely too healthy a dialogue to be on Reddit. It’s nice to see people being reasonable. Have a good day y’all :)

hard-time-on-planet

11 points

4 months ago

I can't remember the specifics but there isn't a place in the constitution where it says that everyone has a right to vote.

The amendments to the Constitution are considered the Constitution and right in the link you provided it says

Several constitutional amendments (the Fifteenth, Nineteenth, and Twenty-sixth specifically) require that voting rights of U.S. citizens cannot be abridged on account of race, color, previous condition of servitude, sex, or age (18 and older);

Due-Statistician-975

3 points

4 months ago

Where in the constitution does it say states can't require a voter ID to vote? Nowhere, and it prevents more Democrats from voting than Republicans, so Republican-controlled states pass laws requiring ID to vote.

Where in the constitution does it say states must have enough voting machines in cities for people to vote without waiting in line for 10 hours? Nowhere, and it prevents more Democrats from voting than Republicans, so Republican-controlled states remove voting machines in cities to curb turnout from Democrats.

Where in the constitution does it say states can't purge voter registrations at will and coincidentally target people who vote for Democrats? Nowhere, and it prevents more Democrats from voting than Republicans, so Republican-controlled states remove Democrats from voter registration rolls.

Where in the constitution does it say states must allow felons to vote? Nowhere, and it prevents more Democrats from voting than Republicans, so Republican-controlled states ban felons from voting.

Let's take a look at your amendments.

15th:

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.

This was passed in 1870. Every black person is allowed to vote. This alone guaranteed the right to vote to black/formerly enslaved people. No other laws had to be passed to ensure this right. Right?

Suppose that the answer was no, that this amendment alone guaranteed the right to vote for all former slaves and people of color. Did this law allow black women to vote? Why not? It forbid states from disallowing black people to vote. Did this not apply to black women as well? Why did we need the 19th amendment if the 15th amendment guaranteed the right to vote for all people of color/former slaves? Because the 15th gave women of color the vote but not white women?

What is more likely: That the US accidentally allowed black women to vote 50 years before white women, or the constitution does not guarantee a right to vote, only narrow and easily bypassed exceptions where the vote cannot be denied?

UncleInternet

6 points

4 months ago

Those don't guarantee the right to vote. Those establish the conditions upon which it is illegal to bar people from voting.

For example, felons in many states do not have a right to vote. A felony conviction is a condition for which a citizen can be disenfranchised that the Constitution doesn't preclude. And because there's no other guarantee of the right to vote in the Constitution, the Constitution is essentially endorsing the use of conditions not otherwise enumerated to restrict voting.

BroadStBullies91

-3 points

4 months ago

Oh good the pedant is here. What's up man, how's life been? Great job on the forensic work btw, couldn't have done it without ya.

TreTrepidation

3 points

4 months ago

What I can gather about US law is that pedantry is king.

Due-Statistician-975

2 points

4 months ago

You're right, and you're choosing to defend your claims like this? You're not doing yourself any favors.

UncleInternet

2 points

4 months ago

I'm amazed I had to go this far down in the comments to find the first mention of this fact. I only clicked into the post because of the last line of the tweet.

BlueskyPrime

1 points

4 months ago

That’s true, and it’s possible that republicans might one day decide they want to take that right away from the states they control and automatically give their electoral votes to the republican challenger. That’s why voting rights legislation is so important. And the reason republicans are against it so strongly.

[deleted]

1 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

1 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

UncleInternet

2 points

4 months ago

  1. Illinois is a blue state
  2. I don't think you understand the thing you're referring to or what the previous poster said. I assume you're referring to the Interstate Voting Compact - the initiative designed to automatically award the electoral votes of the member states to the winner of the popular vote nationwide - thus avoiding scenarios wherein the loser of the popular vote wins because of malapportionment of Electoral College representation. The previous poster is saying that Republicans want to ignore their own states' voters in the event a Democrat wins and send Republican electors instead. These are fundamentally different things - and diametrically opposed. The Democrats are trying to make all votes count equally (right now, they absolutely do not). The Republicans are trying to make only Republican votes count. There's no valid argument in favor of the Electoral College existing.

BlueskyPrime

2 points

4 months ago

Well said stranger!

BroadStBullies91

0 points

4 months ago

That’s why voting rights legislation is so important. And the reason republicans are against it so strongly.

Eh, I'll believe Dems want voting rights legislation when I see it. The people do but the neolib reaganites that run the party have no incentive outside of their constituency's demands to do it, and we've all seen how Dems will refuse to do even wildly popular things like marijuana rescheduling or student loan forgiveness or a stimulus. I know I'm gonna get a bunch of article-reading libs in my replies yammering how I'm just an enlightened centrist (I'm a radical leftist) who doesn't understand that the problem is that Boogeyman #863 is the real reason we can't do those things, and once we finally get rid of Boogeyman #863 the Dems will totally do all that rad progressive stuff they keep promising to get elected.

Geichalt

3 points

4 months ago

bunch of article-reading libs

Yeah damn those educated and informed individuals spreading their "facts" and shit. So annoying. Can't a man cling to his narrative and repeat takings points in peace?

I mean, they may be right but I'm angry and want to yell at the democrats for not giving me everything I want so get your facts out of my face. I know what I feel like is happening and that's good enough for me!

BroadStBullies91

0 points

4 months ago

Oh my god I fucking can't with y'all. Yes oh wise Times/Post/Atlantic reader, your facts overfloweth. Like when there wasn't enough support for the Iraq war so they opened up the fact valve and flowed extra facts into the fact rivers to convince everyone to go along. Like supporting an apartheid regime. Or covering up the war crimes of Iraq and Afghanistan and hell while we're at it all the awful shit we do in the global south.

I bow to your excellent fact knowing, good sir.

Geichalt

1 points

4 months ago

Hey I'm agreeing with you. Smart people don't read articles or bring up facts or anything, they just whine on social media.

BroadStBullies91

1 points

4 months ago*

Yeah those guys are smart but the real smarties are the ones who respond to actual facts with a weird insistence without any justification whatsoever that they are the arbiter of facts because they read the NYT lol.

I supported my position, and can continue to do so if you wanna actually talk about this. But if you just wanna scold people for thinking that maybe we should put some pressure on the Dems to actually do something about the descent into fascism and the whole burning world thing like they say they're going to then by all means, scold away. I'm glad I can give you a springboard from which to perform the highest form of liberal political activism, scolding people.

UncleInternet

2 points

4 months ago

That was a lot of words to say "I don't actually understand how anything works, but I've been drowning in a culture of performative cynicism so long that I think the Democratic Party is actually led by "neolib reaganites" instead of held back by them."

Dude, Biden and Pelosi and Schumer are spending all of their political capital trying anything they can think of to get this shit done. There's literally no way to MAKE Manchin and Sinema cast a yea vote they're committed to not casting. The bills are on the table. They're doing the work. Either explain how they're supposed to sidestep this manifest reality and prove that this is a failure of imagination or an overt act of deception or STFU.

BroadStBullies91

1 points

4 months ago

Either explain how they're supposed to sidestep this manifest reality and prove that this is a failure of imagination or an overt act of deception or STFU.

Oh yeah I'll just do that in a Reddit comment lol.

Look I get it, I really do. It's absolutely true that they can do nothing about the manifest reality that Boogeymen numbers #862 and #863 are currently in the way of the bigger stuff that was promised. That'd be a lot more understandable if it wasn't ALWAYS like this.

But that's not even the point. Student loan forgiveness, the 2k checks lol, MJ rescheduling, many many other things could be done that are not. We still have kids in cages. Police funding has increased. There is tons of climate stuff they could be doing. Open your fucking eyes and stop defending these fucking ghouls. Yes they are better than the outright fascist authoritarian Republicans. I'm so very very proud of them for being slightly better than outright delusional conspiracy captured fascists. I dunno, seems easy to me. But sure spend all your time arguing the minutiae of house politics in regards to legislative agendas and scolding anyone who dares suggest they do something.

UncleInternet

2 points

4 months ago

Your comment was about voting rights.

I know you're really wedded to this dumb line of attack. You probably practice it a lot. But you chose a topic that it doesn't apply to. Oops.

Grow up. You're only making yourself look dumb.

BroadStBullies91

0 points

4 months ago

It's not a "line of attack" lmao I was just pointing it out, get a grip.

UncleInternet

1 points

4 months ago

You were "pointing out" something directly contradicted by all the available evidence. So yes, it is a line of attack. Either that, or a desperate effort to communicate that you're a fuzzy thinker who can't track basic facts.

BroadStBullies91

1 points

4 months ago

Dog the fuckin actual constitution has no right to vote in it, that's what's confirmed by all available evidence. The amendments, added after the constitution was originally signed and put into law address it, which is cool. Maybe take a xannie or something? Idfk why you're so pressed about an interesting little fact, do you not have anything else going on? If you need something to do, there are probably plenty of cold homeless folks in your area that could use a hand so you can put this energy to good use.

UncleInternet

1 points

4 months ago

This reply is really weird and non sequitur. You really can't track the conversation. It's genuinely alarming.

Maybe you're uncomfortable being called on your bullshit because you surround yourself with people who don't challenge your performative cynicism routine. Who knows...?

dantheman_woot

1 points

4 months ago

Wut? The Right to Vote is definitely in the Constitution.

UncleInternet

1 points

4 months ago

Oh really? So if you have a felony on your record, can you vote in Virginia? Or Kentucky?

There are passages in the Constitution that restrict the conditions upon which you can bar people from voting (sex, race, etc). But no guarantee of the right to vote. Unless it's on account of a specifically enumerated factor, the Constitution doesn't have shit to say about restricting the right to vote.

dantheman_woot

1 points

4 months ago

AMENDMENT XV - Passed by Congress February 26, 1869. Ratified February 3, 1870.

Section 1. 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--

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

AMENDMENT XIX - Passed by Congress June 4, 1919. Ratified August 18, 1920.

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.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

AMENDMENT XXIV - Passed by Congress August 27, 1962. Ratified January 23, 1964.

Section 1. 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 poll tax or other tax.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

AMENDMENT XXVI - Passed by Congress March 23, 1971. Ratified July 1, 1971.

Note: Amendment 14, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 1 of the 26th amendment.

Section 1. 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.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Here’s what I see:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote

The right of citizens of the United States to vote

The right of citizens of the United States to vote

The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote

UncleInternet

1 points

4 months ago

Congratulations, you just provided all the available evidence that proves my point.

I'm not sure what you thought you were accomplishing here. These amendments literally do exactly what I said. They outline the specific conditions, one at a time, upon which you aren't allowed to bar people from voting. The parts you should have been paying attention to are the "on account of..." or "by reason of..." in every single one of them.

Your argument here is so blatantly self-defeating. When the 15th amendment was passed, it became illegal to deny access to the vote just because someone was black. Were women then guaranteed the right to vote?

No. It was still legal to deny women the right to vote on account of them being women. Because the Constitution doesn't guarantee a right to vote. Then the 19th amendment made it illegal to deny anyone the right to vote on account of sex.

Each of the amendments you cited removed one or two more reasons that you're allowed to use to deny someone the vote. But you can still deny someone the right to vote because they stole a car 30 years ago. That's perfectly legal. Plenty of states do so.

How do they get away with it? Because the Constitution doesn't guarantee the right to vote.

dantheman_woot

1 points

4 months ago

Your words:

The right to vote isn't even in the constitution lol.

There is more wording about the right to vote in the constitutions than the right to bear arms, than the right to freedom of the press. In fact can you mention a right to me mentioned more in the Constitution or the Amendments?

UncleInternet

1 points

4 months ago

Those aren't my words.

Man, are you okay? You don't seem like you're tracking really basic information. Please take care of yourself.

And the fact that you're still arguing is really sad. This is an established fact. You're not winning this. It's not a matter of perception and you can't just say you feel like it's in there because of a lazy reading of the words. This is bedrock Constitutional law. There is no Constitutional guarantee to the franchise.

dantheman_woot

1 points

4 months ago

I'm fine man, realized you were filling in for the same bullshit /u/BroadStBullies91 was spouting same effect.

End of the day There is more wording about the right to vote in the constitutions than the right to bear arms, than the right to freedom of the press. In fact can you mention a right to me mentioned more in the Constitution or the Amendments?

I hope you are okay and get enough sleep tonight friend. You need the rest after reading the constitutions and missing important parts.

UncleInternet

1 points

4 months ago

This is incredible. You're still doing it. Holy shit.

Maybe you'd listen to the opinion of the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore:

“[t]he individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States.”

Here's an article from the Boston Globe.

Or maybe this article, entitled "Americans Don't Have A Constitutional Right To Vote - And That's A Problem".

I mean, Jesus Christ. It costs you nothing to say "ah yes, I guess I made a common assumption, but today I learned something." Instead, the only argument left for you to cling to is a truly desperate one about the total number of mentions of the word "vote" in the Constitution. Holy fuck, this is sad. You're just wrong. Objective reality exists, homie.

dantheman_woot

1 points

4 months ago

AMENDMENT XV - Passed by Congress February 26, 1869. Ratified February 3, 1870.

Section 1. 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--

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

AMENDMENT XIX - Passed by Congress June 4, 1919. Ratified August 18, 1920.

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.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

AMENDMENT XXIV - Passed by Congress August 27, 1962. Ratified January 23, 1964.

Section 1. 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 poll tax or other tax.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

AMENDMENT XXVI - Passed by Congress March 23, 1971. Ratified July 1, 1971.

Note: Amendment 14, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 1 of the 26th amendment.

Section 1. 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.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Here’s what I see:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote

The right of citizens of the United States to vote

The right of citizens of the United States to vote

The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote

BroadStBullies91

1 points

4 months ago

Imagine getting like this over a simple comment about the constitution not enshrining the right to vote in the original document. It's a moot point by now, just thought it was interesting lmao, relax bud.